What happened to it? Are they still putting it in the orbit?

>>8662575
>they
>still
no one is going to pay millions to put a perpetual motion machine into orbit.

Currently, everyone is still having handwaving contests explaining why the "results" are not experimental flaws and noise, and the weird science that is supposed to be behind it. There hasn't been any real progress in the last year.

File: 1286471755311.png (27KB, 605x580px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 605x580px

>>8662688
>perpetual motion machine

>>8662692
If it works it is a perpetual motion machine.

You could strap a bunch to a wheel, hook the wheel up to a generator. Past a certain RPM, power out becomes more than power in

>>8662692
Why wouldn't this work?

>>8662575
Just a meme
Sad that scientist didn't stop this fraud
Still we have to think outside the box
But this was fraud

>>8662723
Both the wheels would be on a flat surface still...

>>8662855
Yes but the slant would naturally push you forward.

It's why those circus performers with the mustaches with the bikes with the large wheels in the back and the small ones in the front don't have pedals on their bikes. It just naturally rolls forward.

what would happen if you put 10 EM drives on a turbine? would it produce infinite power?

>>8662706
>>8662887

No because the transformation from electricity to thrust is so shitty. The current version of the drive could never produce enough thrust to produce more energy than it would take to create the spin.

Presuming the drive actually works, there isn't anything to suggest that the drive violates thermodynamics. It just operates on some as-yet undiscovered principal that will almost certainly fit into our physics model once we figure out what the hell it is doing and have had a chance to study it.

We didn't know absolutely everything about the universe 100 years ago, its dumb to assume we know everything about it now.

It doesn't work.

The reason it's not been talked about is because scientists have realized how stupid it is. We already know it psychically cannot work.

>>8662910
>We already know it psychically cannot work.

Do you mean that it does affect psychic phenomenon, or that you have consulted an oracle about whether or not the EM drive works?

>>8662706
"Perpetual motion machine" is a stupid concept. Everything in the universe is in perpetual motion, until the universe ends.

Free energy device is a better term.

>>8662706
Didn't the inventor say it consumes power though? Several milliwatts I thought, I doubt the force it exerts is equal to it.

>>8662706
It isn't a perpetual motion machine at all.
It just (supposedly) produces reactionless thrust: it still consumes energy to do so, so you're not getting the thrust for free.

>>8662967
The main problem is that people assume it produces constant thrust dependent only on the wattage. Therefore past certain speed the delta v produced by thrust would make it gain more kinetic energy than what was fed as electricity.

The creator of the thing states that thrust decreases with the velocity vector of the thing (the one parallel to the direction of thrust), therefore nothing is being broken here, oh besides relativity which is also what he bases the explanation of it working on. Of course since the whole thing either doesn't work or at least nobody has any idea how exactly if works it's bullshit.

doesn't produce thrust, just heat

>>8662954
>Free energy device is a better term.
Energy-conversion device better still.

Idiots still believing in a perpetual energy machines. There intent might be positive, but their brains are in la-la land.

>>8662904
No, with the thrust to power ratio that's been reported, the drive's kinetic energy could easily exceed input energy. It would not have to be going much faster than the fastest spacecraft we've sent. It clearly violates conservation of energy.

>>8663001
>extrapolating that far from the tiny pool of numbers reported
yeah, no.

>>8662975
Past the thrust to power ratio of a photon rocket, a reactionless drive is capable of producing more kinetic energy than the amount it receives. So if you connect output to input you have not just a perpetual motion machine but free energy.

>>8662982
The creator of the drive is a moron who doesn't understand basic physics.

>>8662982
>delta v produced by thrust would make it gain more kinetic energy than what was fed as electricity.
But isn't it's total kinetic energy just the integral of the power consumed(or some percentage of it) over a given time? To me it looks like it would be storing all the energy fed to it in the form of motion.

>>8663009
What? You just claimed the current version of the drive does not have the thrust to power ratio to do that. By definition of thrust to power, it does. So which is it?

>>8663021
Kinetic energy is proportional to velocity. So with constant acceleration and no loss of mass, total kinetic energy increases exponentially while total input energy only increases linearly. If you take into account the relativistic effect then kinetic energy must plateau at input energy when speed of light is reached. This gives a fundamental limit to the thrust to power ratio of a reactionless drive, which the meme drive allegedly exceeds in most tests.

itt: retards who still think copenhagen is correct when the universe is clearly deterministic

File: 1292411168_laboratory-cannon-prank.gif (2MB, 302x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 302x240px

>>8663010

Lots of things produce more thrust than that which is imparted on them by the impulse of reflected light. Jet engines, for example.

And by the way, if you strap a jet engine to a wheel and attach a generator to the wheel, past a certain RPM more power will be generated than goes in. Of course, you can't ever reach that RPM because friction exists and also generators impart drag on the axle in order to bleed energy from the system, but hey, you should only have learned that in highschool whatevs.

>>8663067
Jet engines aren't reactionless so your point is moot. If you take into account all the mass in the system and not just the engine itself then you will see the kinetic energy cannot exceed input energy. And no it has nothing to do with friction or other practical matters. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

File: 1414752621612.jpg (32KB, 350x345px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 350x345px

>>8663097
We haven't yet established that the EM drive is reactionless, either.

>>8663113
Its claimed to be reactionless and it's claimed that there is no mass or EM being expelled. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

File: 1420779931972.gif (15KB, 255x255px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 255x255px

>>8663162
>Its claimed
By who? citations please, shitlord.

>>8662575
it was fake as I said it was for 2 years.

