NASA Confirms New EM Thruster Violates Laws Of Conservation

originally posted by: johndeere2020

originally posted by: Rob48
Because every couple of years they get drip-fed more rubbish: "Look, It works!" "Look, Professor X says it works!" "We just need a little more time to perfect it before we launch it to market!"

And so on ad infinitum. Nobody wants to bail out if the breakthrough is just around the corner!

Classic scam psychology: the big payoff is coming if you juuuuust wait a little longer.

Prayers, pls, that's all the help I need.

There is probably nothing in the works as far as I can tell and putting evil powers aka malevolent aliens etc. in the mix doesn't help your case any. BTW no one will pray for you until they know your heart is clean

originally posted by: Vdogg
NASA has NOT validated the EM drive nor are they claiming to have done so.

Perhaps the discussion should just focus on the subject matter of the title of the thread: "NASA Confirms New EM Thruster Violates Laws Of Conservation."

Or, does the title need revision?

a reply to: Mary Rose

The title is wildly hyperbolic and inaccurate.

a reply to: GetHyped

I did a search of the 21 page full conference paper that AnarchoCapitalist posted with the search term "laws of conservation."

Nothing came up but what other search term might glean whether the paper is, in fact, alleging something along those lines?

If not violating the laws of conservation per se, what might be another way of putting it?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Mary Rose

The title is wildly hyperbolic and inaccurate.

heh. well the OP is in good company. there are over a half dozen articles covering this and they pretty much describe it the same way. Wired, Gizmodo, popsci etc. don't be hatin'

A bit of healthy scepticism from Phil Plait: www.slate.com...

I’ll be clear: Of course science has overturned earlier notions of how the Universe works. But sometimes, those rules are shown to be true so much and so often that when you come up with an idea that overthrows all of it, you’d better have iron-clad evidence of it.

This device doesn’t have that yet. The effect is incredibly small, and one thing we’ve learned many times in history is that very small effects are usually due to something not being built or measured correctly.

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: Vdogg
NASA has NOT validated the EM drive nor are they claiming to have done so.

Perhaps the discussion should just focus on the subject matter of the title of the thread: "NASA Confirms New EM Thruster Violates Laws Of Conservation."

Or, does the title need revision?

EM drive, EM Thruster, Quantum Vacuum Thruster (QVT), all describe the exact same theoretical device. It is a distinction without difference and does not change the fact that NASA hasn't validated any of these things. Not saying they won't, but they're certainly not there yet. They have a long way to go.

originally posted by: wildespace
A bit of healthy scepticism from Phil Plait: www.slate.com...

I’ll be clear: Of course science has overturned earlier notions of how the Universe works. But sometimes, those rules are shown to be true so much and so often that when you come up with an idea that overthrows all of it, you’d better have iron-clad evidence of it.

This device doesn’t have that yet. The effect is incredibly small, and one thing we’ve learned many times in history is that very small effects are usually due to something not being built or measured correctly.

well that's true if it's one lone experimenter/team. but this device is not a one off thing. there are at least 5 of these with thrust detected of various makes and models and the Chinese versions which is derived from the one in the article gets a 720 mN (78 gram) thrust signal.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Mary Rose

The title is wildly hyperbolic and inaccurate.

heh. well the OP is in good company. there are over a half dozen articles covering this and they pretty much describe it the same way. Wired, Gizmodo, popsci etc. don't be hatin'

Agreed (kinda disappointed in popsci to be honest), but that doesn't make it right. Not taking issue with the OP's title at all, they were simply posting the title of the source. What I am taking issue with is the way the media is portraying the science around this. I was initially very excited when I heard this news. After further investigation though I'm a bit more cautious.

originally posted by: Vdogg

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: Vdogg
NASA has NOT validated the EM drive nor are they claiming to have done so.

Perhaps the discussion should just focus on the subject matter of the title of the thread: "NASA Confirms New EM Thruster Violates Laws Of Conservation."

Or, does the title need revision?

EM drive, EM Thruster, Quantum Vacuum Thruster (QVT), all describe the exact same theoretical device. It is a distinction without difference and does not change the fact that NASA hasn't validated any of these things. Not saying the won't, but they're certainly not there yet. They have a long way to go.

oh you are wrong the distinction has a difference:

Shayer and the Chinese use a resonant cavity and microwaves. White's QVPT is a coil with caps in it, The Egyptian girl's is a dynamic Casimir mirror system and being evaluated for satellite thrusters. there is also Dr Woodward's which uses a triple peizoelectric solid state stack.

that means that you cannot blame the thrust signal on one design flaw. you cannot blame the signal on a single bad measurement or a single observer. on top of that White's lab at NASA is gonna send their device out to any lab that wants to try to replicate the results.

a reply to: Vdogg

The only thing that is claimed is violating the Laws Of Conservation.

