Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

interestrateripoff

Nasa Approves 'impossible' Space Engine Design That Apparently Violates The Laws Of Physics

Recommended Posts

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nasa-approves-impossible-space-engine-design-that-apparently-violates-the-laws-of-physics-9646865.html

In a quiet announcement that has sent shockwaves through the scientific world, Nasa has cautiously given its seal of approval to a new type of “impossible” engine that could revolutionize space travel.

In a paper published by the agency’s experimental Eagleworks Laboratories, Nasa engineers confirmed that they had produced tiny amounts of thrust from an engine without propellant – an apparent violation of the conservation of momentum; the law of physics that states that every action must have an equal and opposite reaction.

Traditional spacecraft carry vast amounts of fuel with them into orbit in order to move about, using the thrust created by this fuel to move in zero gravity like a swimmer in a pool pushing off against a wall. This method works fine but it's costly - both in terms of obtaining the fuel and then launching all that extra weight into space.

Science now catching up with the laws of economics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I can't really say much about this subject since my only knowledge of it comes from watching Star Trek - where, on the one hand, Scotty would tell us...

...YE CANNAE CHANGE THE LAWS O' PHYSICS CAP'N...!!!

But would then proceed to do exactly that in the very next episode..!

Make yer friggin' mind up Scotty man - James Burke and Carl Sagan might have worn a bit too much Crimpolene, and sported unfeasibly wide ties, but they didn't hit an impressionable 9 year-old with that kind of cockamamie horse-shit...!

You know, I'll bet off-camera, that Scotty fella fiddled with them poor Tribbles...

;)

XYY

scotty1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I initially assumed this was going to be about the warp drive theory and IXS Enterprise fancy conceptual art Nasa were bandying around the other month but no, this is in addition to that. Skylon got a big thumbs-up in the news as well recently. Why do the powers that be suddenly want us to think Star Trek is going to happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I initially assumed this was going to be about the warp drive theory and IXS Enterprise fancy conceptual art Nasa were bandying around the other month but no, this is in addition to that. Skylon got a big thumbs-up in the news as well recently. Why do the powers that be suddenly want us to think Star Trek is going to happen?

Science has a lot of power and authority that attracts funding. Lots of highly paid jobs, perks, old boy networks, awards and ego boosting.

It doesn't really matter if the idea comes to fruition or not. As long as the masses believe that science is clever and will "save us" the money will keep flowing to it.

Governments are very keen to fund science ;)

My view is that a lot people that work in science that consider themselves scientists are really technicians serving the paymaster.

Yes, I know, I'm cynical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science has a lot of power and authority that attracts funding. Lots of highly paid jobs, perks, old boy networks, awards and ego boosting.

It doesn't really matter if the idea comes to fruition or not. As long as the masses believe that science is clever and will "save us" the money will keep flowing to it.

Governments are very keen to fund science ;)

My view is that a lot people that work in science that consider themselves scientists are really technicians serving the paymaster.

Yes, I know, I'm cynical.

Dunno where you get that idea from. Given the amount of time you have to spend in eduction to become a scientist, I'd say it's rather a poorly paid career in which you spend half your time grovelling for funding. I worked as a scientist for a short while after finishing my PhD before finding a far better paid and more secure job as a software developer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunno where you get that idea from. Given the amount of time you have to spend in eduction to become a scientist, I'd say it's rather a poorly paid career in which you spend half your time grovelling for funding. I worked as a scientist for a short while after finishing my PhD before finding a far better paid and more secure job as a software developer.

It's just a "big picture" idea not an individual life experience idea. There are winners and losers across the board in life.

Big Business Organisation is a term I came across. This refers to the organisation of mass society. My research on this leads me to believe that the discipline of science is very powerful in how society is organised. It depends on one's individual viewpoint whether you think that science is helping humanity overall or not. I think the latter.

I find it hard to articulate stuff like this concisely .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"NASA approves impossible space engine design" is pure journalistic hyperbole. Rather less dramatically: Some NASA scientists have published a paper claiming that they may have measured a strange effect that is predicted by some decidedly shaky theory. Or, given that the effect is tiny, it could just be experimental error. I'd say it's very unlikely that the effect is genuine; if it were, though, it'd be a majorly big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I can't really say much about this subject since my only knowledge of it comes from watching Star Trek - where, on the one hand, Scotty would tell us...

...YE CANNAE CHANGE THE LAWS O' PHYSICS CAP'N...!!!

