EmDrive

File: 1475813104157.jpg (14KB, 306x295px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 306x295px

>>9166554
>The Chinese are clothing in on a Science victory

>>9166582
>>9166554
>believing in propaganda
Here's the real scientific victory though

https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/608857/china-reportedly-has-a-secure-quantum-communication-network/

>>9166554
>blue leds

>>9166554
>EmDrive
This is the price of pop """""""sci""""""".

>>9166554
lmao newtons a fag

>>9166588
I bet there are constant beeping sounds as well.

Reactionless Em drive are not physically possible, since the field momentum cancels the mech momentum so that the newtons third law is not violated by Lorentz force in combination with field momentum.
Chinese scientist have poor understanding of subtle points because of language barrier.

>>9167340
Elaborate please.

>>9167355
It's not elaborate, it's very simple.

>>9167340
> field momentum
Which field ?

Lets say it does work, what are the ramifications?

>>9167394
Free energy, interstellar travel

>>9167394
cheap space travel, also weapons capable of destroying earth thus we go extinct.

>>9167355
The whole thing is a psy-ops war between the US and China. Each side is trying to trick the other into wasting more money on a goose chase. America is winning. The only westen tests involved were done by universities that are funded by Goy money. All tests done in vacuums say it's a load of shit, of course. Meanwhile, China sent an EM drive into orbit to try and test it. That would have costed them at least 1 billion dollars in gross costs.

>>9166586
Yeah man, they've totally violated physics.

>>9167706
Except the EM drive actuarry work and America sucks big cock.

>>9167706
>That would have costed*
cost

>>9167706
no they said they'd put it into orbit, we dont know if they've actually done it yet

>>9167706
> The only westen tests involved were done by universities
wrongo

The EMDrive has been tested by NASA’s Advanced Propulsion Physics Research Laboratory

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/11/nasa-impossible-emdrive-physics-peer-review-space-science/

>>9166554
i hate americunts but literally half of scientific research coming out of china is invalid / completely fake. much of their projects are simply political and/or societal stunts that don't go beyond the initial stages.

>>9167804
Give a non-trivial undisputed example.

>>9167804
>iterally half of scientific research coming out of china is invalid / completely fake
Source faggot
also don't forget skunkworks compact fusion

>>9166554
The EMDrive works, but no country can afford to use it, because it takes 1.21 Jigawatts to go anywhere.

>>9167804
If you think "half" is a lot, then you're pretty out of the loop in terms of how bad things are in scientific research. Current estimates on American research is that as much of 90% of it is unreplicable and fake. If China is at 50% they're actually beating us by quite a fair margin.

We have to send, at least, $ 50 million to Roger Shawyer if are ever to catch up to the Chinese. Please donate.

>>9166582
They have been making clothing for a long time, though, so it is not surprising.

just shoot it over the ocean and make some low budget 3d and photoshops. its worked for a long time in usa

>>9167329
That, or theremin music.

Thread theme music:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_3yDl1G3Vk

>>9166554
>The Chinese are clothing in on a Science victory
50 cents have been deposited in your pboc account

File: 1297287208749.jpg (168KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 800x600px

>>9167415
>free energy

I think I've seen this movie before.

>>9167862
lmao so much this

>>9167732
Yes, and produed the same thrust, in the same direction, no matter which way the "engine" is pointing.

That sort of indicates that they "work" as a over;y-elleborate device for detecting a flaw in your test stand.

What makes you people think it violates the laws of physics ?

R E M I N D E R:
The meme drive is an American psy-op with the goal of wasting Chinese research funds. The data is all faked. The Chinese are now trying to save face by faking data of their own.

That's all, feel free to resume your pointless debate.

>>9167791
eagleworks is barely affiliated with NASA proper and it's where they send all the crank devices to get tested

>>9167915
It's not that hard to build an EMDrive.
So wouldn't they waste like 3 chinese technician's time and <$100,000 money?

