EM Drive Passed Peer Review

>>8312892
>/sci/ - Science & Math
>Please support 4chan by disabling your ad blocker on *.4chan.org/*, purchasing a self-serve ad, or buying a 4chan Pass.


I, like the drive, am unmoved.

We'll see if it passes the reality test

>1.2 +/- 0.1 mN/Kw
the future is here

>>8312896
>We'll see if it passes the reality test
It already did.

>>8312919
When did it lift something into orbit?

>>8312915
>1.2 +/- 0.1 mN/Kw
To be fair, nobody actually has a good (testable and not invalidated already) theory for why it works, just the knowledge that it does. When batteries started out in a similar state they were in jars worth nothing more than parlor tricks to shock religious zealots. When RF started out it could barely do more than make a popping sound. When modern computing started out nobody could envision a use for more than 640kb of memory. Point being shit evolves as we figure out how it works and people are raised pushing it to the limits. Even the current EM Drive wasn't the start of the EM Drive - Shawyer made his (now disproven) theory leading to the EM Drive because someone stuck a sensor on the side of an RF waveguide in a missle guidance system to see if they could figure out if it were accelerating without engineering another component and it worked. Nobody knew why it worked for decades until Shawyer made a theory about it that lead him to the EM Drive. The theory itself failed but it was close enough to produce another oddity nobody knows the working of. Once we figure out how it works chances are it will turn out pretty impressively - especially since current theory says it defies the laws of energy and current practice (planes) suggest it will be at least feasible to scale up from an energy/work vs modern power production capability standpoint.

>>8312923
That isn't a test - that's an objective. It has shown thrust in repeatable experiments nobody has found a hole in, that is the "reality test."

>>8312938
How is it not a test? Why would you be worried about it performing if you truly believe it has been proven to work?

Anyway, far more important than a thruster is its ability to produce free energy if it has the thrust to power ratio it is claimed to have.

>>8312947
> How is it not a test?
It being real isn't based on it being to lift anything into space.
> Why would you be worried about it performing if you truly believe it has been proven to work?
I'm not. I've been cautiously optimistic from the start, with zealot-like arguments when people decried it just because they were idiots for disregarding experiments suggesting new science when the best thing about science is experiments that disprove shit and force people to rethink it.
> Anyway, far more important than a thruster is its ability to produce free energy if it has the thrust to power ratio it is claimed to have.
Shawyer's theory was disproved awhile back so the theoretical maximum thrust/energy is entirely unknown (no working theory describes it right now, we just know it works - probably the single most exciting point of any new technology.) My personal take is that the most important thing is we have a lower limit for the direct conversion of electromagnetic energy into momentum which doesn't seem to mesh with relativity. This could lead to major upheavals in the way we view momentum, inertia, mass, space and/or energy. I'd suggest it will be a lot more trial and error to turn it into anything though because at this point "let's try moving this wall of the cavity" and "lets try changing the signal powering it" are probably more likely to lead to a sound theory than the mental masturbation which has been the basis of quantum mechanics the past several decades. Tangible shit you can poke at is far more entertaining than a thousands retards who think they are the next Einstein with maybe 1 actual Einstein mixed in and no way to tell them apart.

>putting something into orbit with 1.2 mN of thrust per kW

laughable

File: Li6W0fe.png (62KB, 131x406px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 131x406px

Wow something here seems familiar.

>>8312961
>It being real isn't based on it being to lift anything into space.
Well yes, but that's trivial since it can't lift anything into space. That's not what a thruster does.

>I'm not. I've been cautiously optimistic from the start, with zealot-like arguments when people decried it just because they were idiots for disregarding experiments suggesting new science when the best thing about science is experiments that disprove shit and force people to rethink it.
The experiments haven't proven anything though. The experimental results are barely distinguishable from noise and such extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A real test of its thruster capability is not difficult to achieve and would conclusively prove or disprove it.

>Shawyer's theory was disproved awhile back so the theoretical maximum thrust/energy is entirely unknown
I'm not talking about it's maximum efficiency, I'm talking about the experimental observations:

http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results

All of he experiments that have found thrust have found it to be several multiples of a photon rocket. So which is it? Do these experiments show conservation of energy is false? Or are the experiments false? If the former, where is the free energy?

If you actually care about results over theory, then wait for actual, tangible results. Until then, memedrive is bullshit.

>>8312986
Image was the first one from Google for "EMDrive."

>>8312923
Why would you ever use it for that?

>>8313041
> Well yes, but that's trivial since it can't lift anything into space. That's not what a thruster does.
Um, no. There are shitloads of thrusters that don't have the thrust to lift anything into space that are used extensively in space - pretty much all of them fall in this category, yet the EM Drive will be the first that is reactionless.
> The experiments haven't proven anything though. The experimental results are barely distinguishable from noise and such extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A real test of its thruster capability is not difficult to achieve and would conclusively prove or disprove it.
This is wrong - in fact the very topic ITT is that this point is wrong.
>All of he experiments that have found thrust have found it to be several multiples of a photon rocket. So which is it? Do these experiments show conservation of energy is false? Or are the experiments false? If the former, where is the free energy?
Even if it were the equivalent of a laser pointer sitting in space in terms of thrust, that would be fucking enormous in itself. The point here is it is reactionless, it has proven to be reactionless by all known laws of physics and work with a signal exceeding the noise by a great enough degree to be certain of that for all intents and purposes. This means new physics - something we haven't actually had since the last round that gave us computers or the one before that that gave us nukes. There is no way to overstate just how huge this is.

Peer review makes it science, just because it's science doesn't mean it's true.

>>8313081
>Um, no. There are shitloads of thrusters that don't have the thrust to lift anything into space that are used extensively in space - pretty much all of them fall in this category, yet the EM Drive will be the first that is reactionless.
Are you unable to read English? I said that thrusters don't lift things into space.

>This is wrong - in fact the very topic ITT is that this point is wrong.
How is it wrong? Where is the extraordinary evidence?

>Even if it were the equivalent of a laser pointer sitting in space in terms of thrust, that would be fucking enormous in itself.
Again, moron, can you not read? A laser pointer cannot achieve such thrusts. A photon rocket's maximum efficiency is the maximum efficiency of a propellantless drive without violating conservation of energy. And no, this does not assume that there is constant acceleration with constant energy input, this is a relativistic limit. So either we have a violation of conservation and free energy, or the drive is less efficient than a photon rocket and useless. The fact that all the experiments purporting to show the emdrive producing thrust also imply violation of conservation, and yet no one is producing free energy, is very good reason to believe that such experiments are fatally flawed.

Please don't post if you don't understand what you're talking about. Please don't post if you don't understand what the person you are replying to is saying. No one is fooled when you pretend.

>>8313100
Peer review by aeronautical engineers with no experience in the physics being invoked does not make it science.

>>8313116

Sure it does, but just because it's science doesn't mean it's fact

>>8313119
It's not science, it's clickbait.

>>8312892
>anti-science

Every single experiment since the dawn of experimentation has affirmed conservation of momentum and energy. This one small blip appears, a small blip that almost certainly is some confounding variable (either ablation or eddy currents) and it's the people who express caution that are "anti-science". Fuck I hate brainlets.

>>8313127

>Anon, A. It's Not Science, It's Clickbait. 4chan.org/sci/, 2016

>>8312892
Anyone have a schematic or something?

