NASA Confirms New EM Thruster Violates Laws Of Conservation

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Once you factor in the outside sources of an open system it's meaningless to call it "over unity". There are zero examples of over unity energy production in this universe.

the various energy forces outside are besides the point. what matters at the end of the day is will it power a light when you flip a switch. a user does not care that there is a huge molten blob putting out yochtawatts of power off stage from them. they want to be warm in winter and cool in summer. and since they are but they are not paying per kilowatt hour they don't need to gripe about the power inputs outside thier system.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
actually the probable deal killer for blacklight is not over unity. Admittedly; thats kind of a warning flag. the deal killer would most probably be the evocation of bizarre energy rest states undetected by all of nuclear physics and chemistry and non standard model particles with impossible properties according to the standard model.

The standard model is crap. It can't explain BLP's results, while Mill's theory can.

Mills' theory can predict atomic binding energies with virtually no error. In terms of modeling molecules, Mills' theory blows the standard model out of the water. It's not even close.

Theory does not dictate reality. A theory is just a model. Reality is what dictates models, not vice versa. Engineering possibilities have been denied us for far too long because scientists refuse to accept this simple, yet fundamental, principle of science.

what i am saying is that observationally no one has seen a spectra line from the energy states BLP posits. the rational assumption is that we know all of the possible energy states for electron orbitals and nucleonic isomers.

there are plenty of models out there that describe things properly but make predictions of stuff that is never seen. soem models don't make testable predictions at all.

i dabble in a non mathematical way with all sorts of space time models because i want dearly that warp drives, or krasnikov tubes and so forth are possible. they all describe cosmology. but the model is not the thing itself.

i hope blacklight succeeds but their explanations do not lend me confidence. i am not gonna say like some skeptics that it is impossible. it might work even if their model is completely wrong. this EM thruster is working. but the reasoning may be wrong. it's perfectly ok if it is. so long as the device itself works somehow.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

You might as well say it's powered by magic, then. It's equally as fanciful.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
actually the probable deal killer for blacklight is not over unity. Admittedly; thats kind of a warning flag. the deal killer would most probably be the evocation of bizarre energy rest states undetected by all of nuclear physics and chemistry and non standard model particles with impossible properties according to the standard model.

The standard model is crap. It can't explain BLP's results, while Mill's theory can.

Mills' theory can predict atomic binding energies with virtually no error. In terms of modeling molecules, Mills' theory blows the standard model out of the water. It's not even close.

Theory does not dictate reality. A theory is just a model. Reality is what dictates models, not vice versa. Engineering possibilities have been denied us for far too long because scientists refuse to accept this simple, yet fundamental, principle of science.

standard model has nothing to do with this its mills claims of hydrinos that have no basis in reality. He made them up plain and simple look his hydrinos violate everything we have learned. Yet you make this wild claim the standard model cant explain it of course it cant it doesnt exist. Standard model cant explain fairies either. The most outragous part is no ome takes this theory to its logical conclusion. When hes claiming that you can get energy out of ground state atoms is, in fact, a claim that what look like ordinary hydrogen atoms at rest are actually atoms in some kind of meta-stable excited state. Blacklight power lies regularly like misquoting NASA studies for example.

1. HYDRINO ROCKETS: PASCAL'S WAGER IS ALIVE AND WELL AT NASA.
According to a story in Wired, NASA's Institute for Advanced Concepts is funding a study to test the feasibility of powering a rocket by the hydrino process. A call to the Director of the IAC in Atlanta confirmed that an engineering professor at Rowan University will conduct the test. According to Randell Mills of BlackLight Power, if ordinary hydrogen atoms make a transition into "a state below the ground state," they become teeny little things called "hydrinos," liberating large amounts of energy. It's all in Mill's "Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics." Is NASA taking this wacky notion seriously - again? Should we remind NASA that it tested the hydrino claim 10 years ago when BlackLight Power was still called HydroCatalysis? NASA was looking for a way to power a mission to Pluto. Results were "inconclusive." That's NASA talk for "it didn't work."

Another big clue is scientific papers always lead straight back to blacklight power they get someone to print a story of supposed proof than use that as proof wow. Its funny they create a release than get a paper to announce the release than have a story written by another paper based off a paper based off there own release. Its a con but i tell you what im willing to listen have any proof of hydrinos other than mills himself?

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

The device produced about 40 micronewtons of force compared to the RF null device that produced none. This means it is highly unlikely the observed forces are simply due to testing artifacts.