>>9167905
Kinetic energy increases with the square of speed, so there is a theoretical limit to the thrust to power ratio of a propellantless drive, that of a photon rocket. The email-drive is alleged to surpass this thrust to power ratio by several orders of magnitude. So if you get an email-drive to go fast enough you will be getting free energy since its kinetic energy will surpass the power input.

>>9167915
YOU MEAN BITCOIN IS A CURRENCY TO CARRY OUT CLANDESTINE OPERATIONS?

>>9167934
> theoretical limit to the thrust to power ratio of a propellantless drive, that of a photon rocket
maybe a perfect idealized photon rocket which doesn't exist.

>you will be getting free energy
no you won't

>The email-drive is alleged to surpass this thrust to power ratio by several orders of magnitude

The Microwave Cavity Thruster makes use of a High Q resonance system so it can theoretically extract momentum from a high energy travelling wave packet more efficiently than a simple photon drive.

The EM drive supposedly produces propellantless constant thrust regardless of velocity. Were that true, it would be possible to accelerate the device fast enough that energy gained from regenerative braking is less than energy spent accelerating it. That makes the device an overunity device.

>>9167983
>The EM drive supposedly produces propellantless constant thrust regardless of velocity
Where have you seen this claim made ?
BTW, chemical rockets produce constant thrust regardless of velocity.

>Were that true, it would be possible to accelerate the device fast enough that energy gained from regenerative braking is less than energy spent accelerating it.
Current EMDrive prototypes are actually extremely inefficient. So your statement makes no sense whatsoever.

>>9167839
this is something i know is a problem and most scientific researchers know is a problem...

the big issue is that so many American universities are full of PhDs and grad students who are really not worthy of their position. their basic research skills are godawful and they've become so absorbed in their own research that they lose the context. some of you might call this the nature of "basic scientific research" but i see it as underqualified graduate researchers being pushed through universities as free labor.

>>9167997
I've seen it claimed in nearly all threads and articles on the subject, and the key portion of the quote is "propellantless". Also, efficiency is irrelevant to this problem.

>>9168004
mmmmm, but you can't provide a definite source.

Imagine you are in an inertial reference frame, and an electron is flying past relative to the inertial frame at speed v.
The wiechert electric field for a moving charge is increased perpendicular to its motion and decreased along its motion. The weichert magnetic field circles the charge and us also enchaned in the same way since it is just, v cross the wiechert electric field divided by c squared.
In relativity terms the fields are said to be a contracted coulomb electric field, and a contracted bio savart b field, to yield a wiechert electric field and wichert b field both for a moving charge.
The ELectromagnetic field momentum, derived from wiechert fields In this case, which are without loss of generality and work all the way up to speed of light, is proportional to weichert electric field cross weichert magnetic field.

When you use flemmings rule for cross products you can see that the field momentum of the electron's moving Wiechert E and Wiecher B fields, as measured in the lab frame, visually looks like its flowing with and around the electron motion and except for the two thirds paradox, would calculate out to be equal to the electron mechanical momentum. So perhaps all momentum is field based.

This field momentum is called a poynting vector.
Since newtons third law is violated by the Lorentz force, an EM drive could only exist if this field momentum required to balance newtons third law for the lorentz force, did not exist, however that would not conserve momentum

File: emdrive derived thrust equation.png (5KB, 276x93px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 276x93px

>>9168013
http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf
let's look at the derived thrust equation from the inventor, then.
P0 = incident photon beam power
Q = microwave cavity quality factor
Sd = design correction factor based on wavelength values and er
c = speed of light
Lambda0 = propagation wavelength in free space
Lambdad = wavelength in dielectric medium
Lambdag1 = wavelength at largest cross-section
Lambdag3 = wavelength at end plate
er = honestly not sure what this one is but it's a constant he sets to 1

ultimately what we have is, for any given emdrive configuration, a linear relationship between power and thrust.