>>8313106
>Are you unable to read English? I said that thrusters don't lift things into space.
And then? Perhaps re-read what you are responding to?
> How is it wrong? Where is the extraordinary evidence?
In the papers you refuse to read before commenting on.
> Again, moron, can you not read? A laser pointer cannot achieve such thrusts. A photon rocket's maximum efficiency is the maximum efficiency of a propellantless drive without violating conservation of energy.
A photon rocket isn't propellantless, dipshit. It emits photons are propellant. The EM Drive is actually reactionless. There is no relating the two, which is what makes it so exciting. Though the fact you believe a photon rocket would be propellantless is enough to discount you as a moron speaking outside their realm in itself.

>>8313135
>Every single experiment since the dawn of experimentation has affirmed conservation of momentum and energy.
Science doesn't operate on the concept of precedent, it is the rationalization of experimental results. What we have here is an experiment that conflicts with the existing rationalization which has been independently verified from every angle and reproduced in multiple labs - that means the existing rationalization is wrong.

>>8313162
You don't need one - it's a truncated cone with a magnetron attached to the side. Elegant in it's simplicity like that.

>>8313217
why in the world did it take so long to discover?

>>8313219
it's like the civ tech tree, we just teched up something else like irrigation instead of teching memedrive.

>>8313219
Because the forces it generates are small and nobody thought to look for them. The same could be said of the electromagnet (some extruded wire, two types of metal and a lemon could have made it, but nobody thought that would yield such immense technological power.) The magnetron produces huge amounts of microwave radiation from a very simple thing (a largely symmetrical flower-pedal-shaped hollow space with an electrode in the middle and no air inside which happens to be just the right physical size for the task) but without the theory to get there nobody would have done so. Hell, using the microwave for food only happened because some dumb cunt forgot where he put his popcorn while pulling a night shift at a radar facility. All of chemistry stems directly from alchemy (and if you drop the religious overtones from alchemy they were practically identical until the 60's.)

Taking a conservative estimate, 99.9999% of science is misconception and happenstance everyone involved is absolutely certain of.

>>8313217
So wouldn't this mean it's propelling against the background magnetic field?

>>8313232
The forces involved are the wrong order of magnitude based on existing theory (plus they don't change when the devices are different distances from a metal wall.)

>>8312986
>>8313151
god damnit it's growing

>>8313219
>>8313230
Also, it sounds much simpler to build than it is. Just sticking a magnetron on the side of an aluminum foil cone would be too noisy to detect anything, machining is relatively expensive (from the standpoint of "let's try every random shape we can think of to see what it does then do things to it - where "random shape" could be anything made of any material and "do things to it" could mean "shock it" "fill it with microwaves" "sing to it" "jerk off on it") - the number of things that fit that mentality are practically infinite.

Another interesting example (one I've personally tested) of conspiracy theory tech (not claiming it does what the inventory claims, just that it is very odd) is the Rodin coil - which generates a rotating magnetic field perpendicular to the only symmetrical axis on the thing. It only does it when you follow the really specific "Rodin coil" winding scheme and it's nothing more than a donut shaped winding of copper wire with just the right spacing - but if not for some pot smoking hippy playing with patterns of numbers it never would have been discovered (regardless of the fact it isn't what he thinks it is.)

>>8313244
>menedrive's revenge

>>8312049

Very interesting. Maybe instead of wasting so many cycles on poopooing the observation more researchers will actually put some thought into how this could be possible. Hopefully we'll get some new physics out of it, because physics is ridiculously broken today.

>>8313230
>forgot where he put his popcorn
actually he melted a chocolate bar..

>>8312892
>info comes from "in a now-deleted comment"
>on a forum

This is like getting your news in youtube comments.

>>8313686
Nothing was deleted faggot.

>>8313249
>which generates a rotating magnetic field perpendicular to the only symmetrical axis on the thing.

That's just because the Rodin coil is actually *two* coils, which are separately powered. It is extremely easy to produce a rotating magnetic field this way; here's a patent from 1888 detailing a motor which does the same thing (although it uses four coils instead of two.) https://electropub.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/rotating-magnetic-field-using-4-coils-wrapped-around-a-ferrite-toroid1.pdf

Every other "unusual" property of the Rodin coil is just a generic property of a toroidal coil; see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toroidal_inductors_and_transformers.

>>8312892
Stop it

I feel the correct point of view here is assuming that it works and wondering how that could be so while waiting for a final word either way, of course this is reasonable and as such my comment will probably be ignored.

>>8315804
I suppose, though it works when you have the windings wired in parallel as well, so it's a bit strange regardless.

>>8313208
>>Well yes, but that's trivial since it can't lift anything into space. That's not what a thruster does.
>Um, no. There are shitloads of thrusters that don't have the thrust to lift anything into space that are used extensively in space - pretty much all of them fall in this category, yet the EM Drive will be the first that is reactionless.
Again, moron, how does this respond to what you're replying to? Let me break it down for you since you are too retarded to red:

Me: Thrusters don't lift things into space. Thrusters serve a different purpose.
You: Many thrusters don't lift things into space [sic: none of them do]. The EM Drive is the first reactionless thruster [sic: the memedrive is neither reactionless nor a thruster]

Now explain how you contradicted anything I said or fuck off.

>In the papers you refuse to read before commenting on.
I have read every single paper that claims thrust from the memedrive. You obviously have not since you can't even point to one, let alone one that has conclusive proof of thruster capability.

>A photon rocket isn't propellantless, dipshit. It emits photons are propellant.
Photons don't count as propellant since they are not mass. Again, stop pretending to know anything about what you're talking about, you meme loving moron.

>>8313208
>The EM Drive is actually reactionless. There is no relating the two, which is what makes it so exciting.
And again you completely fail to respond to the point. I am not "relating" the memedrive to phton rockets, I am simply stating the fact that ANY hypothetical propellant-less drive which has a thrust to power ratio greater than a photon rocket is also a free energy device, because its kinetic energy must exceed its input energy at some point BY DEFINITION of it having such a thrust to power ratio. So there are two choices:

1. It does not have the thrust to power ratio all of the experiments which you laud as extraordinary evidence claim it to have

2. It can be used as a free energy device, which begs the question: why is no one making free energy?

Pick no more and no less than one you insufferable retard.

>>8315934
>Again, moron, how does this respond to what you're replying to? Let me break it down for you since you are too retarded to red:
Nah, I'm done. You can reread everything and keep doing so until it makes sense or you can go fuck yourself. I'm not going to read all that autistic insult-laden garbage to hear how you want me to believe you haven't failed at basic reading comprehension.

>>8315953
>I'm not going to read it!
>I refuse to!
Don't have a tantrum illiteracy can be corrected at any age.

>>8315937
>Pick no more and no less than one you insufferable retard.
I'll take the one where we know our understanding of physics is wrong because you can't reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity, you can't extrapolate anything prior to the big bang (inb4 that was the start of time) and frankly just because the people representing the "we have discovered everything and think anything new isn't possible in spite of a lack of a basic understanding of even known physics" side of things are abominable cunts like you.

To reiterate from a previous post:
>>8315953
>go fuck yourself

>>8315955
You haven't won, you're just too autistic to converse with. Remember that and have a nice life shit for brains, don't forget to ask for tendies before the crippling depression kicks in.

