http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/chinese-buildin.html
Chinese researchers claim they've confirmed the theory behind an "impossible" space drive, and are proceeding to build a demonstration version. If they're right, this might transform the economics of satellites, open up new possibilities for space exploration â€ââ,¬Å"- and give the Chinese a decisive military advantage in space.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Femdrive.com%2Fimages%2Femdrive.jpg&hash=e997d7ffeade0b6266930445357b2b4eb04709c2)
It looks like an old piece of junk!! :D
To my mind comes the wisdom of General Jack Ripper from the movie "Dr. Strangelove":
He would shout out:
"Mr President! We CANNOT ALLOW an 'Impossible' Space Drive gap!!!!!!!!!!!"
Get cracking everybody, we need to build one of our own as soon as possible. :D :D :D
Much more infor on this website...
http://emdrive.com/principle.html
The funny thing is that they are afraid to admit any kind of law is broken. Since they feel the need to mention it every 2 sentences.
Quote from: broli on September 25, 2008, 07:00:39 AM
The funny thing is that they are afraid to admit any kind of law is broken. Since they feel the need to mention it every 2 sentences.
Exactly.
That is the scientific dogma, just like the Church in the past. No difference. But it is well supported by the Oil companies which are afraid from the change that is about to come. Not to mention that LHC, CERN needs repairs for half year - half year longer life of oil business >:(
Satellite Propulsion Research Ltd (SPR Ltd) a small UK based company
It looks to me that it's being developed in the UK? I guess the Chinese might have perfected it.
If true I don't think the west will be far behind.
Pete
Hi
It is quite possible that the Chinese will all so be offered some more advantages, that is if the western countries do not back the inventors that work 'outside the box', such as a small project in Melbourne that would enable them to run there navy on water from the sea, that is they use gas turbines for there drives and power.
There Power stations that will run on water from the waste treatment plants. No coal, and no oil for there ships required. There aircraft run on water, the nuclear subs, modified so that the reactors do not require any uranium to run them.
Impossible you say, no it will no be if they invest in the technology under development here in Australia, that the Australia, UK or USA do not seem to be interested in. I may well be offered to them.
aussepom
Howdy Y'all,
Its only impossible until its possible...
Blessed Be...
"Chinese Say They're Building 'Impossible' Space Drive"
This RF drive mechanism is not impossible, it's just extremely impractical... And very, very inefficient.
The main advantage is it doesn't need any propellant (thruster mass), while the main disadvantage is a super low efficiency - every kilowatt of power (e.g.electricity captured by solar panells) is converted to some picoNewtons of
reactive force (EM wave "pressure"). Anyway, this effect is long known - in fact, any sort of aerial - antenae - is affected with mechanical forces caused by (DIRECTED!) EM radiation.
Basically, a Newtonian action/reaction effect.
Quote
Principle of Operation
At first sight the idea of propulsion without propellant seems impossible. However the technology is firmly anchored in the basic laws of physics and following an extensive review process, no transgressions of these laws have been identified.
The principle of operation is based on the well-known phenomenon of radiation pressure. This relies on Newton’s Second Law where force is defined as the rate of change of momentum. Thus an electromagnetic (EM) wave, travelling at the speed of light has a certain momentum which it will transfer to a reflector, resulting in a tiny force.
If the same EM wave is travelling at a fraction of the speed of light, the rate of change of momentum, and hence force, is reduced by that fraction. The propagation velocity of an EM wave, and the resulting force it exerts, can be varied depending on the geometry of a waveguide within which it travels. This was demonstrated by work carried out in the 1950’s. (CULLEN, A.L. â€ËÅ"Absolute Power Measurements at Microwave Frequencies’ IEE Proceedings Vol 99 Part 1V 1952 P.100)
Thus if the EM wave travelling in a tapered waveguide is bounced between two reflectors, with a large velocity difference at the reflector surfaces, the force difference will give a resultant thrust to the waveguide linking the two reflectors. If the reflectors are separated by a multiple of half the effective wavelength of the EM wave, this thrust will be multiplied by the Q of the resulting resonant cavity.