The only candidate for an EM drive for would be field momentum, proportional to E cross B. field momentum surrounds moving charges and moves with them, it can also be shown that field momentum is the momentum which is required to balance the missing momentum which occurs when the Lorentz force law violates newtons third law, for the force from moving charges on each other. This extra field monument required for newtons third law to hold for E and M, is called hidden momentum-see griffths electrodynamics, pgs. 357 361 520-521

>>9168021
I think you are doing charged particle physics.
The EMDrive is purported to work for reasons other than the Lorentz force.
True an electron is subject to C contraint in vacuum, that is the momentum will approach infinity as C is approached.

>>9168043
> for any given emdrive configuration, a linear relationship between power and thrust
Are you talking about independence of thrust and velocity ?

>>9168119
It should be obvious that I am.

>>9168122
(There may be multiple posters on different tagents)
OK, So what.
What exactly in General or Special relativity says you must get free energy from a working EMDrive as you approach C ?

>>9168063
Scratch that, hidden momentum is not field momentum, that nomenclature refers to the extra mech momentum due to relativistic effects, however if the two thirds problem is solved, then technically hidden momentum is field momentum since all momentum is considered field momentum if the two thirds problem of electron field momentum yields, to a solely field based momentum explanation.

File: 1439873305194s.jpg (7KB, 239x229px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 239x229px

Where is EmDrive anon?

I'm talking about the anon that said he was working on some affiliated research and other anons verified that he wasn't larping and promised to give updates...

At least say that you are not dead.

>>9168132
I did not say that you get free energy as you approach C. I said that if you have constant thrust without losing mass, then eventually your kinetic energy will be larger than the energy spent to accelerate you.

The input energy used to accelerate the device is a linear process. Kinetic energy increases with the square of the velocity. It's simple math.

>>9168142
to clarify the first sentence: it's not just that you have free energy JUST by going fast. It's that if you have some kind of means to extract the energy back out, with some kind of regenerative braking mechanism, then you'll be able to pull more out than you put in.

>>9168145
I don't see what you're saying.
Your talking about conservation of energy being violated, so you have to show that the total energy consumed by the EMDrive is less than the kinetic energy produced. That should be easy from the inventor's "allegedly bogus equations".
Can you do that ?

>>9168159
I never called them bogus. I brought in the equations to prove my claim that the device is claimed to produce a constant thrust without using propellant.

>you have to show that the total energy consumed by the EMDrive is less than the kinetic energy produced
you only have to look at the basic equations to see that it must be true. velocity increases linearly as the force is applied over time. kinetic energy increases exponentially as the force is applied over time. if you can extract the kinetic energy, you can extract more energy than you used to accelerate the object.

>>9168089
The only forces on moving charges in e and m are due to charges interacting via electrostatic fields, wiechert electric and magnetic velocity fields, wiechert electric and magnetic acceleration fields, these are grouped under the term Lorentz force.
The only non lorentz force on moving charges is the force from interacting with eM waves,
called radiation resistance force, or radiaction reaction firce.
The problem is that using radiaction resistance firce, i.e. light momentum firce, as propulsion is that it would be cheating, since the radiation resistance force on a accelerating charged particle is not reaction-less, and the Chinese want a reactionless em drive.
So the only force we can use are the electric force and the v cross Magnetic field B force, combined called the lorentz force, its from the wiechert fields shoukd be used, to prvent loss if generality. Yet field momentum prevents this from beingreaction less, and thus newton third law is not violated.

File: emdrive.jpg (131KB, 1754x1240px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1754x1240px

Next stop -- THE STARS!

>>9167957
>maybe a perfect idealized photon rocket which doesn't exist.
Yes, that's why I said theoretical limit.

>no you won't
Yes you will. If kinetic energy exceeds input then by definition you have created free energy. And this energy would be easily attainable via energy generative breaking.

>The Microwave Cavity Thruster makes use of a High Q resonance system so it can theoretically extract momentum from a high energy travelling wave packet more efficiently than a simple photon drive.
I don't see how "resonance system" can explain how energy is being created.

>>9168618
>I don't see how "resonance system" can explain how energy is being created.

You left out the handwaving. The explanation works much better with the handwaving.

