NASA Funded Scientists Claim Breakthrough in Propellantless Propulsion
1–10 of 98 posts
Re: NASA Funded Scientists Claim Breakthrough in Propellantless Propulsion
#2Sounds really bollocks to me. Seems like shades of the Emdrive: https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a15323/temdrive-con...
Re: NASA Funded Scientists Claim Breakthrough in Propellantless Propulsion
#3Reminds me of the recent EmDrive hype, that didn't go anywhere.
Re: NASA Funded Scientists Claim Breakthrough in Propellantless Propulsion
#4Not this shit again...
Look closely at the picture of the test chamber in the article. Do you see Helmholtz coils surrounding the entire apparatus? Nope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_coil
It's the same story as the EMdrive: they run something at high current, without cancelling earth's magnetic field.
high current + earth magnetic field = force. This method is used to move satellites:
Re: NASA Funded Scientists Claim Breakthrough in Propellantless Propulsion
#5So much hate in the comments. Have some hope, people.
Re: NASA Funded Scientists Claim Breakthrough in Propellantless Propulsion
#6Wiki:
(...) Woodward states there is no violation of momentum conservation in Mach effects:
If we produce a fluctuating mass in an object, we can, at least in principle, use it to produce a stationary force on the object, thereby producing a propulsive force thereon without having to expel propellant from the object. We simply push on the object when it is more massive, and pull back when it is less massive. The reaction forces during the two parts of the cycle will not be the same due to the mass fluctuation, so a time-averaged net force will be produced. This may seem to be a violation of momentum conservation. But the Lorentz invariance of the theory guarantees that no conservation law is broken. Local momentum conservation is preserved by the flux of momentum in the gravity field that is chiefly exchanged with the distant matter in the universe.
Re: NASA Funded Scientists Claim Breakthrough in Propellantless Propulsion
#7Could we all just wait until there's a (reviewed) paper in Nature or something?
Re: NASA Funded Scientists Claim Breakthrough in Propellantless Propulsion
#8So much hate in the comments. Have some hope, people.
it has all the signs, just like EM drive did, of being experimental error. that is just realism.
Re: NASA Funded Scientists Claim Breakthrough in Propellantless Propulsion
#9Not this shit again... Look closely at the picture of the test chamber in the article. Do you see Helmholtz coils surrounding the entire apparatus? Nope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_coil It's the same story as the EMdrive: they run something at high current, without cancelling earth's magnetic field. high current + earth magnetic field = force. This method is used to move satellites: https://en.wikipedia.…
Wouldn't you want to run tests in multiple orientations to cancel Earth fields anyway? Similar to how you would run a Michaelson-Morley interferometer experiment.
Re: NASA Funded Scientists Claim Breakthrough in Propellantless Propulsion
#10Wiki: (...) Woodward states there is no violation of momentum conservation in Mach effects: If we produce a fluctuating mass in an object, we can, at least in principle, use it to produce a stationary force on the object, thereby producing a propulsive force thereon without having to expel propellant from the object. We simply push on the object when it is more massive, and pull back when it is less massive. The reac…
How does Lorentz invariance guarantees that no conservation law is broken?