| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
Physics-Defying Space Drive Confirmed by NASA, May Revolutionize Spaceflight
 |
By CJ Miozzi
NASA has conducted experiments on a revolutionary space drive that seems to defy the laws of conservation of momentum and confirmed that it works.
Developed by scientist Roger Shawyer, EmDrive is a spacecraft propulsion system that allegedly creates thrust without a propellant by using electricity to direct microwaves inside a specially-designed container. If proven to be possible, such an engine would revolutionize the way we design spacecraft by eliminating the need for the huge fuel supplies that currently consist of half the launch mass of most satellites.
But here’s the problem: the EmDrive seems to violate the law of conservation of momentum. A rocket accelerates forward when the fuel inside of it is shot out backwards. Momentum, a measure of mass and velocity, is exchanged between the rocket and the fuel. But where does the EmDrive’s momentum come from? There are three possibilities: either the EmDrive doesn’t do what its creator claims, it somehow doesn’t break the law of conservation of momentum, or our fundamental understanding of classical physics is completely wrong.
Shawyer came under a lot of criticism in 2006 for his seemingly wild claims about the results of his demonstration systems. So an independent, peer-reviewed Chinese team built its own EmDrive and confirmed that it worked in papers published in 2008, 2010, and 2012. But that wasn’t enough to convince skeptics, so the cavalry was brought in: NASA.
US scientist Guido Fetta built his own version of the EmDrive, called the Cannae Drive, and convinced NASA to put it to the test. On July 30, 2014, the results of the test were presented at the 50th Joint Propulsion Conference.
NASA confirmed that the drive works.
Five NASA researchers spent six days meticulously preparing the equipment and two days conducting experiments in an attempt to debunk the drive – it has happened in the past that apparent violations of the laws of physics were simply a result of interference between instruments and equipment.
But NASA confirmed that the drive generates thrust – a tiny amount, and much less than the Chinese team reported, but it nonetheless works. How? The NASA team doesn’t offer an explanation in its paper.
As for why the Cannae Drive generates less thrust than the EmDrive, Shawyer believes it is a result of the design of the container in which the microwaves are directed.
Of course, the results of this experiment will come under intense scrutiny. We will have to wait a while longer before we learn whether this truly is a revolutionary drive, or simply a huge gaffe. I have my fingers crossed.
Source: http://www.ascensionearth2012.org/2014/08/physics-defying-space-drive-confirmed.html
More fantasy space drivel for the masses by nasa.
How is this more efficient when also mwaves need energy? This is just a variant of iondrives and also not usable for launchstages. How this design possibly works? I Guess by the microwaves heating left airmolecules at the targetted surfaces like in the effect of a sunwheel when light is pointed at it.
http://samuel-heinemann.tumblr.com/post/83932477276/nuclear-project-updated-very-nice-updateii-more
No, no, no, ion drives use propellant. The ions are propellant.
This does not use any sort of propellant. That’s the advantage, you don’t have to use energy to carry a load of propellant with you.
No no Think Here: the microwaves do have to be created and that goes by as much fuel or whatever energysourche as is needed with EVERY other type of drive. Exhaust or no exhaust emissions. So where a ton of fuel is needed to get somewhere here the same ton of fuel is needed in whatever form to can create the microwaves.
With this technology as I Understand it even or maby Better even Soundwaves through materials with assymetric forms one end concentrating other diverting could be used to concentrate on a point and after reflection divert sideways and have a netto forward effect maby. Would be much Less fuzz and Much Safer.
Maby even in fluids created microcavities with soundwaves close to a surface could produce a forward motion by having the explosions work against a closeby surface and disperse after that backward leaving a netto vector or direction? The fluid will divert the backward force of the explosions in all directions leaving a result at only the closeby wall or surface
You are wrong. We’re not talking about the fuel or the energy required to accelerate a vehicle. We are talking about propellant.
“For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Propellant is pushed in one direction, so your rocket will go in the opposite direction.
Regardless of how you accelerate that propellant, you must CARRY IT WITH YOU as your vehicle accelerates.
You don’t just accelerate your vehicle, you also accelerate a load of propellant.
That requires much more energy than simply accelerating your vehicle, which is why China and the US are interested in this new drive.
Forget sound waves and explosions. You see the nozzle on every rocket, ever? If you don’t aim the exhaust, you go nowhere. Equal and opposite reaction.
Most of the mass of any rocket is propellant. If we don’t need propellant, we can do a lot more.
The fact that this drive works proves that physicists don’t know what they are talking about. The textbooks say it shouldn’t work.