>>9167983
>The EM drive supposedly produces propellantless constant thrust regardless of velocity.
Interesting assumption, I have no idea why you think it is valid.

>idiots claim emdrive can create unlimited energy
>They can't explain why a photon drive which also has constant thrust from the reference frame of the drive is also unlimited energy
Oh wait you change the frame and the thrust drops from time dilation? Oh the same thing happens to chemical or electric rockets and literally everything?

But we assume the emdrive keeps the same thrust? Fuck you brainlets, too bad the emdrive doesn't work.

>>9166554
I wonder how much of their "Discoveries" are made up of stolen research from state sponsored hacking.

>>9167362
A dick response like this is why I love you /sci/

>>9168172
>velocity increases linearly as the force is applied over time
No it does not.

It doesn't matter whether a chemical engine or exotic engine is used. If the thrust results in a force of say .1 G, then the entire system is **accelerating**, corresponding to the ^2 factor in kinetic energy.

The naysayers on the technology in this thread are a mix of conspiracy theorists, 8th grade physicists, and other confused persons that have never had direct experience with an actual EMDrive. The only legitimate reference seems to be this:
>>9167791
So we can assume the EMDrive works as the inventor claims until credible evidence shows otherwise.

>>9169147
There's no confusion. It's been tested in a vacuum and shown not to work.

>>9169301
No even semi-credible source again.

>>9167460

we already have nukes

>>9169338
Anon's probably referring to asteroid redirection,
which can already be done with traditional technology.

So I don't really understand the EM drive. Does it just shit out a nigtrillion watts of Microwaves and shit out a pipe?

>>9166554
If I can't trust buying clothing from the Chinese online, then how could I trust their clothes in space?

Checkmark atheists

>>9169326
Lets have PBS Space time take a look at it, then. The video page includes explanations, references, and source links. I suggest you take the 14 minutes to watch it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqoo_4wSkdg

>>9169396
>>PBS
>government funded statist commie propaganda
real source or gtfo

>>9169411
They are funded by Patreon, Great Courses Plus and Legal Zoom. They say so right at the start of their videos.

>>9169396
This presentation is an elaborate way of saying "we don't know for sure about this thing".
Not even close to a refutation.
They didn't even do anything hands on with an actual operational unit.

>>9169436
What they did was examine the work people have done on it. Peer review. It's ridiculous for you to say they should have personally done experiments when the aim of the show is to provide understanding. More so when the experimental data they examine included the experiment that was done in a total vacuum, with highly sensitive detection equipment. You're really just going to handwave them because the equations and citations they use are too "elaborate" for you? That's just another way of saying you can't understand them.

>>9169442
They didn't exactly go out on a limb and refute the drive.
Soooo..., they don't know for sure and are merely. guessing.
Whereas those that have experimented with the actual drive have had numerous positive test results, that yes ultimately might have some other explanation, but to date don't.

>>9169455
They give the data exactly as it is and they do not buy into the hype. The host (an astrophysics professor himself) obviously doesn't believe it works, but he's still scientific enough to not "go out on a limb" to say so. They show the data, show that it's inconclusive, gives hypothesises on how it might not be and how the EM might work if we change physics (eg, bring back aether), then finalise by saying that the whole thing is probably nothing.

>Whereas those that have experimented with the actual drive have had numerous positive test results

I don't think you were paying attention to the video. They go over each test by different groups. The guys who first made it claimed it worked, while everyone that tried to replicate the results (such as nasa) got nothing close to the amount of claimed thrust. They got results that were either equivalent to a photon rocket (the same amount of force a torch emits via radiation pressure, which is almost nil), or straight up indicative of the thrust being caused by iterations between magnetic fields and the measuring equipment (eg, the force is still applied in the same direction even when the drive is turned around).

>>9167791
>"advanced"
>"research"
>"laboratory"

Fancy name for Harold White and two other guys on a shoestring budget studying every pseudoscience from free energy to warp drives

>>9169415
FUCK YOU YOU JEW MOTHERFUCKER YOU

>>9169484
>>The host (an astrophysics professor himself)
He looks at pretty pictures beamed back from the Hubble. He's not an engineer.

