Reactionless Drive Systems.

Discussion in 'Alternative Technologies & Energetics' started by CasualBystander, Dec 20, 2017.

  1. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    20,120
    Here's an interesting read, the Germans say it doesn't work, disinformation maybe?...

    German Scientists Disprove NASA’s EmDrive

    The EmDrive doesn’t work according to German scientists who attempted to recreate NASA’s “successful” experiment and showed that it couldn’t have worked because it’s impossible. When in the name of Nikolas Tesla and Newton’s Third Law of Motion did that ever stop anybody?

    A corollary to the aforementioned EmDrive adage is: If you can explain it, you don’t understand it. In the simplest of terms, the EmDrive is a conical radio frequency (RF) resonant cavity thruster that was said to create propellantless propulsion by shooting microwaves inside the cone which pushed against the narrow front end and propelled the craft forward … to infinity and beyond.

    First designed by engineer Roger Sawyer in 2001, it challenged scientists (not to mention Newton’s Third Law of Motion) until 2014 when NASA claimed its Advanced Propulsion Physics Laboratory (Eagleworks Laboratories) had defeated “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” and created measurable propellantless thrust.

    [​IMG]

    “Bull hockey!” (or some form of that) said everyone who believed Newton’s Law was one of the things holding our fragile universe together. ‘Everyone’ includes a team in Germany led by Martin Tajmar of the Institute of Aerospace Engineering at Technische Universität Dresden.

    They set out to either create their own better EmDrive or prove NASA wrong and Sir Isaac right. According to their paper, presented last week at the Space Propulsion 2018 conference held in Seville, Spain, the researchers followed NASA’s design, built an EmDrive called SpaceDrive, tested it in a vacuum and measured … something. Was it propellantless thrust?


    [​IMG]

    NASA’s EmDrive

    It was the cables! Tajmar’s team determined that what NASA detected and thought to be propellantless thrust from the EmDrive was actually just a reaction between the EmDrive’s twisted-pair cables and Earth’s magnetic field. What is the German word for ‘Gotcha!’?

    So German space travelers won’t be flying to infinity and beyond in an EmDrive-powered spacecraft anytime soon. However, the team made sure to point out to their investors and donors that the project was not a total loss.


    Your move, NASA.
     
  2. CasualBystander

    CasualBystander Celestial

    Messages:
    2,213
    This is dumb.

    TEST IT IN SPACE.

    Let's flip this over. Tajmar is saying that you can use the power of magnetism to maintain orbit.

    If the satellites could use the power of magnetism to maintain orbit they would have been doing it already.

    One way to look at it is Tajmar and EMDrive are walking the plank on opposite sides of the ship.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    20,120
    I'm sure the cables NASA was using were insulated I think they're making excuses...
     
  4. CasualBystander

    CasualBystander Celestial

    Messages:
    2,213
    There is two completely different things.

    NASA used a seal vacuum chamber (metal) for their last test. Depending on a number of things this should have reduced magnetic influence.

    Shielding magnetic flux is different than shielding electrical leakage. Air isn't a good medium for magnetic flux, iron is much better - which is why transformers have iron cores - usually laminated to reduce eddy currents.

    Started looking into the force carrier for magnetism (which has to be a photon) and the answers on physics forums are just daffy.

    Going to revisit this.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. 3FEL9

    3FEL9 Islander

    Messages:
    2,222
    And it gets worse when they try to find the graviton
     
  6. CasualBystander

    CasualBystander Celestial

    Messages:
    2,213
    The problem is
    Well... I'm still looking for the answer. It would have to be a very low frequency low energy particle.

    In theory it would have to be sub-Hertz.
     
  7. Zeke

    Zeke Infrequent

    Messages:
    891
    So this EmDrive is as real as my game's alternative fuel option to move about space? (@51sec)


     
  8. CasualBystander

    CasualBystander Celestial

    Messages:
    2,213

    Don't know.

    Just realized that a static electric or magnetic field is mediated by virtual particles not photons.

    The proof is that a refrigerator magnet doesn't have to be recharged and doesn't fall off the fridge after an hour or so.

    Perhaps someone good at physics can explain.