>>8315958
>Science hasn't figured out everything
>Therefore I don't have to explain shit
You sound like a creationist

If you can't respond to simple questions, then you don't deserve to be part of the debate. Look how the last five fucking posts responding to me have not one substantive point in them. You are just trying to distract people from your obvious lack of knowledge and ability to reasonably defend your position.

Let's try this again:

1. Experiments which claim to register thrust from the memedrive report a thrust to power ratio several times greater than that of a photon rocket. Yes or no? Explain your answer.

2. Propellantless drives which have thrust to power ratios greater than a photon rocket eventually reach a speed at which kinetic energy overtakes input energy. Yes or no? Explain your answer

3. If kinetic energy exceeds input energy than free energy is created. Yes or no? Explain your answer.

>>8315960
>You haven't won
You haven't given anyone a reason to believe that. Desperation is ugly.

Meh, retards like this are part of the landscape. They even serve a function. Meanwhile the real scientists are watching with interest. Not convinced by any means, but interested.

>>8315972
Did someone say FREE energy?

>>8315985
>Meh, retards like this are part of the landscape. They even serve a function. Meanwhile the real scientists are watching with interest. Not convinced by any means, but interested.
/thread

>>8312923

It's not meant for that; thrust is far too shit

It's closer to an ion engine in use

This thing NEEDS to be legit for some good old fashioned nerd schadenfreude

>>8315972
If it works it works. If it does not work then it does not work. If conservation laws get raped then that's just the way things are.

>>8316374

Yeah fundamental laws can be easily discard Ecks dee

Great. Another crackpot device taking away funds from real science by drawing attention with bombastic promises.
These things should be banned.

>>8316384
If it works then it works.

>>8316387
>real science
Real science is based on evidence is it not? So far the evidence indicates that this device is not a waste of time.

>>8316391

It useless unless there is a theory to go along with it.

>>8315972
If you have to use electricity to power it then that means it isn't a free energy device, dumbo.

>>8316398
Many things are put to use long before any theory exist to explain them. Physicist can cry all they like but when evidence is tossed aside to preserve dogma then the last thing they are doing is science.

You are all fools who can't accept reality.

>However, Shawyer claims that following fundamental physics involving the theory of special relativity, the EmDrive does in fact preserve the law of conservation of momentum and energy.
Why does he say this? How does he explain it?

Reminder that you could attach the EM drive to something in space, see it work, watch it in practice, full 100% visual and scientific observational evidence, and there would still be cucks on /sci/ and the scientific community saying "B-BUT IT WILL NEVER WORK BECAUSE MUH PHYSICS SAYS SO".

When the fuck did we enter an era where the human comprehension of the laws of physics actually DICTATES the laws of physics? Because I think I missed that cross over point. It really astounds me that we can have experimental evidence of something working, and people will STILL be saying "NO IT CAN'T WORK" - not merely healthy skepticism (possible experiment error) or having a "wait and see" attitude, but actual nay saying. The theory of special relativity is only as old as the great grandparents of some of the people ITT, and here we are trying to say what should and shouldn't work in the universe because OUR laws say so. Ridiculous.

Electric energy plus some apparatus creates some thrust.

I'm not seeing a problem here.

I'm sure it has a physical reaction to the energy you put into it other than thrust.

>>8316492

Philosophy merged with science.

>>8312895
Top kek

What's so magical about the process of peer review that makes bullshit real?

>>8315972
If we haven't figured it out yet, how can we explain it?

>>8316387
>These things should be banned.
Try to be a little less obvious.

>>8316574
>What's so magical about the process of peer review that makes bullshit real?
A bunch of experts in the field being entirely unable to say it's bullshit with ground to stand on. At this point the only people calling it bullshit are idiots on the internet who haven't heard it's real from their favorite pop-sci figurehead yet.

>>8312892
>Passed Peer Review

Bullshit. There's no paper. There's no evidence anything was ever posted since the post about the rumor was deleted. This isn't news. This is blog shit about popsci rumors.

>>8312892
>What now, anti-science pessimist-fags?

>authored by "Harold White, Paul March, Lawrence, Vera, Sylvester, Brady and Bailey".

Lawrence, Vera, Sylvester, Brady and Bailey are Dr. Rodal's beautiful pug children.

It's not as bad as ID'ing the authors with their reddit handles, but it's pretty fucking close.

>>8316492
>Reminder that you could attach the EM drive to something in space, see it work, watch it in practice, full 100% visual and scientific observational evidence, and there would still be cucks on /sci/ and the scientific community saying "B-BUT IT WILL NEVER WORK BECAUSE MUH PHYSICS SAYS SO".

I would feel pretty confident in saying that because the basic operating mechanism makes no fucking sense.

http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html

File: 1470968401869.jpg (60KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 960x720px

>>8316398
are you fucking stupid? do you not know how science works?

science is meant to model the world.

the world isn't supposed to adhere to scientific models.

we found a natural phenomenon. we must now make a theory that explains it. welcome to science you newfag piece of shit.

>>8317236
/thread

>>8316398
LOL you are fucking retarded.

the vast majority of our physical laws are empirical and we still have zero clue about their root cause.

>>8317236
>we found a natural phenomenon
No we didn't. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

>>8317312
there have been multiple tests. MULTIPLE. all of which confirm the results of the expirements to be outside the error threshold.

>>8317315
Yeah, but when the chinese tested it with its own internal power supply theg measured no thrust. This 'thrust' is simply thermal expansion of the power wires.

>>8316849

>Talk about EM propulsion for years with my friends.
>We arrogantly do some experiments in our garage, find out it works, try to show other people but nobody cares.
>No denial of our discovery - even professional wireless contractors ignore us rather than mock us.
>Arrogantly sit the drive in my garage, and leave it in NW.
>Smugly know I'm right for years.
>Literally masturbate to the fact that I know things others can't even imagine, and have a more accurate worldview than 99%+ of the population.
>Do drugs, learn quantum mechanics and biology.
>Find out about stem cells, predict bioprinting.
>Have sudden, shocking realization in 2015 that I'm going to be an immortal star traveller, literally have a psychosis.
>Brag about it on /sci/, knowing more humiliation is in store for pessimists.

Everyone will remember you guys as miserable, lazy quiters who would rather die than work towards immotality and space travel.

>>8317315
Multiple tests with wildly different result including many that registered no thrust at all. The ones that did are barely above the noise threshold. The only way to show its real at this point would be showing it actually working as a thruster.

>>8316599
I'm not asking you to explain anything about *how* the emdrive works. The emdrive could be a black box and my point would still stand. I'm asking you to explain why we don't have free energy when that is a direct implication of what it is claimed to *do*. If the emdrive has the thrust to power ratio that it is claimed to have, then its kinetic energy can exceed its input energy. This is true regardless of how it works, as long as it works. Understand?

>>8316528
The problem is not that it creates some thrust, the problem is that it creates too much thrust, more kinetic energy than what you input into it.

>>8316399
You utter moron. Free energy does not mean no input energy, it means the output is more than the input. Fuck off if you can't even comprehend elementary concepts.

>>8316396
Only if your definition of evidence is extremely generous.

>>8316528
>what is conservation of momentum

>>8312892

What happens if I swap my car engine with that water-only engine and put this memedrive on the back? Will I become Back to the Future?

>>8316384
If they disagree with repeatable experiments, sure. The fundamental laws are based on observation.