>>They got results that were either equivalent to a photon rocket
How do you explain this ? The unit is a sealed cavity. No photons are expelled out of some exhaust port.

>>9168850
See:
>>9168043

>>9169110
Yes it does, and the reason propellant based rockets don't have this problem is that they use propellant. The physical system includes the exhaust left behind the rocket.

Explain how newtons third law can be violated. It can't. So since there is no reaction less em drive, the inventor is out of thier wits.
Who would want an em drive that used radiation resistance force? If you use photons you fucking retard, you drive is not reaction less, if your drive has a reaction then you get more thrust by using particles with mass such as an ion thruster, plasma thruster etc.
So no em drive is physically possible, and photon drives are produce less thrust than drives that use particles with mass.

>>9169815
If velocity increased linearly as the force is applied over time, then the ship could exceed the speed of light which would violate Special Relativity.

>>9166582
>tfw no one wins a cultural victory

>>9169825
>you get more thrust by using particles with mass
Sure and you have to carry all that mass and use it. The EMDrive doesn't have to eject mass which is what makes it interesting.

>>9169832
Now you're starting to see the problem with the EMdrive!

>>9169860
Problem ???
That's one of the best features of the EMDrive.

>Here is a concrete contraption to get unlimited energy, and unlimited deltaV, given the hypothesis of constant "propellantless thrust" at constant power :
>Em drives mounted on a rotor turning at 2000m/s tangential velocity (not easy but this is the kind of tangential velocity attained in some energy storage flywheels...). Em drives consuming 1kW microwave, radiating some (all ?) of this power as heat and thrusting at 1N : 1N/kW is in the ballpark of what has been experimentally claimed already. This gives 2000m/s * 1N = 2kW mechanical power to the shaft of the rotor. 2kW mechanical power at the shaft are converted to 1800W DC current by a generator (and 200W radiated as heat). Of this 1800W DC electrical power, 250W are diverted for any use we like. To keep it in line with the topic I put it to good use to power another Em drive but really we are free to use those 250W for whatever (creating mass for instance). The power splitter is not 100% efficient, it radiates 50W of power. 1800-250-50 = 1500W to feed the RF amplifier. The RF amplifier wastes (radiates) 500W as heat and pumps 1000W of clean microwave back into the Em drives on the rotor.
>The process needs an initial investment in energy (to make rotor move at 2000m/s tangential velocity) but then this is a free energy generator for all practical purpose. If small variations in efficiency make the rotor lose a bit of velocity, just divert a little more power to the RF amplifier : this is just a regulation problem, there is ample margins to adjust and stabilize around the optimal operating point.

>>9169863
>If this consequence is a feature of the Em drive, great. If this is a problem then the problem rests in the initial hypothesis of "propellantless thrust magnitude at constant power". But we often see by proponents the contradictory position that "of course EM drive respects COE, and somehow at constant power input at some (ill defined) point thrust has to surrender" and that "with that technology we could reach Proxima in less than a century", that later hope being made possible only by breaking COE, that is considering "constant thrust at constant power".
>So either "constant thrust at constant power" is true and this is (apparently) breaking COE.
>Or either "constant thrust at constant power" is not true, COE might be preserved, then we would like to see a not so ill defined formula of thrust=function(power, other objective parameters ?), and short of that at least not be sold deep space mission profile that do presuppose constant thrust at constant power, undercover.

A photon rocket does not have this problem because even at its theoretical maximum thrust per power ratio (which is about 3.336 * 10^-9 N/W), the speed it would have to reach in order to start the violation is the speed of light in vacuum. So, even though it has a constant thrust per power input it will simply never reach the required speed no matter what you do.

But any increase in the thrust/power ratio will decrease the speed to something that can be reached and at 1N/kW that speed is only 1 km/s.

>>9169863
If you are gonna cut and paste from some other forum, please give your own detailed explanation, as to what the hell your point is please.