    Otherwise I will go figure it out.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. 3FEL9

    3FEL9 Islander

    Messages:
    2,222
    Another sign that this world is made up by pretty kinky stuff someone yet havent found and published in peer reviewed journals

    I'm sure you already brushed this over Virtual particle - Wikipedia
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. 3FEL9

    3FEL9 Islander

    Messages:
    2,222
    • Like Like x 1
  11. CasualBystander

    CasualBystander Celestial

    Messages:
    2,213
    The Magnetic sail on a spacecraft would be the equivalent of the drogue chute on a dragster.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  12. humanoidlord

    humanoidlord ce3 researcher

    Messages:
    4,327
    agree with casual, first test it in space, questions later
     
  13. CasualBystander

    CasualBystander Celestial

    Messages:
    2,213
    NASA found that the unit produced 1.2 millinewtons per kilowatt but only tested it at a maximum of 80 watts.

    The black body radiation law is:
    [​IMG]

    where σ equals:
    [​IMG]

    In space the roughly 1 meter squared surface area of an EMDrive would only get to a little above boiling if you pumped 2500 watts (2.5 kW) into it.

    So yeah - test it in space where they can pump real power into it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. 3FEL9

    3FEL9 Islander

    Messages:
    2,222
    It might be bulky and difficult to deploy and arrange into a good sucking position but --> drag ???

    You might need to check the average density of free interplanetary space
     
  15. CasualBystander

    CasualBystander Celestial

    Messages:
    2,213
    Some places it's above average, and some places it is below average. An average is only meaningful if on average it is average.

    Things like the average population density per square mile of Canada aren't useful numbers since the population density per square mile of Canada isn't average. There is either population or there isn't.

    Coming into a star system at high speed you would need a heavy cable to hold on to your magnetic sail.

    The solar system is up to 100 particles/cm³. If I can find a figure for Kg/km³, I'll post it. At 100+ km/s it doesn't take a high density to create a lot of drag. Further - you are repelling the particles not just creating inertial drag.

    As a side note:
    Earth is the densest planet in the solar system. And we aren't talking about the people either.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2018
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  16. spacecase0

    spacecase0 earth human

    Messages:
    1,000
    I totally agree that they need to test it in space.

    the guy that came up with this drive that NASA labeled as impossible has made many generations of thrusters past the original one that NASA is using, I wonder why no one is looking to what this guy is doing.

    then go look at this other group,
    spacewarp
    they have lots of thrust out.

    I would pay no attention to the person that claims to have disproved it,
    mostly because a failure to reproduce something is not an actual disproof.

    I need to test this idea,
    but looking at the common elements to the reactionless drives
    I think I have it figured out.
    just like in a homopolar generator, you can spin the magnet with the disk, or have it external and not spinning, so the magnetic field is just focused by the magnet, it is not really "linked" to the field it makes

    so now look at a rotating electrostatic field, it makes a magnetic field. (I have tested this part)
    I bet this magnetic field is not physically "linked" to that field that made it. so now you have a magnetic field that is just floating out there not connected to anything.
    so you can use that magnetic field to push off of with another standard magnet
    and if that is the case, it would show how every one of the reactionless thrust devices work

    as to what gravity is, I am convinced it is a time field that is created by the orbit (or vortex) of the "electrons" around atoms. see the works of Carl Frederic Krafft and Wilbert Smith for details
     
  17. CasualBystander

    CasualBystander Celestial

    Messages:
    2,213
    Eugene Podkletnov did good work in this area. He got odd results from a superconducting disk.

    NASA botched their attempt to reproduce his work because they weren't good enough at ceramics.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  18. CasualBystander

    CasualBystander Celestial

    Messages:
    2,213
  19. 3FEL9

    3FEL9 Islander

    Messages:
    2,222
    Just wondering..

    What is reactionless propulsion anyhow...

    Not thrusting any materials. I get that part.. But said forces still asserts something onto the space craft.

    And reactions will be... there
     
  20. spacecase0

    spacecase0 earth human

    Messages:
    1,000
    start thinking about what inertia is
    if you could "magically" generate it, something could move without other reaction
    clearly the thing moving is a reaction,
    but the word reaction is used in the context of "equal and opposite reaction"
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1

Share This Page