You stil dont get it lifels. How is that drive energised where does the many kilowatts get their juice? Still the weight of propellant now as fuel there or nuclear but there
*grinds teeth* “propellant” does not mean “fuel” or “energy source.”
Example: in the NERVA nuclear rocket the energy source was a nuclear reactor. The propellant was hydrogen. Hydrogen heated by the nuclear reactor.
The nuclear reactor provided enough energy for 125 tons of thrust for 90 minutes.
That’s the energy source.
The propellant is 1,725 liters per second of liquid hydrogen.
As the third stage of a Saturn rocket, with 47,000 pounds of propellant on board, it would be able to burn for only 175 seconds.
Simple arithmetic: to take full advantage of the NERVA nuclear reactor, one would need to carry 1,400,000 pounds of propellant. That’s 700 tons.
Seven hundred tons of propellant, plus tanks to hold it.
Over and above the weight of the reactor / rocket engine.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket
og cóme on nitpicking lifels …fuel …propellant … is THAT REALY the core issue here ? Please dont respond anymore with such unbearable genius I can Not handle with My Lowest of IQ the Universe ever produced that could be damaging and I am already on the brink of druiling all over My Shoes.
propellant…fuel? To much for Me to handle….sigh
“Mymy
How is this more efficient when also mwaves need energy? This is just a variant of iondrives and also not usable for launchstages. How this design possibly works? I Guess by the microwaves heating left airmolecules at the targetted surfaces like in the effect of a sunwheel when light is pointed at it.
Mymy
No no Think Here: the microwaves do have to be created and that goes by as much fuel or whatever energysourche as is needed with EVERY other type of drive. Exhaust or no exhaust emissions. So where a ton of fuel is needed to get somewhere here the same ton of fuel is needed in whatever form to can create the microwaves.
With this technology as I Understand it even or maby Better even Soundwaves through materials with assymetric forms one end concentrating other diverting could be used to concentrate on a point and after reflection divert sideways and have a netto forward effect maby. Would be much Less fuzz and Much Safer.
Aug 5, 2014, 4:06 am
Mymy
Maby even in fluids created microcavities with soundwaves close to a surface could produce a forward motion by having the explosions work against a closeby surface and disperse after that backward leaving a netto vector or direction? The fluid will divert the backward force of the explosions in all directions leaving a result at only the closeby wall or surface
Aug 5, 2014, 4:16 am”
/space/2014/08/has-nasa-confirmed-the-impossible-no-fuel-space-engine-works-2481976.html
“”that goes by as much fuel or whatever energysourche as is needed with EVERY other type of drive. Exhaust or no exhaust emissions. So where a ton of fuel is needed to get somewhere here the same ton of fuel is needed in whatever form to can create the microwaves.”"
I Dont Understand what you dont Understand?
btw these nerva donkeys should have used plain Water instead of hydrogen what got a much higher fuel density http://samuel-heinemann.tumblr.com/post/83932477276/nuclear-project-updated-very-nice-updateii-more Much Higher
You really need to learn something about the topic, before commenting, Mymy.
“btw these nerva donkeys should have used plain Water instead of hydrogen what got a much higher fuel density”
Hydrogen is the propellant (not the fuel) in NERVA for the simple reason that it is more efficient to use a lighter-weight propellant.
The people who built an operational nuclear powered rocket were not donkeys.
It is not nit-picking. It is not a trivial issue. Lighter load of propellant = greater payload. Lighter load of propellant = greater speed.
And when comparing NERVA to hydrogen-oxygen burning rockets, MUCH greater payload and MUCH greater speed.
“Lifels: You really need to learn something about the topic”
WHY when All is Solved by you Better reading and interpreting?
Mymy, you’re asking why learn something about the topic before commenting on it?
Well. To avoid wasting your time and that of others.
I am from Venus You are form Mars. We should marry. The Sparks would drive any motor to any place in the Universe.
The Ion Engine works by energising two grids of mesh.. the Ions are attracted from negative to positive grids.. some Ions slip thru the holes and dont stick to the grid-mesh.. there is your “Propulsion” and mighty weak it would be.
As for “Fuel” well no fuel really… Solar Electric for as long as you can get a good supply.. ie close to the Sun… after that.. its downhill all the way.. unless they also use an onboard Nuclear Reactor.. and these are well known to be part of many satellite systems. so I guess then you do have a Fuel.. for how long.. no idea..Earthbound systems need a change of fuel rods every few years. so maybe not all that long really.