>>9169879
why would I rewrite something already explained succinctly by someone else? that's illogical.

>>9169863
>>9169868
If you think this GobbleyGook is going to convince anyone of something good luck anon !

>>9169899
they directly address points raised in this thread. the EMdrive as described by its inventor allows the creation of a free energy machine. either the EMdrive doesn't work, it doesn't work as described as is nothing but a novelty, or all of physics is wrong.

I'm betting against that last one.

If the EM drive works, Military Industrial Complex black projects probably figured it out and more a long time ago ( where are all those trillions going? )
If it doesn't work then what the fuck is China doing by keep researching it? Somehow trick the US into wasting funds on it even though US doesn't believe it works anyways?

File: moon cat 2.jpg (63KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 800x600px

>>9169147
Well, shit, guys, if it was tested by NASA, tat proves it works, right? NASA is a prestigious governmental science operation, they would not test something that doesn't even fucking work.

Ordering space suit now, free unlimited spaceships can't be more than a year away.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/182661751302?chn=ps&dispItem=1

>>9169362
It doesn't shit out anything. Hence, it does not produce thrust.

>>9169411 Government funded tests prove nothing unless they agree with me!
<---- /x/

>>9169497
>Fancy name for Harold White and two other guys on a shoestring budget studying every pseudoscience from free energy to warp drives

I'll admit, I'd like that job. They must have a lot of fun, and would be under zero pressure.

>>9169543
>No photons are expelled out of some exhaust port.

Does any part of it get warm, at all?

File: comet guy shirt.jpg (306KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 1500x1000px

>>9169833
Communist yellow hoardes will NEVER catch up to our clothes technology.

>>9169868
If the emdrive is using virtual particles to push off of, does that change the situation?

>>9169840
>The EMDrive doesn't have to eject mass which is what makes it interesting.

Unless you want to go anywhere.

But yes, a magic amulet that let you zoom through space would be interesting, if it could exist, and a great deal of fun.

>>9169982
This calls to mind the old argument that a rocket could not move in space, because there was nothing for it to push off of.

The fact that rockets do, in fact, move in space would indicate that the whole idea that movement comes from "pushing off of" something is flawed somehow.

>>9169982
that situation would fall under >>9169907 , specifically the case where the EMdrive works but not as described

>>9169986
Rockets work because they have an internal reaction which only generates thrust due to the nozzle concentrating the exhaust from the reaction on one end.

The whole issue with the meme drive is that the creator is adamant that theres no nozzle effect and no exhaust, which means hes either 1.) Wrong about the emdrive, or 2.) Accidental discoverer of some new physics. Its just a question of "did a man putting a microwave in a metal cone revolutionize space travel and redefine physics?" While I hope the answer is yes, evidence indicates it is no.

Actually using the EM-drive is nothing short of suicide and retardation.
Sure,human,go out there in space with a bigass spotlight waved like a flag that says : HERE ARE WE.Right?What could go wrong?

>>9170034

Is the concept of an object accelerating without throwing mass behind really that farfetched? There is a ton of physics we don't know about and spooky action like this does happen (magnets, gravity).

So far, all the possible reasons they are getting this thrust through other forces (ablating, magnetic fields through the cabling, photonic thrust) have been ruled out. Is the only criticism left that they didn't check enough? What other things are left to check to make sure it isn't experimental error?

>>9169971
Yes. The prototypes ares very inefficient right now. 1Kw for 1 or 2 millinewton of force. The rest is dispersed as heat.

>>9170055
Well, the NASA study explicitly said that they didn't measure exhaust or heat expansion as a source of the thrust, but exhaust implies propellant, and heat means it doesn't actually do anything except heat up and expand/contract.

You're right that there are forces which seem to work at a distance, but it seems unlikely that those relatively well understood forces would work so bizarrely because of a caged microwave; it also seems unlikely a caged microwave is interacting with some undiscovered aspect of physics, and much more likely that there's an experimental error. But again, no solid proof for anything really, just a few experiments within the margins of error that point to either a scientific breakthrough... or a complete pile of garbage.