But would then proceed to do exactly that in the very next episode..!

Make yer friggin' mind up Scotty man - James Burke and Carl Sagan might have worn a bit too much Crimpolene, and sported unfeasibly wide ties, but they didn't hit an impressionable 9 year-old with that kind of cockamamie horse-shit...!

You know, I'll bet off-camera, that Scotty fella fiddled with them poor Tribbles...

;)

XYY

scotty1.jpg

Scotty a tribble-fiddler? Never!! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

having just read the extract of the paper produced by NASA, there are no laws of physics broken, and the thrust does need a power source.

NASA mearly tested one of a number of such devices produced by companies. The quantum vacuum virtual plasma device causes particles to move by using the force of electricity.

clearly, for thrust to be made, the particles are pushed out of the launcher and onto the thrust measurer..essentially a flap that bends in the "wind" produced by the now moving particles.

if the device were light enough, the tiny thrust would move the device in the opposite direction. Electricity is consumed in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

having just read the extract of the paper produced by NASA, there are no laws of physics broken, and the thrust does need a power source.

NASA mearly tested one of a number of such devices produced by companies. The quantum vacuum virtual plasma device causes particles to move by using the force of electricity.

clearly, for thrust to be made, the particles are pushed out of the launcher and onto the thrust measurer..essentially a flap that bends in the "wind" produced by the now moving particles.

if the device were light enough, the tiny thrust would move the device in the opposite direction. Electricity is consumed in the process.

So a fancy way of doing something similar to an ion drive, and all that nonsense about no propellant is just nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems to me the "no propellent" bit is in the headline as they are unsure of where the particles come from..they seem to be created by the electricity somehow or there is an conversion of or an aligning of quantum particles ..in my mind, I picture a sort of laser using quantum particles rather than photons, causing a hitherto random existence to stream in one direction, that cannot exist in nature.

the theory is that the fuel for space ships will be solar panels...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a fancy way of doing something similar to an ion drive, and all that nonsense about no propellant is just nonsense.

Sounds about right. It appears to use the Lorentz electromagnetic force to move the ionised fuel. I think the key point is that there is no actual combustion taking place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds about right. It appears to use the Lorentz electromagnetic force to move the ionised fuel. I think the key point is that there is no actual combustion taking place.

That's the description of an ion thruster.

However, the new nasa paper is about a reactionless thruster - no fuel particles are used, just electrical energy. Such a device, much loved by scifi writers, is not consistent with classical physics but might possibly be consistent with quantum theory.

There is a further problem with this report. It's carefully hidden in the text of the paper:

"Thrust was observed on both test

articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce

thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce

thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the null test article). "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the description of an ion thruster.

However, the new nasa paper is about a reactionless thruster - no fuel particles are used, just electrical energy. Such a device, much loved by scifi writers, is not consistent with classical physics but might possibly be consistent with quantum theory.

There is a further problem with this report. It's carefully hidden in the text of the paper:

Yes, it's not an ion thruster. As far as I can make out, the rather hand-wavy hypothesis is that microwaves bouncing around in an asymmetrically shaped cavity somehow interact with the vacuum quantum field to produce a barely measurable thrust, apparently violating the law of conservation of momentum. It would be an astonishing breakthough if it were true, but it's far more likely to be simple experimental error, especially given the problem you pointed out regarding the control experiment.

This looks like a reasonable summary of events.

Edit: As an aside, a more immediately interesting science story is the arrival of the Rosetta space probe at its destination comet tomorrow!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nasa conducts MORE secret tests of its 'impossible engine': Study reveals fuel-free thrusters do work, but no one knows why
2E268A4B00000578-0-image-a-8_14467571451

Details of the test were given by Paul March, one of the top engineers working the EM Drive thruster in Texas. He said improved tests on the thruster removed errors from earlier studies.

Perhaps they should ask the bumble bee?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it can work if it doesn't have a boiler, and can't use coal! :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASA catching up with Walt Whitman there ...

Given that you're making small adjustments and have all the time in the world, can you not sail the solar interplanetary winds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only decent way of moving anything when a horse isn't enough for the job.

And it makes a great chuffing sound, and is reassuringly warm! :wacko: A bit like my ex wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do the powers that be suddenly want us to think Star Trek is going to happen?

Cos it gives hope.

Hope we could bundle up all those migrants swimming the Med and send them to Mars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   224 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.