>>8317469
>repeatable
kek

>>8317474
If the results aren't repeatable, then THAT is your problem, not that they're contradicting previous results.

>>8312895
>I, like the drive, am unmoved.
Isn't that how the drive works.

File: 1286757010613.jpg (46KB, 400x365px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 400x365px

https://hackaday.io/project/10166-flying-an-emdrive

>>8317315
>>8317422
Disregard Chinese experiments and it's all good.

There could be two reasons for this:
1) The Chinese are fucking incompetent and don't know how to science.
2) The Chinese did see thrust, but everyone else to think there was no thrust so they would get the tech first.

Either way, just do what most scientists do: Ignore the Chinese.

Ignorant Faggot here, can somebody explain to me (in a simple way) how this memedrive violates the conservation of energy law ?

>>8317356
Look at dem mental gymnastics - I bet you can get skullfucked from any angle.

>>8317712
The Chinese experiments are not the ones that measured no thrust:

http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results

>>8315972
Is 1.2 mN/kW really enough? I don't think 1.2 mN can generate more than a kW of power...

>>8317579
Wow that source code is really poorly written. I would not trust that thing.

>>8317448

How does it break such?

>>8317718

Something about giving more thrust than the energy put into it

>>8318382
It generates 1.2 mN of thrust per kW spent on microwave generation, ya dingus.

>>8317718
It doesn't. Idiots just think it does for some reason.

>>8318405
You really think 1.2 mN per kW of input is that amazing?

>>8318402
>How does it break such?
The basic version is that if you accelerate any object for a sufficient amount of time with a constant force and use no propellant, eventually the system will possess more kinetic energy than you put into it.

>>8318405
Nah, the problem is that the energy they put into it shouldn't actually make any thrust. Like if nothing is being expelled backwards, then by conservation of momentum, then nothing should move forward. And the Em drive doesn't use radiation pressure, otherwise it would be equivalent to propelling yourself by shining a laser behind you (which is technically a thing, but the thrust is ridiculously small.)

>>8318415
EM Drive is only a few thousand times stronger than a photon rocket.

So what power source will be suitable for deep space travel?

When will we have the first space based nuclear reactor?

>>8318187
>The Chinese experiments are not the ones that measured no thrust:
And there you have it, a retarded science denier baited into showing they were making shit up the whole time.

>>8318411
This is assuming it's not tapping into something unknown. We still don't have the faintest clue what inertia actually is, barely a definition for mass or spacetime and certainly nothing immutable. Chances are it either replicates the effects that the universe as a whole used to create itself from nothing to generate the excess energy or there is some effect on distant matter in the universe and/or some new field we don't know of (dark energy?) shooting out the back. There hasn't been a reliable study of just how much it's heating up compared to the energy pumped into it as all the heat-related tweaks to the experiments have been trying to limit the noise it generates. If a sound heat-measuring experiment were devised it would either measure a net of zero energy (i.e. 1.2mN less worth of energy per kW) or it would show the same/more energy. In the former case we would have proof of a new force of nature, in the latter case we would have probably the former plus some really weird shit allowing us to have free energy.

>>8318445

I did say basic.

Man fuck physics, that field has gotten so dogmatic it can't even accept the facts of QM despite clear predictions being matched by experiment. How can it accept that which totally breaks their dogma?

>100 years ago
>oh wow these theories are amazing
>physics is done
>much later
>um man we're not getting very far let's just make stuff up to make the model fit observation
>observation comes along and btfo the model
>OBVIOUSLY THE OBSERVATION IS FALSE

>>8317712
You forgot reason 3): The Chinese lie.

>>8312892
News!
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a22678/em-drive-cannae-cubesat-reactionless/

it's a warp drive guise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White%E2%80%93Juday_warp-field_interferometer#Interferometer_experiment_with_an_EmDrive

C = 8874 3AC3 C130 3119
R = 163 73B 795 B5281 RRR

>>8318709

Cannae is a scam and the emdrive is a failed scam trolling science.
These confags will be cubesatting that shit for years to milk money.

Nothing, NOTHING is legit until it's in commercial use. Until then this is as real as fusion power and hoverboards.

>>8318827
The fact people can only make shit versions of them doesn't imply a piece of tech isn't legit. Case point, monorails and maglev.

>>8317200
And when they discovered that lemons cure scurvy, nobody listened because it made absolutely no sense.

I'm saying we might just not understand the principles this works by yet.

>>8318594

We know a lot more than people did 100 years ago. There are no hidden propulsion techniques left to be discovered and the so called EMdrive is certainly not one of those. I hate saying as it will trigger some people but "all that could be invented has already been invented" is entirely true today. Now it's the time of perfecting designs and polishing understanding, not of ground breaking "eurekas".
I'm not exactly strongly against the thing as long as no serious institution bothers with the EMdrive by wasting it's attention it. Any cent or second spent on highly likely scam devices is taken away from something actually important and if the con artists are given some leeway and hope they can get big money they'll conjure up millions of miraculous gadgets.

>>8318846
This is exactlly what they said a hundred years ago.

We now believe that we know everything. This is an arrogant view of reality - there are a ton of edge cases we may never have encountered before. For example, when Vitamin C was discovered to be the cure to scurvy, people did not believe it. They did not understand the systems that caused this, and we may not understand what causes our observations.

>>8318835
Leave it to some faggot on 4chan to correlate the inner workings of an EM Drive to fucking lemons. Are you retarded?

>Hurr they thought earth was flat but it's round so we can assume anything.

>>8318855
Science will eventually hit a brick wall because the universe is at least mostly consistent. There is a limit to fundamental phenomena that we can discover and they define what we can and can't do.

>>8318855
The difference is that they didn't have the tools to investigate the underlying system. They couldn't confirm or deny that vitamin C did this on a technical level.

We totally have the technology to investigate wether or not this shit works.

>>8318846
It's terribly terrifying to see the very same statement being spoken about every hundred years.

>>8318866
>We totally have the technology to investigate wether or not this shit works.

Fortunately, some people have made the effort to characterize whatever is happening with these kinds of systems, but we won't know the results of their efforts until December. Sucks.

>>8316369
It cant be legit because it violated the principle of conservation of momentum. Massless drives are impossible.

>>8318902
>It cant be legit because it violated the principle of conservation of momentum. Massless drives are impossible.

The drive presents a potential and unresolved appearance of violation of conservation of momentum. You think the people who were looking at this didn't raise that point as their very first concern about why EM drives shouldn't work? Do you think that a lot of time and energy has not been spent evaluating other, non-thrust effects that might be causing these measurements? The Eagleworks paper spent almost two years in peer review; they obviously weren't sitting around doing nothing the whole time.

>>8318902
> What is scientific method
This is what the christards are talking about when they say that science is a religion

"It can't be true because it's against what my book says"

That's the exact thinking scientific method is meant to prevent dumbass

>>8318913
I would have people like you put in jail if I could. When the whole unverse works according to laws, you don't just throw out the laws when some guy says he made a test that proves them wrong. You look at the test and check for any possible explanation for the results that doesn't violate the physical laws. It is more likely that an error or false result was made than a law was broken.

>>8318921
What the fuck do you think the years of peer review were for?

And what's more
> IMPRISON THE HERETIC
Bravo, gaytheist

>>8318921
>you don't just throw out the laws when some guy says he made a test that proves them wrong

No, that's not how it works. Theories and models are built to explain experiments. If the data doesn't fit the theory and the data collection was not flawed, the theory, and the physical laws written around them, are wrong.