>>9169971
If you are referring to infrared radiation being responsible for part of the force then yes that could be part of the overall thrust (still propellentless though !) But tests have shown more force than can be accounted for by just that.
You would also tend to see much less unidirectional force even with sloppy waste heat thrust correction so the total thrust from such would be much less than with a directed photon rocket.

>>9170069

Ahh, i didn't know they didn't measure the thermal expansion of the material. The exhaust thrust i understand since that is pretty trivial to know via calculations

>>9169863
>>9169865
Cool thought experiment, not much that could be said against it as it simply uses the propellantless thrust as a black box.

Does anybody know of a paper ruling out capillary thrust for the memedrive? The combination of low pressure and a anisotrope heating makes me think of the light vane, where capillary thrust is the driving force for motion. (Not radiation pressure like freshman think)

>>9170107
The nasa paper put it in a pretty hard vacuum, but I don't know off hand if it was low enough to eliminate that

>>9167706
>Jews tricking people into wasting money
What else is new?

>>9170117
It is pretty well known that you need ultrahigh vacuum to eliminate capillary thrust, which is the famous proof that the light vane is NOT radiation pressure because it stops turning at ultra high vacuum.
As they still did sanity check calculations for outgassing it seems pretty clear the vacuum was not high enough to strip adsorbed gas.
Sucks the capillary thrust arent really back of an envelope calculation material.

>Somebody screencap this so I can claim credit when it turns out to be capillary thrust

>>9169543
>The unit is a sealed cavity. No photons are expelled out of some exhaust port

No, but microwaves are. If they come out of one side of the device more than the other, there will be more radiation pressure on one side than the other.

>>9170173
only if the drive is an open system, which not many physicists buy

>>9169840
Yes but it has to eject photons so it will run out of energy dipshit, and energy has weight. The speed of the space craft will be less, since the energy in the craft will drain, so it will run out of em waves,
when it does the craft will be moving much slower
than an ion thruster.
Learn physics stop hatin

Dead end.

Its probably just experimental error, but im still keeling an eye on the chinese and guido fetta.

I. When the electric field is high enough, there is enough energy density to create real electron positron pairs, which can be split off and then propelled as in the case of an ion thruster.
Alternatively the pair can be allowed to recombine converting into gamma ray photons, which can also be used for a less efficient creation of thrust.

No propellant other than what the vacuum
provides via conversion of virtual into real via high electric fields. Still it runs out of energy eventually

True, can't solar sails keep accelerating, unless they hit some source of interstellar dust to act as drag. In theory they are only limited by light speed , and the limitation of only radial motion away from sources of light.

>>9170232
solar sail driving force drops with square of distance from radiation source

>>9170210
>Yes but it has to eject photons so it will run out of energy
It doesn't "have to eject photons", although all real world drives probably would to some extent.
A practical EMDrive system would probably need a very powerful energy source to produce enough thrust for a meaningful duration.

>>9170241
you're quoting a disingenuous troll post

>>9169921
People wanted to make sure it doesn't work because the idea of practical propellent-less thrust is an enticing one. The extra tests and disproportionate funding were basically the scientific equivalent of purchasing a lottery ticket. We all knew nothing would come of it, but we were distracted by the potential reward.

>>9167706
I wouldn't be surprised, the West used to do this to the Soviets a lot, release papers on bullshit technology in the hope that they would waste money on it.
>>9167791
Eagleworks is a joke lab.

>>9166554
The em-peror's new clothes

>>9167905
>>9167934

Furthermore, if the thrust is in fact velocity dependent so that it tapers off as velocity increases, it breaks relativity because it shows a preferred reference frame.

>>9167940
Haven't you heard China just banned bitcoin
>again, for the seventh time

>>9167706
>That would have costed them at least 1 billion dollars in gross costs.
Which they can easily afford because they don't spend most of their money on an unneeded army or social welfare

>>9170321
they're not banning bitcoin they just don't like it when people who aren't the chinese government run exchanges

they're subsidizing the FUCK out of mining companies

>>9170164
Bump

Wouldn't this point towards the existence of an aether and the interaction of the EM drive being an aetherfoil?