That's not true:

Null testing is performed by attaching the RF drive system to a 50 ohm load and running the system at full power. The null force testing indicated that there was an average null force of 9.6 micronewtons present in the as tested configuration. The presence of this null force was a result of the DC power current of 5.6 amps running in the power cable to the RF amplifier from the liquid metal contacts. This current causes the power cable to generate a magnetic field that interacts with the torsion pendulum magnetic damper system.

They need to repeat the test with some kind of non-magnetic damper system. The use of a magnetic damper is necessarily going to lead to interaction with electromagnetic fields generated by the test devices and equipment.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
actually the probable deal killer for blacklight is not over unity. Admittedly; thats kind of a warning flag. the deal killer would most probably be the evocation of bizarre energy rest states undetected by all of nuclear physics and chemistry and non standard model particles with impossible properties according to the standard model.

The standard model is crap. It can't explain BLP's results, while Mill's theory can.

Everyone else's theory says Mills' scam invention is rubbish, but his own theory explains it perfectly?

Well colour me totally astonished!

well we're discussing EM thrusters i thought. but what if the "hydrino" is something else?

hypothetically or i should say theoretically it is possible to make nucleons of non baryonic matter. for example muonium and kaonium have been synthesized though single atoms of these are unstable and decay almost immediately. who knows if they would be stable if they're were more of them or not? a neutron is unstable unless partnered with a proton. it decays in about ten or 11 minutes. but in an atom it lasts billions of years at the very least.

theoretically atoms with unusual properties could be made of various species of magnetic monopoles. such atoms would be stable and would be 2000 times smaller than regular atomic nuclei. matter made of it would be unmeltable, and nearly impervious to any type of damage short of the most energetic of gamma rays.

depending upon the species of monopole various things would happen when encountering other monopoles, regular matter and so on.

or what about non normal combinations of quarks in nucleons? such things are technically possible.

what of mirror matter?

there are things that a "hydrino" could be within the standard model and various extensions. but what evidence is there for new species called a hydrino on it's own merits? if BLP catches on of these and examines it and it turns out that a hydrino is just a odd name for one of these odd standard model affairs what then? the rest states of these weirdos could certainly be different because the binding energy is in part determined by the length the bonding energy has to reach out. the shorter the distance the more energy.

what if BLP's terminology is a bit off? a smaller particle or amalgam exists but it is a known or theoretical accepted particle?

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Problem is you cant get more energy from a hydrogen atom without violating the laws of conservation of energy. we can release energy from hydrogen By burning for example we bond it with oxygen which creates water and oxygen 2H2 +2O2 → 2H2O + O2 . Hes magically reversing this process so he claims.

Looks like, dare I say, Die Glocke to me, once you turn the photo 90 degrees.
Nice bell shaped electrical drive. See they got ahead of themselves with all that
Mars nonsense using conventional rockets, sooo they had to update the narrative
by showing something a little more promising.

Man, this slow road to 2040 is for the birds, lets get on with it already, roll out the real stuff.

mashable.com...

originally posted by: nataylor

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

The device produced about 40 micronewtons of force compared to the RF null device that produced none. This means it is highly unlikely the observed forces are simply due to testing artifacts.

That's not true:

Null testing is performed by attaching the RF drive system to a 50 ohm load and running the system at full power. The null force testing indicated that there was an average null force of 9.6 micronewtons present in the as tested configuration. The presence of this null force was a result of the DC power current of 5.6 amps running in the power cable to the RF amplifier from the liquid metal contacts. This current causes the power cable to generate a magnetic field that interacts with the torsion pendulum magnetic damper system.

They need to repeat the test with some kind of non-magnetic damper system. The use of a magnetic damper is necessarily going to lead to interaction with electromagnetic fields generated by the test devices and equipment.

To quote the paper directly:

The resistive RF Load evaluation indicated no significant systemic cause for torsion pendulum displacement. Based upon this observation, both test articles (slotted and unslotted) produced significant thrust in both orientations (forward and reverse).
...
Finally, a 50 ohm RF resistive load was used in place of the test article to verify no significant systemic effects that would cause apparent or real torsion pendulum displacements. The RF load was energized twice at an amplifier output power of approximately 28 watts and no significant pendulum arm displacements were observed. Torsion pendulum calibration displacements (corresponding to approximately 29 micronewtons each) were performed immediately before and after thrust measurements.

The part you quoted was for the tapered cavity test. I noticed you didn't bother to include the first part of that paragraph. Here's what comes right before the part you quoted:

The (net) peak thrust observed for this tested configuration was 116 micronewtons and the (net) mean thrust over the five runs was 91.2 micronewtons.

