Spoopy technology. Do you think this technology was given to

Possibly, but it only works in space. If they wanted to really help us they'd give us some kind of surface propulsion, but maybe they already did and it was hidden.

>>17021069

No, these things are just fake sold off by fraudsters looking for a quick buck. Same as every 'inventor' who comes up with the latest and greatest magnetic immortality ring or perpetual motion machine.

>>17021115
>Fake
It has been tested and it works you dumbass.
And it's not perpetual because it uses electricity to gain thrust, learn what perpetual motion means.

Since when do people invent something, then figure out how it works?

>>17021197
When they test it in a lab after making a prototype.

So, since forever.

>>17021204
This is testing, not the actual invention.

Before the scientific method, this was how EVERYTHING was invented. It's good that experimenters are throwing off the shackles of science and using practice to innovate. It's the type of step forward humanity needs.

>>17021127
>It has been tested and it works you dumbass.
>And it's not perpetual because it uses electricity to gain thrust, learn what perpetual motion means.

Not all of the tests worked, and none have been able to be reproduced. Even those that "worked" only produced minuscule amounts of thrust.....not even enough power to move the engines AT ALL.
You dumbfuck.

>>17021260
NASA disagrees

>How do we have such an engine, yet have no idea how it works?

This is a good question, OP. Why exactly did they build it? What were they expecting? Were they making something entirely different, but in the process found it to create thrust?

>>17021282
Seems like somebody just had the magical combination of mechanical engineering skill, very sensitive measuring devices and a hunch.

>>17021260
>Smugly speaking from a month ago

>>17021260

NASA reproduced the test twice. If the inventor is correct then it can be scaled up to provide useful thrust, especially in space. BUT one big caveat is that thrust drops if the engine moves forward along the same axis.

In space it's still useful but on Earth it really could only be used to levitate machines, not propel or stop them.

The inventor's theory actually does make sense, which doesn't mean it's true, but it's not "HURR DURR PERPETUAL MOTION INTO THE TRASH" like so many people with knee jerk reactions claimed.

>>17021326
>BUT one big caveat is that thrust drops if the engine moves forward along the same axis.
Source? That sounds like it ruins everything.

>>17021253
>It's good that experimenters are throwing off the shackles of science

You do realize that none of this would be possible without said science, yes? Or do you think this machine works on hopes and dreams?

>>17021282
To be fair I had an idea for something similar but I am not a propulsion specialist or an engineer so I couldn't really do anything. The whole engine is troll science tier.

>>17021253
>Before the scientific method, this was how EVERYTHING was invented.
Uh.
But this was proven to work with scientific method.
If we'd throw scientific method into the trash we would never find out it works.

>>17021326
Sources? Links?

>>17021260
>not even enough power to move the engines
I hope you realize that in space weight has no meaning because it's only relevent in a gravity field.

>Aliens are watching us
>One alien runs into a room laughing his ass off
>"What's so funny?"
>"AYYYYYYYYY GUESS WHAT HUMANS DID"
>"What?"
>"They JUST figured out microwaves are used for propulsion and not for heating meals!"
>[distant inaudible AYYY in the void intensifies]

>>17021069
You don't seem to be able to grasp just how small the net thrust effect is, its miniscule. It'll just end up being some little odd quirk of physics that we didn't get correct.

>>17021397
>its miniscule
But it is constant acceleration.
Look up ion engines.

>>17021397
In vacuum there's no loss of speed so it just keeps building and building. With enough time you can reach any speed you want.

>>17021379
Weight no, mass yes.
Nigga do you even inertia?

>>17021433
Since the engine itself has not that much mass, it really won't take long time to accelerate to a decent speed, especially if there's more than one. If you want to poke holes in something, try de-accelerating with these engines.

>>17021450
Put an array on the front and array on the back.

Or just use regular rockets to adjust the ship's orientation.

>>17021069

I don't really believe in aliens giving us technology. I think at best, maybe some aliens came around when human civilization was just kicking off, and maybe they gave us some pointers or we copied some ideas they had, but I don't think they're still around.

