So much hate in the comments. Have some hope, people.
Justified skepticism is not hate.
NASA Funded Scientists Claim Breakthrough in Propellantless Propulsion
11–20 of 98 posts
Re: NASA Funded Scientists Claim Breakthrough in Propellantless Propulsion
#12This sounds, like the EM drive, too much like trying to move your car by sitting inside and pushing on the dashboard....
Still, a "vacuum propeller" would be a massive revolution (no pun intended) if it is at all possible.
Re: NASA Funded Scientists Claim Breakthrough in Propellantless Propulsion
#13Not 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.
The torsion balance introduces fixed biases, and can be operated only in XY plane. So in theory you're right, in practice it's not possible.
Not canceling earth's magnetic field (an easy thing to do) when measuring microNewtons at high currents is just very poor experimental practice. Unprofessional. Amateur.
Re: NASA Funded Scientists Claim Breakthrough in Propellantless Propulsion
#14Reminds me of the recent EmDrive hype, that didn't go anywhere.
I see what you did there...
Re: NASA Funded Scientists Claim Breakthrough in Propellantless Propulsion
#15Here’s the paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280134421_New_Theor...
Re: NASA Funded Scientists Claim Breakthrough in Propellantless Propulsion
#16From the article:
> Mike McDonald, an aerospace engineer at the Naval Research Laboratory in Maryland, will be among the first [attempt to replicate their results]. He leads an internal program for independently testing advanced propulsion systems, which has previously shot down promising results from the EmDrive.
Re: NASA Funded Scientists Claim Breakthrough in Propellantless Propulsion
#17So much hate in the comments. Have some hope, people.
People don't like to see quack science take funding from legitimate science. I am not qualified to judge whether or not this is quack science, but it certainly reeks of the same claims as previously documented quack science.
Re: NASA Funded Scientists Claim Breakthrough in Propellantless Propulsion
#18So 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.
Did the EMdrive have a solid understanding of why it would work, rather than just being a discovered curious effect?
What's interesting about this one is that there is a theory at least. Experiments aside, someone whould be able to either confirm or reject the theory on its own.
Re: NASA Funded Scientists Claim Breakthrough in Propellantless Propulsion
#19This sounds, like the EM drive, too much like trying to move your car by sitting inside and pushing on the dashboard.... Still, a "vacuum propeller" would be a massive revolution (no pun intended) if it is at all possible.
It is because the payoffs would be so enormous that business like this and "overunity motors" continue to gain attention. All of those other elixirs were shams, but this one will work! Finally, immortality! The enormity of the reward causes the payout matrix to lead people astray.
Don't get me wrong, I see a vacuum chamber, which is light years ahead of most of these enterprises, but I would not spend a dime on it until it has been proven to work in a region of space relatively far from the Earth's magnetic field.
Re: NASA Funded Scientists Claim Breakthrough in Propellantless Propulsion
#20> On a clear night in March 1967, Woodward was stargazing on the rooftop of Pensión Santa Cruz, a hotel in the heart of Seville, in Spain.... As Woodward gazed up from atop his Spanish hotel, he saw a speck of light arcing across the sky and mentally calculated its path. But as he watched the satellite, it began deviating from its expected trajectory—first by a little and then by a lot.
> Everything Woodward knew about satellites told him that what he was seeing should be impossible. It would take too much energy for a satellite to change its orbit like that, and most satellites weren’t able to shift more than a couple of degrees. And yet, he had just seen a satellite double back with his own eyes. He didn't conclude that engineers at NASA or in the Soviet Union must have secretly achieved a breakthrough in satellite propulsion. Instead, he believes he saw a spacecraft of extraterrestrial origin.
Seems more likely he spotted a reconnaissance aircraft at very high altitude. I think the U2, A-12, and SR-71 were all operational in 1967.