If you're unaware that the existing physical models for the universe are absolutely riddled with glaring flaws, you're woefully uninformed.

>>8318923
I take it that you believe in the bible from your use of the word atheist as a slur?

>>8318935

>atheist is not a slur

>>8318945
It is for people who believe in god but don't even go to church on sundays.

>>8318935
No, I am an atheist myself. I'm fucking making fun of you for your
> SCIENCE HERETIC
Thinking

>>8312892
>Passed Peer Review

wat? no there's not paper and no proof it passed. just a rumor that there was about a forum post that was deleted

File: 4545.png (7KB, 744x113px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 744x113px

>>8315737
Absolute retard.

Studying M-Theory requires no paper, pen, or thought: You get your EQ with IQ both pertaining without physical mass including carbohydrates.

>>8312935
Quality post.

>>8312915
Milli Newtons/kilo Watt?
So.. where is the ennergy consumed?
Does it heat up lr something?, i mean other than the drive
Fug. That's pretty bad. I mean, to move a spaceship it would take it a looong time and a lot of evergy.

>>8318426
Within the inner solar system pv's would be sufficient, outside that RTG's would be sufficient for probes. For manned spaceflight, I imagine we'd want something more lightweight than a nuclear reactor

>>8318827
>fusion power isn't real
Maybe, if you're an investor, but the scientific community actually has concerns beyond "how to make money". Fusion power is a good explanation for why stars and tokamak reactors seem to work.

>>8318921
>a law was broken.
They're not that kind of laws. You don't BREAK them, you discover that you were wrong about what they were. Nature is inviolate, but the so called physical laws are just best guesses.

File: 1465509486199.jpg (83KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 500x500px

>>8312892
>Implying space is real and the earth isn't flat

>>8319053
Yeah, it's completely rubbish as a thruster. It's only interesting because no one can explain how it works. The most popular theory right now is "it doesn't".
I guess we'll see.

>>8318427
Who are you talking about?

By the way, the study on EM Drive with no power cables producing no thrust does exist. It just hasn't been translated yet:

http://www.tjjs.casic.cn/ch/reader/create_pdf.aspx?file_no=20160220&flag=1&journal_id=tjjs&year_id=2016

File: Ohwow.jpg (39KB, 562x437px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 562x437px

>>8318445
>Chances are it either replicates the effects that the universe as a whole used to create itself from nothing to generate the excess energy or there is some effect on distant matter in the universe and/or some new field we don't know of (dark energy?) shooting out the back.
t. typical memedrive supporter

>>8318908
>You think the people who were looking at this didn't raise that point as their very first concern about why EM drives shouldn't work?
The only one who actually attempted to address it is Shawyer and he utterly failed because he doesn't understand basic physics. Eagleworks doesn't care because they masturbate to sci-fi all day, and NASA doesn't care because they are attention whores.

>Do you think that a lot of time and energy has not been spent evaluating other, non-thrust effects that might be causing these measurements?
Not as much time and energy as needed. Again, the people who study the EM Drive are either up their own ass or simply want attention. Until we see incontrovertible evidence, i.e. a real test of the thruster in space, it should be disregarded. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

>The Eagleworks paper spent almost two years in peer review; they obviously weren't sitting around doing nothing the whole time.
Did it? As far as I can see it was not even completed a year ago. Plus, the peer review of this journal is not sufficient for the subject matter. So it really means nothing, no matter how much time it spent being reviewed.

>>8318411

Wouldn't the apparatus itself degrade from the input of energy, in addition to the power source depleting?

So, it's not really breaking anything here. For it to accelerate, you need to put in energy (which depletes). When you stop doing it, it stops accelerating.

>>8318913
That's a bad argument. Would you take it seriously if I told you that I can give you a machine that generates energy out of itself? Of course not, because that's impossible, not because thermodynamics books say so but because the 2nd law of thermodynamics has been proven time and time again.

>>8318415

Couldn't there me a reaction that hasn't been observed yet, but is still valid?

This is assuming it creates controlled thrust in the proper direct and it's not moving around due to recoiling forces.

>>8319209

Pretty sure you need a power source for the meme drive, though.

>>8319211
I was making an analogy to the whole you believe this because books say it. The Meme drive does require an energy source.

>>8319210
Warping spacetime a'la Alcubierre drive.

>>8319189
>a real test of the thruster in space
Is this a sincere request, or are you just trying to think of the most difficult test possible because you EXPECT it to work for whatever reason but don't want to admit it? In case you can't read the numbers, it's the second-weakest thruster ever devised by man. It isn't going to propel anything. The only way you can tell it's generating thrust is with very accurate measurement devices that work just as well down on Earth.
Or are you positing that a test performed in space would be more difficult to fake? Or do you trust the integrity of satellite assembly engineers more than mere physicists? What possible reason would there to be to travel to space to test a reactionless drive?

MEME drive is real
>scientists btfo by hack

MEME drive is not real
>scientist spent gorillions of resources proving an obvious troll wrong

my body is ready either way

>>8319200
>Wouldn't the apparatus itself degrade from the input of energy
That is an engineering problem, not a physical problem.

>For it to accelerate, you need to put in energy (which depletes). When you stop doing it, it stops accelerating.
So what? The problem is that if it accelerates for a certain *finite* amount of time, reaching a certain *finite* velocity, its kinetic energy will be greater than the energy you input. This does not require an infinite amount of energy. Kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity:

KE = 0.5 m V^2

Since a propellantless drive expels no mass, there is a maximum limit to the amount of thrust a certain amount of input energy can produce, which is the thrust to power ratio of an ideal photon rocket. The EM Drive's alleged thrust to power ratios are several multiples of this maximum limit.

>>8319222
>Is this a sincere request, or are you just trying to think of the most difficult test possible because you EXPECT it to work for whatever reason but don't want to admit it?
Are you autistic? It's not a difficult request, it's simply what would be needed to prove the EM Drive works.

>In case you can't read the numbers, it's the second-weakest thruster ever devised by man. It isn't going to propel anything. The only way you can tell it's generating thrust is with very accurate measurement devices that work just as well down on Earth.
Ah, so the EM Drive is useless as a thruster now. I'm very confused by you EM Drive supporters, you can't seem to get your story straight.

>Or are you positing that a test performed in space would be more difficult to fake?
It has nothing to do with faking you massive retard. No one has faked the EM Drive experiments. They are just incompetent. As you just said, the force is very very tiny and hard to measure. It is very hard to distinguish it from noise. Yet you take such measurements as proof that the phenomenon is real rather than people simply overlooking a source of mechanical interference. This is simply wishful thinking.

>Or do you trust the integrity of satellite assembly engineers more than mere physicists? What possible reason would there to be to travel to space to test a reactionless drive?
You don't have any idea what you're talking about do you? The experiments so far are simply attempts to replicate what would happen in space, away from most gravitational, mechanical, and EM interference. The EM Drive is a *drive*. It is meant to be a thruster in space you moron.

>>8319239

So, its amount of thrust per input is too high?

Otherwise, it's just a normal, put in energy and receive acceleration event, to me.

>>8319280
You do know about the conservation of momentum do you?