I DO think that we are rapidly reaching an age where, when someone with money and connections gets an idea in their head, they can accomplish it within a few years. If not for corporate greed or fearful ignorance, we could eradicate disease, achieve space flight, and cure world hunger within a decade. But doing those things isn't really profitable to those who are currently in power, so we won't see useful inventions for much longer than necessary.

And all of that PISSES ME OFF.

>>17021372
Did I say to throw the scientific method in the trash? I just said that it can be a hindrance to innovation. Once the brilliant minds create something send in all the pencil pushers you want.

>>17021367
I think what this anon meant is the traditional 'challenges my opinion that i got through science thus is rageworthy bullshit' attitude which shackles instead of humble exploration of possibilities.

>>17022024
What I'm saying is that it's great that there are people out there in this day and age with the vision and the resources to construct experimental models that are based on something greater than just one tiny little grain of sand stacked on top of another. Sure it's great that we have the structure of science to be able to make constant steady progress but for too long potential visionaries have been marginalized and had no chance of proving their theories under their own personal budgets... Well now that's changing and that's great.

>>17021326
Also want source
>>17021332
ruins some things, still usable for satellites (if this is the case, i'm guessing this anon reasoned it out from the conservation of energy laws; energy is proportional to velocity squared so if constant thrust is applied at constant energy requirements, the energy output would exceed input (hence the hurr durr perpetual trolls)).

>>17022042
Agreed

No. NO GODAMMNIT NO! PLEASE DON'T LET THE MEME DRIVE SPREAD PAST /SCI/. FUCK, it's a useless piece of technology, anyone who has actual knowledge of spaceflight mission profiles knows this. This thing makes an ion engine, the largest and most advanced of which produce less thrust than a man exhaling as slowly as a can, look like a goddamn saturn 5 engine. Let me give you an idea of how retarded this thing is assuming it actually works as stated which all the new tests are now saying isn't the case.

I'll give it threw scenarios to test it's usefulness

Earth orbit to the moon: the good news is that our ship is still close to the sun, so solar panels are usable. The problem is that even with how advanced space based solar energy has become, to transport ANY cargo we'll need kilowatts or gigawatts because of how fucking ineffective the drive is at making thrust. This means our ship has thousands of pounds of panels and machinery maneuver and angle them, multi hundred pound drive to get a non suicidal thrust to weight ratio, and cargo, all being pushed by the equivalent of 100/th of a balloons air being let out. This is the shortest trip and it will take hundreds of years. This is also assuming it's actually able to do it at all, you have to be able to accelerate and slowdown in times for certain orbital wibdows and capture opportunities or your fucked. To give you an idea of how shit this is, I could get a reflective blanket and tie it to thee front of theirs ship and theaters suns light bouncing off of it would make more thrust then it's actual engine.

>>The second scenario is a earth to outer planet or asteroid belt mission: bad news, sunlight is so weak even at mars that one must resort to reactors instead. And hydrogen fuel cells wouldn't last the years and years of travel so your stuck using heavy fucking nuclear reactors. This coupled with the fact that our ship accelerates at a snails pace means that we can't take advantage of launch windows (for example, Launching while Pluto is orbiting closer to us). This trip will take thousands of years and will likely have no car of capacity due to fuel weight. Oh I forgot to mention the fuel will decay while we crawl along so we'll need fuel reprocessing facilities even heavier the the reactor itself.

Mission three was to be interstellar travel but upon further introspection I remembered this thing couldn't reach other stars as all its fuel would decay before it got going very fast, and it's fuel is way to heavy compared to the energy it makes

friendly reminder any motor over 70 percent efficiency automatically deems it national security is shelved never ti be seen bynthe masses. nasa announced em drive and keshe is working on some things but understand we have the technology to take et home and have had for over 50 years.

>>17021386
Kek, to them we must look like the equivalent of a redneck cooking on his truck engine.

>>17021933
whoa calm down kiddo

>>17022720
You don't know man, constant shitty threads on sci for over a year, the same retarded points argued to infinity, and now you faggots are saying this fuck simple piece of shit is a gift from the ayylmao's?

>>17022720
Don't you know 4chan is serious business?

>>17022661
What are you talking about?