>>8663171
By everyone who has experimented with it. We are discussing whether the meme-drive works as observed. Regardless of how it would work, the meme-drive is a free energy machine as long as it works as advertised, meaning the thrust to power ratio observed and the lack of propellant observed. This leads me to believe that it doesn't work as advertised. The thrust to power ratio is much trickier to measure than the lack of propellant, so this is most likely where the problem lies. There is simply some uncorrected for thermal effect making it seem like it is producing thrust on its own.

>>8663113
We haven't yet established that it produces thust at all! I'm talking about what its proponents claim, not what has been established.

File: 1413752789129.jpg (49KB, 566x480px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 566x480px

>>8663188
>By everyone who has experimented with it.
Great, that's the kind of broadness I really appreciate. Find me a link to a NASA scientist who has experimented on a resonant cavity thruster claiming it to be a reactionless drive, please.

>>8663189
True enough, but it's worth pointing out that The EM drive's proponents run the gamut from "intelligent scientists stating that they cannot categorically rule out an effect but unwilling to say anything other than that more tests are warranted" to "slightly loony garage inventors who couldn't give a coherent description of what they think is going on if their life depended on it, but who have a lot to gain in royalties if they can sell the patent to someone".

As such, debating on the basis of what it's proponents say without further specificity is pretty pointless.

not hard to build if you want to test it properly
i did
i also improved on the original design a fair bit now

i'm not publishing shit tho lmao

>>8663191
Why NASA scientist? Surely you know there is only one studying the meme-drive and I have never seen him claim the emdrive expels propellant.

>>8663206
It's more like slightly loony intelligent scientists who read too much sci-fi or like getting attention to slightly loony garage inventors.

And clearly discussing what it's proponents say is relevant since that is the basis for spending more time and money on testing it.

>>8663212
>>>/pol/

File: 1433310498867-4.jpg (403KB, 780x642px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 780x642px

>>8663220
>I have never seen him claim the emdrive expels propellant.

Oh Jesus buddy, I haven't heard the President claim he thinks Basic Minimum Income is a bad idea either, but I wouldn't give up your entry level job at McDonalds in hope.

Also:
>Why NASA scientist? Surely you know there is only one studying the meme-drive and

You're factually wrong, a team of at least 7 NASA scientists has studied it: http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/1.B36120

>>8663253
Nice sophistry. It's obvious that the meme-drive is supposed to be propellant-less.

And surely you know that the opinion of one team of experimenters cannot be counted 7 times over?

>>8663040
If someone were to use this to move a satellite around, would that prove anything?

File: 1410016422570.jpg (17KB, 337x367px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 337x367px

>>8663264
>Nice sophistry. It's obvious that the meme-drive is supposed to be propellant-less.

Ooh, that is some spicy irony.

>>8663284
No, independent entities would have to replicate that first. Then it would.

>>8662575
It's in orbit

>The Chinese tests reported by the International Business Times report were later corroborated; at a press conference in Beijing on 10 December 2016 at the China Academy of Space Technology (CAST), Yue Chen, head of the communication satellite division at CAST, confirmed the agency is already testing an EmDrive in low-Earth orbit onboard an "experimental verification platform" believed to be the Tiangong-2 space station, and that it has been funding research in the area for the last five years. It stated that the current prototype generates only a few millinewtons of thrust, and that it will have to be scaled up to at least 100–1000 millinewtons; despite this they currently plan to add the technology to Chinese satellites as soon as possible.

Of course that doesn't tell us anything new. We knew it probably produced thrust from the laboratory tests. The question is where the thrust is coming from and if it is sustainable and scaleable.

I think the copper is emitting shit when heated, which makes it a normal reaction drive with a propellant that will quickly run out and never stood a chance at being fast.

>>8664184
That was news to me, thanks! Welp, China is using their surplus from owning half of America's debt for fringe science like testing MemeDrives in orbit and liquid-fuel Thorium reactors. Good for them.

Sounds like the research is inconclusive from the article. A few millinewtons is indistinguishable from a light thruster, like a high efficiency laser beam or solar sail.

>>8663288
it would also help to test this outside of Earth's orbit. The thrust is so small, it might be confused with traction against Earth's magnetic field, and might be overcome by the drag of same and Earth's tenuous outer atmosphere.

>>8664980
>LMAO lets waste millions of $$$ to prove that this perputal motion machine does not work

>>8663046
>still living in the 18th century

>>8662575
Still unproven.
Still not tested in orbit.
Brainlets still claiming it doesn't work without running their own experiments.

>>8662947
He means it'll 99.999% turn out to be bogus and no scientist wants to waste their years researching why something that shouldn't work, appeared to work but didn't

>>8662982
>The creator of the thing states that thrust decreases with the velocity vector of the thing (the one parallel to the direction of thrust), therefore nothing is being broken here, oh besides relativity which is also what he bases the explanation of it working on. Of course since the whole thing either doesn't work or at least nobody has any idea how exactly if works it's bullshit.
But velocity is relative, there is no such thing as absolute velocity. If its thrust is a function of its velocity, that means an observer on earth will measure a different thrust than those on the EM drive spacecraft.

>>8662864
Video or it didn't happen

>>8662864
It doesn't just naturally roll forward. The weight is just shifted to the front of the bicycle. The bike would not move on a level surface.

>>8668828
That's why I said it breaks relativity since you would be able to measure some kind of absolute velocity purely by measuring the thrust of the device.

>>8662575
This thing is like 0.01% as efficient as solid fuel rocketry so uts a dead meme

>>8668828
>But velocity is relative, there is no such thing as absolute velocity.
everyone laugh at this brainlet