>>8319261
Yeah, so, since you apparently haven't been paying attention, the meme drive isn't a very good thruster. The power efficiency is some ten times that of a flashligh, ie. very poor.

The reason it's interesting is not because it promises a new era of cheap space flight, but because the mechanism by which it operates isn't understood. If it works, that means we have discovered a new physical principle. Eventually, someone would hopefully figure out a theory for WHY it works, and then people could start trying to figure out useful applications.

If someone's arguing that the thing they're trying to test now would actually work as something other than a space heater, they either know something I don't or they have no idea what they're talking about.

>>8319285

How does it break such?

>>8319290
>have no momentum
>turn on thruster while being isolated in space
>get momentum

>>8319296

You get your momentum via whatever means of thrust the energy is converted into

Just because we can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there and breaks the law

>>8319261
>NASA is incompetent
t. Basement dweller

And FYI even if the thrust is tiny the fact that it needs no propellant would make it better than even an ion rocket.

>>8319300
If a box in space starts moving in one direction and nothing moves in the opposite direction, then the momentum is not conserved. How dense are you?

>>8319303

Batteries are a bitch, though, and they have far less potential energy than typical combustion fuels

Nuclear would be the best bet

>>8318846
>all that could be invented has already been invented
What a coincidence that this has happened within your own very special and significant lifetime?

>>8319308

It could be recoiling off itself, like a solar sail.

>>8319303
There has to come a point where it becomes cheaper to just bring reaction mass than to carry a reactor capable of meeting the power mrequirements of your absurdly inefficient thruster. Otherwise, you could just use a photon drive.

File: ohshit.jpg (18KB, 366x380px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 366x380px

>>8319300
>momentum via whatever means of thrust the energy is converted into
shit nigger, I have to repeat the question, do you understand what conservation of momentum is?

>>8319303
NASA isn't testing this, don't try to conflate Eagle Works with NASA. It has no NASA support.

>And FYI even if the thrust is tiny the fact that it needs no propellant would make it better than even an ion rocket.
No, that's not a given. It depends on the efficiency and TWR.

>>8319320

You have a lot more potential energy from fission than any combustible fuel, though.

So, photon rocket or meme drive, you want fission.

>>8319322

See

>>8319317

>>8319317
Photons recoil off a solar sail, you're talking bullshit.

>>8319328

And whatever is recoiling off the meme drive, is conserving its momentum

"We can't see it" doesn't mean: it's not there, especially if there's testing showing something is there

>>8319280
Energy alone does not produce acceleration, because the momentum in a closed system is preserved. But putting that aside and treating the EM Drive as a black box that simply works, it still begs the question why no one is using it to produce free energy.

>>8319289
>Yeah, so, since you apparently haven't been paying attention, the meme drive isn't a very good thruster. The power efficiency is some ten times that of a flashligh, ie. very poor.
The power efficiency has been reported from 0 to 320000, and 10 is certainly not the average observation. You pulled that number out of your ass. But either way, that's very good for a reactionless drive, and the amount of thrust allegedly produced is comparable to ion thrusters currently in use in space. Again, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

>The reason it's interesting is not because it promises a new era of cheap space flight, but because the mechanism by which it operates isn't understood.
No, completely wrong. The Em Drive is being studied by aeronautics engineers, not theoretical physicists. Stop spouting nonsense.

>If someone's arguing that the thing they're trying to test now would actually work as something other than a space heater, they either know something I don't or they have no idea what they're talking about.
Literally every single person currently studying it, moron.

>>8319332
The point your ignoring is that EMdrive as designed is reactionless.

The tests have not eliminated all sources of error, it has not been shown to work.

>>8319303
NASA is not studying it, Eagleworks is. And yes, Eagleworks is incompetent. They are just a small group of people masturbating to sci-fi during their lunch hour at NASA. The reason NASA is not taking this seriously and devoting real time and research dollars into it is because they know it's bullshit. They also know the media and popsci loving faggots like you can't get enough of it. This is why they allow Eagleworks to continue. If you don't understand this you are incredibly naive.

>>8319303
>And FYI even if the thrust is tiny the fact that it needs no propellant would make it better than even an ion rocket.
You should tell that to the guy I'm replying to, moron. That's my point.

>>8319327
>>8319317
>Solar sail
>Recoiling off itself
Why are there so many morons pretending to know what they're talking about and yet failing to understand basic physics, and more morons then referencing them because they also don't understand basic physics? If you want proof that the Em Drive is bullshit, just look at all the morons who come here to defend it.

>>8319324
>>8319338
>The Advanced Propulsion Physics Laboratory at NASA's Johnson Space Center, also known as "Eagleworks"
>at NASA's Johnson Space Center
>Nothing to do with NASA
Are they illegally squatting there or something?

>>8319350
>Nothing to do with NASA
>I'm a fucking idiot
Look Mom, I'm making up quotes and putting them into my opponent's mouth!

Here let me quote exactly what I said and you tell me where I said NASA has nothing to do with Eagleworks:

"NASA is not studying it, Eagleworks is. And yes, Eagleworks is incompetent. They are just a small group of people masturbating to sci-fi during their lunch hour at NASA. The reason NASA is not taking this seriously and devoting real time and research dollars into it is because they know it's bullshit. They also know the media and popsci loving faggots like you can't get enough of it. This is why they allow Eagleworks to continue. If you don't understand this you are incredibly naive."

>>8319350
Nobody said that. NASA is an organisation, they are not funding this.

>>8318846

>implying a complete TOE

Current theory is so inoomplete ast to be laughable.

>>8312935

No one knew who I was until I made the theory...

>>8319354
So who is funding Eagleworks?

>>8319378
NASA is, that guy is just an idiot.

>>8318846
>We know a lot more than people did 100 years ago

lol. not really. we still have zero clue how gravity, thermodynamics, and some parts of E&M work.

>>8319334
>10
Source: I thought someone in this thread said 10.
If it's actually as powerful as an ion drive, shouldn't measuring the thrust be trivial? That doesn't make much sense. Are you sure you got that right?
>aeronautics engineers
It sort of violates the conservation of momentum, though. That's a major reason many people consider it ridiculous. If it's not a measurement error, we'll be getting some new physics.

Also, I would assume the reason no one is using it to produce free energy is that it hasn't actually been demonstrated to be able to do that. The guys poking at it have been busy trying to figure out if it does ANYTHING, they haven't had time to put it in a calorimeter.

>>8319378
I'm sure various places, but they don't get to do whatever they like with that money. The money that's been spend on EM drive is not from NASA.

>>8319421
>thermodynamics
Opinion discarded. It's not 1900.

File: comicbookguy.jpg (5KB, 116x106px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 116x106px

>>8319462
> opinion discarded


...what a tool

>>8319462
>Opinion discarded. It's not 1900.

FUCKING LOL. are you retarded? every single one of our thermodynamic laws are empirical. we still have no idea why thermal energy moves around the way it does.

>>8319487
You've never studied statistical mechanics then.

who cares
it's just a slightly better ion thruster and will only be used for niche stuff like outer planet probes

>>8319487
>we still have no idea why thermal energy moves around the way it does.
Are you physically challenged?

>>8319499
okay smart guy, tell me the mechanism that drives thermal energy from high temperature to low temperature.

protip: you can't.

>>8319509
It's literally phonons.