So, 9.6 micronewtons in the null test vs. 116 micronewtons in the cavity test.

STOMP YO FEET AND DENY BELIEF!

Catchy headline but it is not entirely true. Energy is not created from nothing, it is caught from light that is captured via PV panels. The way the thrust is created via microwaves is groundbreaking.

It is revolutionary however it does not violate the laws on conservation.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Problem is you cant get more energy from a hydrogen atom without violating the laws of conservation of energy. we can release energy from hydrogen By burning for example we bond it with oxygen which creates water and oxygen 2H2 +2O2 → 2H2O + O2 . Hes magically reversing this process so he claims.

except a synthetic hydrogen atom made of magnetic monopoles would have far more energy than a normal matter hydrogen atom. the nuclear binding energy scales with the (decrease of the) distance the binding energy must act across. same thing with the electronic bonding energy.

of course finding a "hydrogen" atom with it's bits 2000 times smaller than normal particles would be difficult. a normal nucleus is picometers across.

the following is from a hard sci fi website. howeverthe monopole stuff is supported by several real world peer reviewed papers on monopoles and monopole matter which are footnoted in the sections on exotic matter:

The smallest magatoms have diameters of 3E-19 m, 300 million times smaller than an atom of conventional matter. As a typical magatom is 10,000 times heavier than a typical conventional atom, magmatter’s typical density is 1E33 kg/m3. Since force is energy per unit distance, the force needed to break a magchemical bond is larger than that needed to break an electronic chemical bond by a factor of the energy scaling (300 GeV / 13.7 eV) divided by the length scaling, or 7 million trillion (7E18). The strength of a material is usually defined as the force per unit area required to make the material fail. Since each magchemical bond can withstand 7E18 times greater force, and there are (300 million)2 times more bonds per unit area, the strength of magmatter is about 8E35 times greater than that of its normal matter equivalent.

For applications where high strength materials are required, the relevant parameter is usually the strength per unit mass (if you have a weak but very light material, you can compensate for low strength by using a lot of the stuff, and maybe still end up with a lighter weight structure than if you used a strong but dense material). Strength per unit mass is usually measured by the free breaking length, or how tall a structure of the given material can be in a homogeneous gravity field of 1G before it collapses under its own weight. It is proportional to the binding energy ratio (300 GeV / 13.7 eV) and inversely proportional to the ratio of magatom masses (10,000). The free breaking length is therefore approximately 2 million times longer than that of an equivalent conventional mass. While typical magmatter materials have free breaking lengths of approximately 200 million kilometers, materials with free breaking lengths up to 20 billion kilometers are known. This means that magmatter has the tensile strength required to hold a Banks orbital or even a Ringworld together.

that stuff has a lot of energy in it. if the "hydrino" is really something like this or something like some of the other forms of exotic particles i have suggested it really could have a lot of energy and could have unusual rest energy in it.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: nataylor

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

The device produced about 40 micronewtons of force compared to the RF null device that produced none. This means it is highly unlikely the observed forces are simply due to testing artifacts.

That's not true:

Null testing is performed by attaching the RF drive system to a 50 ohm load and running the system at full power. The null force testing indicated that there was an average null force of 9.6 micronewtons present in the as tested configuration. The presence of this null force was a result of the DC power current of 5.6 amps running in the power cable to the RF amplifier from the liquid metal contacts. This current causes the power cable to generate a magnetic field that interacts with the torsion pendulum magnetic damper system.

They need to repeat the test with some kind of non-magnetic damper system. The use of a magnetic damper is necessarily going to lead to interaction with electromagnetic fields generated by the test devices and equipment.

To quote the paper directly:

The resistive RF Load evaluation indicated no significant systemic cause for torsion pendulum displacement. Based upon this observation, both test articles (slotted and unslotted) produced significant thrust in both orientations (forward and reverse).
...
Finally, a 50 ohm RF resistive load was used in place of the test article to verify no significant systemic effects that would cause apparent or real torsion pendulum displacements. The RF load was energized twice at an amplifier output power of approximately 28 watts and no significant pendulum arm displacements were observed. Torsion pendulum calibration displacements (corresponding to approximately 29 micronewtons each) were performed immediately before and after thrust measurements.

The part you quoted was for the tapered cavity test. I noticed you didn't bother to include the first part of that paragraph. Here's what comes right before the part you quoted:

The (net) peak thrust observed for this tested configuration was 116 micronewtons and the (net) mean thrust over the five runs was 91.2 micronewtons.

So, 9.6 micronewtons in the null test vs. 116 micronewtons in the cavity test.

