Posted on 09/02/2016 8:39:52 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
“For every action, there’s an equal and opposite reaction.” So goes Newton’s third law, and despite the developments of relativity and quantum mechanics, that fundamental law of the Universe — otherwise known as the conservation of momentum — has never been challenged. Yet a few years ago, a new space drive that claims to break that exact law was proposed and put forth by inventor Roger Shawyer, the EMdrive. Unlike conventional rocket engines, which cause thrust in one direction by propelling exhaust outwards in the opposite direction, the EMdrive claims to take an external source of power and convert it into a positive thrust with no corresponding reaction.
And despite the fact that this seems to violate the known laws of physics, a prototype device was submitted to NASA’s Eagleworks lab for testing. Perhaps surprisingly, the test came back positive: there was thrust observed despite the lack of a reaction. And if Dr. José Rodal from the NASA Spaceflight forums can be trusted, the paper resulting from the test, “Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio Frequency Cavity in Vacuum” by Harold White et al., was just accepted for publication in the peer reviewed Journal Of Propulsion And Power, by AIAA....
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
It’s a directional microwave transmitter that exerts a very small thrust in one direction. A flashlight could be also be a propulsion device.
Thrust from a flashlight doesn’t violate Newton’s Third Law.
Peer review means nothing at NASA since they believe in globull warming.
You’re all seagulls!!!!
My first reaction, too. “Peer Review”? Read the East Anglia emails or Michael Man’s work to get a sense of the value of peer review.
If you dump in 1 watt of electric energy, you should get at least less tha 1 watt kinetic enery in one direct and not violate any law.
http://boingboing.net/2014/11/24/the-quest-for-a-reactionless-s.html
This is very good news.
“The engine is controversial because it seems to violate one of the fundamental concepts of physics - the conservation of momentum, which states that for something to be propelled forward, it needs some kind of propellant to be pushed out in the opposite direction. But the EM Drive doesn’t require any propellant in order to create thrust, it simply relies on electromagnetic waves.
However, British scientist Roger Shawyer, who invented the EM Drive in the early 2000s, disagrees that his design violates the conservation of motion. “To put it simply, electricity converts into microwaves within the cavity that push against the inside of the device, causing the thruster to accelerate in the opposite direction,”
Obviously the EM drive will not only allow us to travel to Alpha Centauri in a fortnight, but it will also lead to a cure for some (but unfortunately not all) forms of cancer, Alzheimer's, and the common cold.
It will also be the preferred drive for fusion energy devices which we would be able to hold in our hands ... if the devices didn't turn them into plasma.
Let the naysayers nay away. This will the beginning of the end to all the problems that plague mankind.
Except Hillary. There is no solution for a problem so persistent and diabolical.
Unless, of course, you're arguing for the efficacy of alternative medicine versus pharmaceuticals.
Then the lack of peer review allows the vilest of calumny.
It’s not the energy content but the momentum transfer that counts. A Giga-watt light beam has the momentum transfer with a perfect mirror’s reflection to accelerate a squirrel at 1 G—levitate above the ground. Better be a perfect reflector or will vaporize said tree-rat in the blink of an eye.
But, what about the heartbreak of psoriasis?
‘Strange thrust: the unproven science that could propel our children into space.’
Parents will love it.
Some people like to say “Break the laws of physics.”
Sorry, but those “laws” are not like laws passed by legislative bodies. Those laws CANNOT be broken, because they are not laws. They are an logical and organized description of the way that things work. It is impossible to “break” the way that things work. It is possible to describe it incorrectly due to incomplete knowledge of the workings of the Universe.
If indeed this engine works as described, then the current “laws” are wrong, and need to be restated. However, in this case, as in all preceding, the “laws” of physics were not broken, and it was discovered that the wild claims of a pseudo-scientist clamoring for fame and fortune were fit only for the National Enquirer.
Neither does this.
The innovation is in the lack of a reaction mass. Not needing a vast amount of rocket fuel that shoots out of a nozzle makes for smaller, lighter, more efficient propulsion powered by electricity. The result is much faster space travel.
Energy is the reaction mass, and energy - microwaves or photons, carry momentum. Energy from a power source is converted (with some heat loses) into microwaves, which carries off some of the energy/momentum in a preferred direction. That is your thrust.
But energy is fed in constantly, where does the energy go? Has to be heat, vibration, or EM waves of some other wavelength.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.