>>8319509
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Derivation_from_statistical_mechanics

>>8319529
> posts statistical mechanics
> doesn't realize that's for systems in equilibrium

>>8319509
Literally statistics; it is a necessary result of having a shit ton of interacting things that can redistribute energy.

>>8319539
>What is non-equilibrium statistical mechanics?

>>8312961
>We just know it works
We 40k now.

>>8319430
>Ion thrusters have an input power spanning 1–7 kW, exhaust velocity 20–50 km/s, thrust 25–250 millinewtons and efficiency 65–80%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster

See http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results for various claimed thrusts

>If it's actually as powerful as an ion drive, shouldn't measuring the thrust be trivial?
How so? A millinewton is a very small amount of force and there are many sources of noise that produce more force than that. We knew ion drives would work from the start and we put them into space very quickly.

>>8319501
>outer planet probes
>not exciting
What the fuck is wrong with you?

>>8319614
He's probably some r/Futurology faggot

>>8319189

Shawyer does not strike me as having the mindset of a theoretical physicist, and this is, in my opinion, their domain. It will take time and energy to explain such a machine, and they're not going to be finding that time well spent until they've seen incontrovertible proof. The experiments are coming, but one should consider that it doesn't take much effort to doubt.

It's your prerogative to scoff at EM drive, but I find it intellectually lazy to not entertain (not accept) a claim and stop considering it beyond how it lines up with axioms.

>>8320063
>Shawyer does not strike me as having the mindset of a theoretical physicist, and this is, in my opinion, their domain.
Not that I disagree, but that made me kek. If it were the domain of theoretical physicists then the theoretical physicists wouldn't be decrying it as a fraud because it challenges their pet theories. Kind of the way the QM, QED, string theory and other types are all convinced they are dead right and despise the opposition out of an egotistical and absurd sense of "I didn't devote decades of my life to this particular thing for nothing."

>>8317579
>https://hackaday.io/project/10166-flying-an-emdrive
>>8318399
I get the impression that thing will burn out the moment they switch it on (or even the moment it gets depressurized.) Why pay for a launch and use $80 worth of hardware?

>>8319442
>The money that's been spend on EM drive is not from NASA.
Liar.

>>8318846
>We know a lot more than people did 100 years ago.
This is exactly how stupid I imagine all EM Drive decriers actually are.
If you think there is an answer in science that doesn't lead to more questions than it originally answered you are uneducated and/or incompetent.
There is probably no end to the rabbit hole.

>>8318863
>Science will eventually hit a brick wall because the universe is at least mostly consistent.
"Mostly consistent" would be far from a brick wall. It would mean there is a force which causes there to be the forces we observe, at the very least.

>>8319509
Thermodynamics is a shitty example. While the idea energy is conserved is shaky to derive from a statistical system, the mechanism by which heat is transferred is likely correctly defined.

>>8312964
compound and energy-efficient. 80% more or so. sad you have no foresight

>>8312935
the really nice thing is it will be interesting no matter what

I hope

>>8319501
>bargaining

>>8318846

>implying that physics is complete

Man I don't know about this drive but if we could harness the butthurt from decriers we could travel to another galaxy.

>>8313119
Lurk moar

>>8312935
Muh computers

>>8312947
Muh 'free' energy

Assuming it's slightly better than ion engine, what does that entail?
Will it let probes enter orbit and land rovers on more distant objects, instead of the current fly-by limitation?

>>8321914

It's not the application which is important, it's the new science which describes it.

>>8321914

Space propulsion is limited by two things, energy and mass. Energy is easier to get (think solar power and nuclear reactors) than mass. Once you expel mass, that's it. The emdrove eliminate mass as the limitation as you won't need it to move in space. Ion drives are basically at the limited in terms of mass efficiency for what can be done, so this is exciting.

>>8316398
Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion?

>>8313135
>CRAAAAWLLLIINNNG INNN MYYY SKIIIN: The post

How does it feel to have your world crashing down? You can't stop progress. We are on our way to becoming an interstellar power (lol not really) and Newton was wrong.

>>8322571
I suppose neutrinos propagate faster than light as well then.

File: 1472657730246.jpg (112KB, 580x350px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 580x350px

>>8322581

How does it feel to have been following pseudoscience all this time?

>>8316398

Wake me up when theory can describe what gravity is. Meanwhile I'll just be laying on the ground and not floating into space.

>>8322581

Why don't you go and work on superstring or some other autismal brainfart, and leave reality up to the scientists and engineers.

>>8322618
Did I hit a nerve? Is the possibility that this, like other outlandish results, may be false, perhaps, triggering to you?

>>8322654
Eppur si muove, bitch.

>>8322687
>Eppur si muove
And yet they measured FTL neutrinos.

>>8322692
Yes. Those were retracted later, though.

Why can't we just build the drive, stick it do a prototype spaceship, put it in orbit through conventional means, and test it there?

I mean, that way at least we fucking tried, right?

>>8322699
And the EM Drive results can't be retracted at a later date? Hell, the FTL neutrino results were fare more clear cut than the EM Drive measurements and those were still entirely experimenter error. What prevents the EM Drive from being some unaccounted for error, especially given the authors incredibly simplistic treatment of sources of error?

>it violate the law of physics
>so even though it produce results, it can't be real
S C I E N C E
C
I
E
N
C
E

No but really, get fucked fags. This is exciting.

>>8322714
>What prevents the EM Drive from being some unaccounted for error
God does. Why? Because he hates faggots like you more than the rest of the faggots.

>>8322708
because launching shit to space costs millions of dollars dumbass

>>8323014
>because launching shit to space costs millions of dollars dumbass
From earlier ITT: >>8317579

>>8312892
>disable adblock to read
Nope.

>>8322692

>non-sequitur

>>8322714

What error though? Smarter and more motivated people than you have re-run the experiment with additional safeguards for error, yet the observation remains consistent. Which error hasn't been accounted for yet?

>>8323546

Tajmar experiment showed trust after the device was turned off as well as thrust when it got hot.
Sounds like breakthrough physics or experimental error?
Your turn, meme drivers.

>>8323589

I'm aware of that observation and still nobody has been able to debunk it. If the effect is actually real then it implies new physics, and with that an open mind. It could be some sort of resonance or temporal effect, who knows. You sure don't, pussy faggot. :^)

>>8319358
If I disprove your theory, will you die...

>>8323604
>and still nobody has been able to debunk it
I propose that in the early experiments it had to do with heating the air, and in the later vacuum experiments it was ablation.
Nobel prize please.

>>8323709

The butthurt would be extremely painful.

>>8323719
You're a smart guy...

>>8323718
wrong, sorry m8

>>8323604
"I measure thrust no matter what" doesn't sound like a breakthrough in physics; it sounds like your setup is fucked.

If thrust were only measured when the device were on, off the top of my head, I could see eddy currents in the casing coupling to the magnetic field of the measuring device (which, to my knowledge, the drive circuit is isolated from but the cavity is not). In the case of it always presenting thrust, as >>8323589
states, the setup is clearly fucked.

If we look at Tajmar's reported experiments and those of White's group together, things get significantly worse. Tajmar designed his experiments using Shawyer's theory and asserts that this works, while White's results clearly demonstrate that Shawyer's theory is full of it [if we are to believe his reports]. Furthermore, the massive inconsistencies in the measured results between the two groups does not inspire confidence. Finally, Tajmar and White have a history of making ridiculous claims that no one else can manage to make sense of which does not make them very credible in the first place.

