4um: Breakthrough: NASA Confirms Electromagnetic Drive Produces Thrust in Vacuum

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Science/Tech
See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Breakthrough: NASA Confirms Electromagnetic Drive Produces Thrust in Vacuum
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: May 2, 2015
Author: staff
Post Date: 2015-05-02 23:53:47 by Tatarewicz
Keywords: None
Views: 66
Comments: 7

Sputnik... Scientists at Johnson Space Center, successfully tested the EM drive in a vacuum, yielding results that "defy classical physics” expectations that such a closed (microwave) cavity should be unusable for space propulsion because of the law of conservation of momentum," NASA announced Wednesday.
The idea that the NASA Eagleworks propulsion research group has been working on — as it was proposed in 2001 — is that such a device, operating in such a cavity would convert electrical energy directly into motion (thrust) without requiring fuel.
— Aaron Linde (@aaronlinde) April 30, 2015
Scientists had generally thought propellant expulsion was needed to balance the change in the momentum of the spacecraft, but the head of the Eagleworks group, Dr. Richard White, offered an explanation.
"Dr. White proposed that the EM Drive’s thrust was due to the Quantum Vacuum (the quantum state with the lowest possible energy) behaving like propellant ions behave in a MagnetoHydroDynamics drive (a method electrifying propellant and then directing it with magnetic fields to push a spacecraft in the opposite direction) for spacecraft propulsion."
"In Dr. White’s model, the propellant ions of the MagnetoHydroDynamics drive are replaced as the fuel source by the virtual particles of the Quantum Vacuum, eliminating the need to carry propellant."
Though reports that NASA has accidentally created warp drive remain premature, the breakthrough could have enormous significance for space travel.
— Jenn Frank (@jennatar) April 28, 2015
For the International Space Station, the drives could mean enormous savings by reducing the need to resupply fuel, and also could entirely eliminate the need for visiting vehicles to "reboost the station" — adjust its position to keep it from falling back into the earth's atmosphere.
If scientists manage to hook up the drive to a nuclear power source, suddenly the galaxy would feel a lot smaller — with a trip to Mars lasting about 70 days, with a 90 day stay on the surface and 70 days back, as opposed to the current three years.
A trip to the moon could take as little as four hours.
— Civilization (@CivGame) April 30, 2015

Read more: sputniknews.com/science/2...547280.html#ixzz3Z2nL9DD0
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Tatarewicz (#0)
Translate please. Closer to perpetual motion?

NeoconsNailed posted on 2015-05-03 0:57:55 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#2. To: NeoconsNailed (#1)
Translate please. Closer to perpetual motion?

I'll take a stab at it...
According to the article, NASA has confirmed that it is possible for an object to propel itself through space by only using electricity. The flow of electricity creates some kind of field that generates thrust that can be controlled, and why this works is largely a mystery.
This type of propulsion system would be very advantageous over conventional chemical thrust systems because the fuel source would not eventually be expelled into space (chemical rockets expel mass in the form of hot gases, which originated with the fuel). This means the fuel is much more efficient, further meaning that space craft can be smaller and lighter. Perhaps in part because of that, travel times through space can be reduced by maybe 80 - 95%. (Ships can travel 5-20 times faster than currently possible.).

Pinguinite posted on 2015-05-03 4:59:59 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#3. To: Pinguinite (#2)
Do I have something correct.... rocket thrust can work anywhere, even without something to push against?
Say a conventional rocket in space is standing still and the (engines?) are fired. I assume it gets back in motion, even without earth, moon or some other great heavy object to push away from? How does that work of so -- how is it the rocket doesn't merely become a huge flame thrower at that point.

NeoconsNailed posted on 2015-05-03 7:48:20 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#4. To: NeoconsNailed (#3) (Edited)
Do I have something correct.... rocket thrust can work anywhere, even without something to push against?

Rocket thrust works because it's, essentially, pushing against itself...i.e. the rocket...
I actually saw a blurb on Google news about this a week or so ago and in the blurb there was a link to this forum: forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.0
--Fuck your breath.
war posted on 2015-05-03 8:34:40 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#5. To: NeoconsNailed (#3)
Say a conventional rocket in space is standing still and the (engines?) are fired. I assume it gets back in motion, even without earth, moon or some other great heavy object to push away from? How does that work of so -- how is it the rocket doesn't merely become a huge flame thrower at that point.

Consider that the rocket consists of both the vessel itself, as well as the fuel it contains.
As part of the mass of the rocket is thrown in one direction, the rest of the mass of the rocket is pushed in the opposite direction.
That mass could be pushed by any means, including something as simple as a spring pushing a piece of the rocket itself into space.
But with chemical rocket engines, the mass expelled is the gasses that are emitted from the rocket motors. Instead of a spring, the hot gasses are pushed out by the pressure generated by the burning fuel.
You are right in your thinking in one way though: The "average" location, called the "center of mass" in scientific speak, does not change location when any thrust is exerted. That is, if the rocket burned 50% of it's total weight in fuel to move 10 miles, then it means the "average" location of the expelled gas would be 10 miles in the opposite direction from the starting point, and when we subtract the movement of the gas from the movement of the rocket, then we get the starting location of the rocket before it started thrusting.
That is the law of "Conservation of Momentum" referred to in the article, which this potentially new propulsion system seems to violate, because no mass appears to be pushed in the opposite direction of thrusted movement.
Does this make sense?

Pinguinite posted on 2015-05-03 14:04:41 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#6. To: Tatarewicz (#0)
from some.of the processes i have seen this one strikes me as.... well i think this works but i think their is better. regardless if i understand what they are saying , they will be using magnets to pull a substance into the the chamber to provide thrust, more like propulsion via impact rathar than traditional explosive chemcial thrust.
i wonder how long it will take to put it into practical use?
______________________________________
Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.
titorite posted on 2015-05-03 17:06:36 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#7. To: Pinguinite (#5) (Edited)
I'm sure it does, I just don't see how it can. But I'm a lifelong scientific failure. Clearly the craft we send into space to go running around looking at Saturn's rings etc. are propelling themselves this way and that as directed by NASA or pre-programming, so it must be as you say.

NeoconsNailed posted on 2015-05-05 15:42:46 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um