STOMP YO FEET AND DENY BELIEF!

You're confused about what was tested. The test you you reference with "no significant displacement" was simply powering up the test equipment without one of the actual test articles in the chamber. That's not the "null test." The null test article was specifically designed not to produce thrust. Yet it did (at an average of 91.2 micronewtons as you quoted). It also produced 9.6 micronewtons due to the electromagnetic force of electricity flowing through power cable exerting a force on the magnetic dampening system. So when you said the null test article produced no thrust, you were wrong.

originally posted by: Rob48

New theories are not ridiculed AS LONG AS they fit the observations.

People who say science isn't open to new ideas are idiots. Every single theory we have now was once a new idea. Science picks the fittest theories and kills the weak ones. It's like evolution

If it is so, If I am an idiot saying the current science status quo is more conservative than today's religion, and puts new taboos instead of removing old ones, and accepts as dogmas absurd science theories (that I mentioned but you didn't address particularly in your "answer"),

then would you please explain to me and to the worldwide readers how the flying saucers fly from the view point of the dogmatic narrow minded today's science? They are observational fact witnessed by hundreds of thousands if not more people who cannot be all called idiots, dreamers etc. The answer is today's taboo science doesn't have the answer, because it accepted several unchangeable dogmas at its foundation. One of these dogmas just failed with the NASA experiment.

BTW, I notice a constant trend the topics that go UFO direction, zero point energy, antigravity etc, are objects of attacks in terms of calling posters with psychiatric names, ridicules of all kind,a nd not discussion on the matter.

Where is the discussion of the Hawking's mini black holes for example? Where is the discussion on Kip Thrne's wormhole theory that I mentioned too? No I am not answered THAT.
I do not accept such tone of discussion! Go call idiot someone else who would listen your "arguments"!

The Old Conservation Law just failed based on proven Experiment of NASA.
Please discuss That, not the Posters who criticize today's scientific detachment of reality! I am happy there are more posters whose views on that are similar to mine. Today's mainstream science do not provide an answer to these observed and proved phenomena. For quite some decades btw. Now NASA makes a difference with that and several other recent breaking news. I support what is NASA doing! This is the only possible way forward for not only NASA but all other institutions that pretend to be scientific, and not dogma-taboo driven ones!

LOL what thread was this that you speak of? Very much a sweet discovery a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

originally posted by: 2012newstart
. . . would you please explain to me and to the worldwide readers how the flying saucers fly from the view point of the dogmatic narrow minded today's science? They are observational fact witnessed of too many people to be called all of them idiots etc.

Touché

For those who would still think I attack science from non-scientific positions of someone uneducated, let again concentrate attention on something I TALKED ABOUT that was not addressed by anyone of you guys as something unimportant, irrelevant or may be crazy and wrong.

"Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy" January 17, 1995
Professor Thorne researches the wormholes for decades. He clearly proves with math, based on Einstein, Wheeler, etc, that wormholes not only exist, they are traversible, they have negative energy, they make hyperspace jumps and even loops. His main opponent - not someone unknown, but Hawking himself.

I talked already about Hawking, and again without a single line from you guys who deny everything. Hawking postulated one or more laws without experimental data. He is believed as father of modern science and may be son of Einstein. It is too much of a belief in ONE MAN however big mind, to the extend to put the CERN security (and ours) into his equations. What if he was wrong? It is an example of conservative science based on selected individuals, no matter how clever they are, and no other's point of view. Perhaps the modern colliers' experiments would make easier the Thorne's wormhole and prove whether or not it is traversible, than to create the mini black holes of Hawking based on his law they would evaporate. Again, what if HE WAS WRONG SOMEHOW? Damn it, it is my world and life too, not only that of scientists (int hat case, I may say, of crazy scientists).

Carl Sagan, another big scientist supporter of wormhole theory that made him famous to the common people not by unreadable papers, but by his film Contact.

Saying that, I don't understand how these achievements that go out of the constrains of the current status quo were set aside unnoticed by most of the scientists FOR DECADES. This was my lifespan and yours. They missed the opportunity to bring the other worlds closer, to bring the free energy closer, to make the life better. Instead, we battle pollution of carbon and other sources or whatever. Is this what you guys call modern science that evolves at slow but sure pace? Until it evolves we would all be dead by cancer thanks to their created radiation from everywhere.

Tthe current discovery made by NASA experiment of energy out of vacuum goes hand by hand to the above. Not because it is the same. But because finally NASA dared to rubber stamp something talked by insiders for at least a DECADE.