>>8323940
>"I measure thrust no matter what" doesn't sound like a breakthrough in physics; it sounds like your setup is fucked.
Except that didn't happen.

>>8324912
I wasn't sure it had; I was going off of what the second quoted post had stated about Tajmar's work. This aside, what about the other problems?

>>8323940
>eddy currents

>>8325078
>This aside, what about the other problems?
The only problem the EM Drive has right now is too many people calling it fake, ensuring that anyone seeking funding to study it would be out of a job for life. We're incredibly lucky there's a group at NASA who can just say "idiotic plebs" and still get funding but it would be great to have universities join in. The issue being that breakthrough propulsion tech is categorized along the same lines as cold fusion (which oddly enough, actually works but was so irreparably damaged in the PR realm they had to rename it LENR - NASA actually proved that one exists as well.)

>>8323786
I Q

>>8315879
I didn't ignore it anon

>>8315934
Actually energy and mass being interchangeable would account for the photons being able to propell

>>8325237
Why complain, it's gonna be settled in a year when this gets launched anyway :^)
I'll happily eat my hat when Harold White turns out not to be a charlatan.

>>8319062
What about a fussion reactor that uses hydrogen?

File: 911.png (213KB, 442x341px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 442x341px

The drive doesn't move forward - it pushes the rest of the universe backwards.

The shape of the emitter and the frequency and intensity of the power needs adjusted for it to really be feasible and we need a way to generate a couple megawatts while keeping mass below max thrust.

>>8319219
honestly I'd rather have it be warping spacetime than anything else, I find it higly unlikely tho

>>8325717
>put two EM drives aiming towards eachother
>watch as the universe is splashed into 2D
>profit?????

>>8325741
>anime becomes real

>>8325748
well, I better already claim some 1D waifus before it is too late

File: 1462533106918.jpg (355KB, 994x1498px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 994x1498px

I'm going to continue to wish the mEMe drive to life

in the mean time, does any one know if any more tests are currently being planned? What ever happened to that fucking azerbaijan (or wherever) guy who was building one in his fucking kitchen with a stick for a lever and like a shitty food scale or some shit

did he died from fucking with the microwaves in a non professional manner lmao

This thing is literally powered by meme magic at this point.

>>8315879
>assume that it works
>reasonable

>>8325682
>Actually energy and mass being interchangeable
popsci faggot alert

>would account for the photons being able to propell
Photons have momentum but no mass. Thus they propel but are not propellant.

>>8325794
lol moron

>>8325794
what weighs more
1kg of feathers or 1kg of photons?

File: propulsion.jpg (100KB, 973x693px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 973x693px

>>8325794
>>8325822
We did it reddit
checkmate memedrive fags, I have better

>>8325794
this guy is right tho
Just because energy and mass can be interchangeable in extreme conditions doesn't mean that, for the most part in the majority of situations, they aren't interchangeable.
Photons don't have mass. That's part of the definition for a photon.

>>8325832
*no rest mass

>>8325237
>The only problem the EM Drive has right now is too many people calling it fake, ensuring that anyone seeking funding to study it would be out of a job for life

Resorting to conspiracy theories already? There is some interest because if the result is real, the underpinnings of physics are undone. The problem is that the results are near the noise threshold of the measurement apparatus, the results between groups studying this phenomena are inconsistent [and contradictory when taken at face value] and the people pushing these topics are known for putting out bullshit (superconducting anti-gravity devices, anyone?). Combine both of these and you have a pile of reasons to doubt the functionality of the thing.

>NASA actually proved that one exists as well.

Some NASA researchers looked into it and then everything rapidly fizzled out and hasn't been mentioned again in years [hell, they were purporting that complete bullshit bubble fusion result from the mid 2000's as supporting evidence]. In this same time frame, all the other "big" LENR stuff has similarly broken down.

I don't know which is more exciting: the prospect of new discoveries to refresh the stale and busted field of physics, or the delicious tears of two generations of tenured academics who've wasted their whole career on garbage theories like superstring.

>>8325823

photons don't have mass retard

The microwaves sheds copper atoms, the expulsion creates thrust.

There, problem solved, it uses the cone itself as fuel.

File: scottfuck.png (441KB, 522x545px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 522x545px

>>8318846
This is why we are type zero civilization.

>>8321238
Physics is complete! Science is settled! There is no room for discussion. Heretics will be burned

>>8326898
That's a hypothesis, not a solution. You have to test it.

It probably emits neutrino or muon or something.

>>8326492
you're forgetting the undergrad kiddos here who sprout memes and tell anyone who questions accepted theory to go to
>>/x/
It's going to be fucking glorious. Along with alien disclosure, but that's for another day
>>/x/

>>8319421
What parts of E&M?

>>8327062
>>>/x/

>>8327062

>theory overrides observation

Not in this reality kiddo.

>>8318846
>falling for this bait

>>8327235
Maxwells correction to Ampere's law is pretty fucking handwavy.

File: supastring.jpg (5KB, 160x160px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 160x160px

>>8326492
Superstrings are bloody fuckin' awesome !
Don't listen anyone's bullshit until actually wearing one yourself !

>>8317452

No, just Flubber.

>>8330063
Nah, you're retarded.

>There are people that don't think that experimentation comes first then modeling
Popsci please go

>>8319354

Eagleworks is basically an R&D department for NASA. NASA itself focuses on application of existing technology while this side group is looking for new tech.

And NASA is indeed Eagleworks financial sponsor.

Trying to separate them is about as pointless as saying Google's HR department isn't Google. Sure it is. Big companies have many moving parts.

Can't post the link but search for eagleworks, goto their facebook page, click on About, Page Info, Website to goto their NASA page.

What a weird, tangential argument to get into, especially when its so completely wrong.

>>8331615
>modeling without gathering empirical data first

Holy shit some people are stupid.

>>8318846
The people who lived 100 years ago probably said the same thing about the people 100 years before their time. I wonder how much science would have developed if all of them had your philosophy.

What are some popular people in science who are still not taking the emdrive seriously after the peer review? It feels like most of the "denial" comes from random retards on the internet.

>>8332766
It would be far easier to list the people who take the memedrive seriously.

>>8326861
and when's the last time we measured one, drater?

>i subscribe to materialism
>just SOMETHINGS can be massless information darr

>memedrive is real and it's BTFOing all the unimaginative brainlets who can't think outside of the box

G L O R I O U S

can't wait until the history books in 2200 A.D. mock the fuck out of the ass-backwards idiots who cling to their outdated models of reality

>>8321499
thank you for you expert input into this conversation i will pencil that one down into my journal for future reference

>>8321914
Essentially it directly translates electricity into thrust with no obvious exhaust. Which means you don't need any fuel basically.

>>8333179
energy and mass are interchangeable tho

>>8333186
Here's your (you)

>>8332019
Eagleworks is a NASA contractor, they are not part of NASA at all.

>>8333186
Yeah, exactly. You're using almost pure energy dude.

Total noob question but anyone cluey enough to comment on whether or not this works with other frequencies of photons other than microwave? why is microwave essential or at least the standard at this point?

>>8333222
Answering that would require knowing why(if) it works with microwaves first.

>>8333393
I thought that'd be the case, but hadn't read into the actual papers enough to know. obvisously sacrilegious around these parts but I figured it was the easiest way to get a summary.