You're claiming absolutely not?

If so, then succinctly, what is NASA saying?

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Here's the problem with that though, if all 4 teams used different devices then the science fails on the most basic tenet of all, repeatability. If the results of any of these devices are to be verified, then they have to be tested by an independent team using the exact same design under the exact same conditions. Anything less than this and the results are invalid. I was under the impression that NASA was testing the Chinese design. Now that you tell me they aren't, that it's in fact a completely different design, I'm even less convinced. I'll reserve judgment until the NASA device is tested at a different facility.

originally posted by: Vdogg
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Here's the problem with that though, if all 4 teams used different devices then the science fails on the most basic tenet of all, repeatability. If the results of any of these devices are to be verified, then they have to be tested by an independent team using the exact same design under the exact same conditions. Anything less than this and the results are invalid. I was under the impression that NASA was testing the Chinese design. Now that you tell me they aren't, that it's in fact a completely different design, I'm even less convinced. I'll reserve judgment until the NASA device is tested at a different facility.

They are testing Shayers. I doubt the chinese would allow thier design to be unclassified and would consider it sensitive technology. the chinese design is derived from shayer's design. the chinese have evidently refined it quite a bit because thier thrust claims are an order of magnitude more than Shayers or NASA's evaluation of shayer's device.

no the differing designs do not mean the results are not repeatable. the devices all attempt to tap the same source of power just in different ways. its like saying internal combustion engines can't be repeatable because one runs of diesel and another on gasoline.

a reply to: Mary Rose

Unfortunately they're not saying much of anything. They're only saying "here's our results at this time". It's a progress report, that's all. They even state specifically that they are not evaluating the physics of the results at this time. They do bring up the hypothesis that if the results are indeed verified, that they may indicate an interaction with the Quantum Vacuum Plasma. If this is the case however, I don't see how this violates the law of conservation as you are actually deriving force by interacting with this medium. I think this is probably the only reason why they bring this hypothesis up, since it's the only one that can explain such and effect without violating conservation of momentum.

originally posted by: Vdogg
They do bring up the hypothesis that if the results are indeed verified, that they may indicate an interaction with the Quantum Vacuum Plasma. If this is the case however, I don't see how this violates the law of conservation as you are actually deriving force by interacting with this medium.

But if you interact with this medium, aren't you doing something mainstream science to date has denied is possible?

that is true. it does not violate conservation. it would have to make more energy than it uses in order for it to violate conservation. or the energy would have to be created where there was none available not even vacuum energy.

see the problem is to die hard science skeptic types they don't believe that the vacuum counts as usable energy so to them it does seem to violate conservation. but it's because they have an a priori assumption or axiom that may be wrong. if thier assumption is wrong their critque is invalid.

a reply to: Mary Rose

The theory of there being a QVP has be around for some time. It's not impossible, simply unproven. There have been some test that indicate virtual particles are indeed real, but the science is not well understood by anyone yet.

a reply to: dragonridr

there is a very clear definition of force but you seem to mire it in a huge circular argument. A force is a push or pull upon an object resulting from the object's interaction with another object. Whenever there is an interaction between two objects, there is a force upon each of the objects.

you say it

"A force is a push or pull upon an object
resulting
from the object's interaction with another object"

this is the RESULT not the force and what you're describing is acceleration.

but acceleration is also just an result of force, so what is force ???

I say force is the difference in...
equilibrium

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: dragonridr

there is a very clear definition of force but you seem to mire it in a huge circular argument. A force is a push or pull upon an object resulting from the object's interaction with another object. Whenever there is an interaction between two objects, there is a force upon each of the objects.

you say it



"A force is a push or pull upon an object

resulting

from the object's interaction with another object"



this is the RESULT not the force and what you're describing is acceleration.



but acceleration is also just an result of force, so what is force ???



I say force is the difference in...

equilibrium

Sorry, no, he's right.

Think about what happens when you push on a brick wall. Where's the acceleration then?

A push against something that doesn't result in movement is still a force.

Note the word "push."

Same would happen if you pull on a brick wall as well.

Unless your The Rock.

Harte

a reply to: KrzYma
The classic Physics 101 example: Put a book on a table and leave it there. It is applying a force to the table, and the table is applying an equal and opposite force to the book. Neither of them is doing any work or expending any energy, because there is no acceleration. It can stay there for ever, until the book and/or table rot away.