Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: Is emission-less propulsion possible? I believe it is... [View all]Bernardo de La Paz
(50,898 posts)54. It's an EmDrive. Better tests eliminate it.
{emphasis added}
The EmDrive is a concept for a thruster for spacecraft, first written about in 2001.[2][3][4][5] It is purported to generate thrust by reflecting microwaves inside the device, in a way that would violate the law of conservation of momentum and other laws of physics.[6][7][8][9][10] The concept has at times been referred to as a resonant cavity thruster.[11][12]
There is no official design for this device. Neither person who claims to have invented it has committed to an explanation for how it could operate as a thruster or what elements define it, making it hard to say definitively whether a given object is an example of an EmDrive. However, over the years, prototypes based on its public descriptions have been constructed and tested.
In 2016, Harold White's group at NASA observed a small apparent thrust from one such test,[13] however subsequent studies suggested this was a measurement error caused by thermal gradients.[14][15] In 2021, Martin Tajmar's group at the Dresden University of Technology replicated White's test, observing apparent thrusts similar to those measured by the NASA team, and then made them disappear again when measured using point suspension.[1]
No other published experiment has measured apparent thrust greater than the experiment's margin of error.[16] Tajmar's group published three papers in 2021 claiming that all published results showing thrust had been false positives, explaining each by outside forces. They concluded, "Our measurements refute all EmDrive claims by at least 3 orders of magnitude."[1]
There is no official design for this device. Neither person who claims to have invented it has committed to an explanation for how it could operate as a thruster or what elements define it, making it hard to say definitively whether a given object is an example of an EmDrive. However, over the years, prototypes based on its public descriptions have been constructed and tested.
In 2016, Harold White's group at NASA observed a small apparent thrust from one such test,[13] however subsequent studies suggested this was a measurement error caused by thermal gradients.[14][15] In 2021, Martin Tajmar's group at the Dresden University of Technology replicated White's test, observing apparent thrusts similar to those measured by the NASA team, and then made them disappear again when measured using point suspension.[1]
No other published experiment has measured apparent thrust greater than the experiment's margin of error.[16] Tajmar's group published three papers in 2021 claiming that all published results showing thrust had been false positives, explaining each by outside forces. They concluded, "Our measurements refute all EmDrive claims by at least 3 orders of magnitude."[1]
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
84 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I really hope this is all tongue-in-cheek. If so, that's one for you! Just in case...
NCIndie
Dec 2023
#5
Ok... please read a little farther down the post please... There is no plan for a shotgun based propulsion design...
mikelewis
Dec 2023
#7
I'm not an AI robot and your challenge was based on scientific inquiry. I responded in kind...
mikelewis
Dec 2023
#11
I think you're missing the point... none of those are useful for extended space travel... or can reach similar speeds
mikelewis
Dec 2023
#4
This isn't about the energy required to run it.. that's still a problem... for a bit... we first have to see....
mikelewis
Dec 2023
#8
I built this idea fighting A for the past year... lol... so thank you I do appreciate skepticism. It built this idea.
mikelewis
Dec 2023
#12
That is precisely why I am here... I have had my ass handed to me so many times on this forum.... LOL
mikelewis
Dec 2023
#14
You're going to build a car with zero carbon footprint because of renewables+nuclear?
NCIndie
Dec 2023
#19
Here, I think, is the fundamental error - whether ChatGPT's or yours, I can't tell from the formatting
muriel_volestrangler
Dec 2023
#73
OK, some numbers for position (Python? Why Python? This is a physics problem, not a numerical procedure)
muriel_volestrangler
Dec 2023
#81
Can you try to write better, please? Your questions, or messages, are obscured by your style.
muriel_volestrangler
Dec 2023
#84
The apparent paradox arises from a simplified view of the situation and is resolved when considering the full complexity
mikelewis
Dec 2023
#33
This part of the argument is where chatgpt is completely botching the physics.
Salviati
Dec 2023
#37
I wouldn't trust ChatGPT to count my toes accurately. It wasn't written to do that.
OKIsItJustMe
Dec 2023
#41
"They're trying to move mass with electrons... they need to move mass with mass"
Bernardo de La Paz
Dec 2023
#55
Not logic. "view count" is not equal to "copy-paste" nor equal to "don't understand the math"
Bernardo de La Paz
Dec 2023
#62
If you want to be taken seriously, and you clearly do, then don't be childish. . . . nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Dec 2023
#65