Personally, I think, we don't have more time to waste. Certainly not in bickering in forums. The scientists who pretend to be indeed non-constrained of 18th century laws, must go forward and accept the obvious. If we want the civilization life to continue the way we know it. The other way is that of destruction and I don't have to talk about it in this particular thread. Thank you for your attention! This might be my last post in this thread due to persona reasons.

originally posted by: 2012newstart

originally posted by: Rob48

New theories are not ridiculed AS LONG AS they fit the observations.

People who say science isn't open to new ideas are idiots. Every single theory we have now was once a new idea. Science picks the fittest theories and kills the weak ones. It's like evolution

then would you please explain to me and to the worldwide readers how the flying saucers fly from the view point of the dogmatic narrow minded today's science? They are observational fact witnessed by hundreds of thousands if not more people who cannot be all called idiots, dreamers etc.

Science requires repeatable observations. There has NEVER once been a reliable, repeatable observation of a "flying saucer" (barring earthly experimental craft that were designed according to known science).

How can science explain second-hand hearsay and photographs of window stickers, reflections or hubcaps thrown in the air?

Show some scientists an actual honest-to-goodness flying saucer and they can try to explain it. Until then, flying saucers don't exist and don't need to be explained other than as a 70 year old hoax.

originally posted by: nataylor
You're confused about what was tested. The test you you reference with "no significant displacement" was simply powering up the test equipment without one of the actual test articles in the chamber. That's not the "null test." The null test article was specifically designed not to produce thrust. Yet it did (at an average of 91.2 micronewtons as you quoted). It also produced 9.6 micronewtons due to the electromagnetic force of electricity flowing through power cable exerting a force on the magnetic dampening system. So when you said the null test article produced no thrust, you were wrong.

I'm confused? LOL

What the hell are you talking about?

Did you read the report?

Are you assuming no one else can read here?

From the abstract:

During the first (Cannae) portion of the campaign, approximately 40 micronewtons of thrust were observed in an RF resonant cavity test article excited at approximately 935 megahertz and 28 watts. During the subsequent (tapered cavity) portion of the campaign, approximately 91 micronewtons of thrust were observed in an RF resonant cavity test article excited at approximately 1933 megahertz and 17 watts.

So, two types of thrusters were tested, one was a resonant cavity and one was a tapered cavity.

The resonant cavity test had two configurations, slotted and unslotted. They hypothesized the slots would help produce thrust, but they weren't sure:

Prior to testing, Cannae theorized that the asymmetric engraved slots would result in a force imbalance (thrust). As a result, a second (control) test article was fabricated without the internal slotting (a.k.a. the null test article).

To their surprise, both cavities produced thrust. No matter slotted or unslotted, the resonant cavity tests produced 40 micronewtons of thrust. However, the null test article is just a term for the unslotted cavity, not the actual null test itself. The real null test was the 50ohm resistive load without any antenna or cavity.

The resistive RF Load evaluation indicated no significant systemic cause for torsion pendulum displacement.
Based upon this observation, both test articles (slotted and unslotted) produced significant thrust in both orientations
(forward and reverse).

So that means when there is no antenna and cavity, no thrust. As soon as you add the antenna and cavity, viola, you have thrust. These series of tests confirmed thrust is being produced when an antenna and cavity are present, regardless if the cavity is slotted or not. All that means is their theory about the slots being necessary is wrong. It does not mean no thrust was produced, which is the only thing that matters. The theory may be wrong, but the effects are very real.

Then they moved on to the tapered cavity tests. In those tests they achieved 91 micronewtons of thrust with a tapered cavity design. During those tapered cavity tests they conducted a null test using a tapered cavity. They did not specify the exact configuration of this null test, all they said about it was, "The null force testing indicated that there was an average null force of 9.6 micronewtons present in the as tested configuration." Which they subtracted from the tapered cavity test, "The net force is calculated by accounting for the null force present in the system."

Again, the net force being 91 micronewtons on average.

So that leaves us with the resonant cavity null test of the resistive load producing no thrust at all, the resonant cavity null test of the unslotted cavity producing 40, the resonant cavity slotted test producing 40, the tapered cavity producing 91, and the tapered cavity null test producing 9.6. When I said there was "no significant displacement," I was referring to the resistive load test.

They conclude the paper by saying:

Based on test data and theoretical model development, the expected thrust to power for initial flight applications is expected to be in the 0.4 newton per kilowatt electric (N/kWe) range, which is about seven times higher than the current state of the art Hall thruster in use on orbit today.

They don't talk about having to redo all of their tests because of bad results. They don't talk about failing to produce thrust.