Quote from: Reformator on September 25, 2008, 10:38:22 AM
Exactly.
That is the scientific dogma, just like the Church in the past. No difference. But it is well supported by the Oil companies which are afraid from the change that is about to come. Not to mention that LHC, CERN needs repairs for half year - half year longer life of oil business >:(
A scientific dogma? Supported by Oil companies? Yeah, sure. We would all be flying in our EM propelled flying vehicles powered by free-energy, if there wasn't a Big Oil, orthodox science, and all the (Human & Allien) conspiracies... Damn.
LHC is THE biggest scientifical (& unique) experiment ever made by Humans.
It's natural to expect some operational (God forbid conceptual!) troubles in the months or even the years to come...
The results are what matters. And they can change our understanding of Nature dramatically.
Let's all hope for the best...
Quote from: broli on September 25, 2008, 07:00:39 AM
Much more infor on this website...
http://emdrive.com/principle.html
The funny thing is that they are afraid to admit any kind of law is broken. Since they feel the need to mention it every 2 sentences.
They are right: no law is broken. There are wrong: not broken laws mean no net thrust.
The theory is based on an implicit doubtful assumption: Newton’s Second Law should not apply between the wave and the dielectric section or the walls. Why?!
It is stated that "the reflection-free interface (vacuum/dielectric), with matched wave impedances, will ensure no forces are produced at the interface". Right but it is only a part of the problem. The wave entering the dielectric and the dielectric slowing the wave, it is obvious that, due to the conservation of momentum, the wave imparts a force pushing the dielectric towards the direction of the wave. If there is no dielectric, similar reasoning applies: the walls of the wave guide reducing the cross-section, a force will be acting onto the walls.
We guess this forces will balance the expected "no reaction" force.
Quote from: exnihiloest on September 27, 2008, 08:51:35 AM
They are right: no law is broken. There are wrong: not broken laws mean no net thrust.
The theory is based on an implicit doubtful assumption: Newton’s Second Law should not apply between the wave and the dielectric section or the walls. Why?!
It is stated that "the reflection-free interface (vacuum/dielectric), with matched wave impedances, will ensure no forces are produced at the interface". Right but it is only a part of the problem. The wave entering the dielectric and the dielectric slowing the wave, it is obvious that, due to the conservation of momentum, the wave imparts a force pushing the dielectric towards the direction of the wave. If there is no dielectric, similar reasoning applies: the walls of the wave guide reducing the cross-section, a force will be acting onto the walls.
We guess this forces will balance the expected "no reaction" force.
No, it's just the fact that Newton wrote his laws with the left hand, and now they have become a dogma ;)
Both USA and the Russians found out as early as the 50's that Newton's so-called 'laws' are no such thing - the US with the Explorer missions, the Russians, after sending their first probe to the moon. The Explorer rocket performed nothing like Newtonian mechanics predicted, whereas the Russians missed the moon completely with their attempt! After multiple incarnations of the Explorer rocket, Von Braun finally figured out the problem - spinning objects do not behave the same as non-spinning objects in a gravity field, and since Newtonian machanics makes no distinction between the two, (ie a torsion element) it is essentially useless in predicting spinning bodies! Incidently, both the Explorer and Russian rockets were 'spun up' in order to average-out variations in the burn-rate of the different solid rocket boosters, Explorer 'manually' to about 500 rpm, while the Russian rockets employed high-speed gyroscopes which ellegedly contributed to similar 'Newtonian in-accuracies' the Americans were experiencing. The American solution was to develop a non-spinning rocket, which were the Ranger missions, while those clever Russians apparently did something similar, as their next moon probe was spot-on!
Point is, Newtonian mechanics have been known to be practically useless in some instances (therefore, certainly not "Laws") for more than half a century, yet interestingly, this major breakthrough has never been made known publically in the interim - the reason, according to Hoagland, is that it would lead to inventions such as anti-gravity etc.