>>9167363
Out standing in his field......field of corn...

http://www.armslist.com/inside?utm_source=c000032&utm_medium=plink&utm_campaign=p394691

http://www.armslist.com/contests?utm_source=c000032&utm_medium=plink&utm_campaign=p394691


http://www.armslist.com/blog/gear?utm_source=c000032&utm_medium=plink&utm_campaign=p394691

>>9166554
>Propellantless Propulsion
IT
DOESN'T
WORK

>>9171101
Tesla posts on 4chan? From Finland?

>>9170327
America's army is not unneeded.

>>9170224
It takes impractically large amounts of energy to create matter. E=mc2.

>>9167394
> Lets say it does work, what are the ramifications?

Eventual destruction of all matter(and otherwise) in the universe via a sphere expanding at light speed due to a quantum-tunneling event creating an expanding vacuole that exists at a lower energy state to the surrounding "regular" space.

(That is: if the emdrive works, we exist in a meta-stable universe rather than a universe at the lowest energy state. The LHC has found this to be a 70 percent probability already however.)

(Quantum tunneling event would be due to the need for empiricism in science. Also so USA would never have to face what it fears most: second place)

>>9171299
White people's understanding of science will forever be stuck at whatever is useful for the worship of Muh White Wuman. Everything higher is "impractical science and unneccessary". Does higher-order physics or research into the meta-stability question help proud adult consenting white wuman? No. Who needs it.

Make sure to kill pedos and destroy any culture that allows men to marry girl children, ofcourse! And hate the jjeeeewwwssssss and their God that allows men to have girl children as brides (Deuteronomy 22, 28-29, hebrew) and every other god aswell (since all old religions allow child marraige): none of it assists muh WHITE WUMAN!!!!.

DESTROY ALL OTHER CULTURS. HELP WHITE WUMAN!!!! DUH NO DO JUUUUUUISSSHHH SIENCE DUNN HEELLP MUUUHHHH WHUUIIITEEE WUUUMANNNN

>>9171841
agreed

Stop being a dipshit. Any photon drive or em wave drive is less efficient than an ion drive.
Not wanting propellant is a noble goal, similar to how lasers don't have to cant run out of ammo. However bullets carry thier own energy in thier shell, whereas the laser can run out if it's energy supply.
Traditional rocket propulsion has the advantage of the rocket getting lighter with time, since the thrust is the relative velocity if the mass ejected, times the ejected mass current.
Get yer education stop hatin

>>9171841
>>9171849

Jews detected.

Suppression of high technology keeps the Jew in power. The only part women play is to become empowered by the Jew so their natural Big Government tendencies can better influence society. Also women, specifically white, are being sold out to blacks by the Jews but that has to do with destroying the white race and is a bit off subject.

File: 1493463155650.jpg (51KB, 785x644px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 785x644px

>>9171841
what the fuck did you just write?

>>9166554
>clothing in
closing in

>>9171954
How so?

>>9171917
So you don't think with more refinement the propellantless drives will do as well as ion drives.
Maybe, who knows.

>>9171841
hearty keks

>>9172763
Not possible. Em drive doesn't work and photon rockets can't overcome inertia.

>>9171834
You're full of crap. None of that is true. Did you learn science from fantasy book.

>>9171101
There are lot of alternative theories regarding this 'ether'. Some have theorized this is the very substance (dark matter) which holds the universe together and is somehow connected to the invisible (which we are not able to measure yet) properties of your body and mind as well.

Could be very well that in 1000 years of time there are lot of breakthroughs regarding this matter. Don't think Einstein etc are the only ones who are "right" just because the current knowledge aknowledges them. Don't ever think humans are at their scientific best because all in all everything we do is pretty damn primitive and most of the humanity is only interested in waging wars to gain money and power.

Sadly we will not see this time of space traveling renessaince during our lives.