'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours

[MarkE]

Yes, I was not too impressed with the way it was written either.  At some point in the article, a guy is quoted saying something like...well...we can not really confirm nor deny if it works from these tests...which does not really jive with the whole upsetting of the laws of conservation of energy thing.

I just copied and pasted the headline from the article for the topic title but really...that headline is a little too optimistic at this point.  I really hope it does work and, I hope that the tests are done correctly and verified by others.  Then, we might really have something.

Bill

It would be nice if I were wrong on this one.  But I remain confident that there is nothing to this.

[conradelektro]

Here you can find some information about Prof. Dr. Martin Tajmar and his research:

http://tu-dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/fakultaeten/fakultaet_maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/forschung/folder.2007-08-21.5231434330/ag_raumfahrtantriebe/breakthrough_propulsion_physics  (many papers can be downloaded as PDF-files)

The drive mentioned in the article from The Independent seems to be this one:

Tajmar, M. and Fiedler, G.,
"Direct Thrust Measurements of an EMDrive and Evaluation of Possible Side-Effects",
AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference, AIAA-2015-4083, Orlando, July 27-29 (2015)

http://tu-dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/fakultaeten/fakultaet_maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/forschung/folder.2007-08-21.5231434330/ag_raumfahrtantriebe/JPC%20-%20Direct%20Thrust%20Measurements%20of%20an%20EM%20Drive%20and%20Evaluation%20of%20Possible%20Side-Effects.pdf

Does it work? Probably not! If it did work convincingly, the University would make much more noise in order to get funds. It would be big news in Europe.

Greetings, Conrad

[allcanadian]

@Mark E

It would be nice if I were wrong on this one.  But I remain confident that there is nothing to this.

I believe you are wrong and that we are about to make a leap in technology. Think of it this way, the airplane did not come about because of the invention of wings, propellers or more powerful engines. It came about when people came to understand we could accelerate a volume of air and use the inertia of this volume to produce a force. It came to be when we understood the fluid we call air could be rendered semi-rigid and we could act upon it.


This technology is really no different and it is supposed that we cannot act on an empty space using the same kind of thinking that concluded we could not act on air. As such it comes as no surprise that your argument is the exact same one used 100 years ago. That is you cannot act on something which is not present...but there is something present Mark.


Personally I find it strange that some who proclaim to know so much understand so little. Think of it this way, all particles which make up matter are known to absorb and radiate energy in discrete packets symmetrically. Where do you think this energy comes from?, if it is a proven theory and it is then where do you think this absorbed energy comes from and where is it radiated to?. Rather than dumb down matter to the level of bulk tangible objects we should understand matter as we know it is fluid and made of billions if not trillions of particles, fields and motion.


Now if extremely short wavelength electromagnetic waves could interfere with the energy we know is always being absorbed and radiated at the particle level then this continuous process at that level may become asymmetrical which may produce a force. However you never thought of that did you?, you never thought to consider that the energy input may act on a deeper level than the simple surface effects you seem preoccupied with.


This is the future and it started with nano-technology and the understanding that we can engineer the inherent properties of matter rather than simply accepting them as they are. Why we already have nano-materials which can have strong magnetic properties in one instance and a few micro-seconds later have absolutely no magnetic properties. how does this relate to your understanding of ferromagnetism?, when we can simply turn an inherent material property on and off at will?. You see you have made many assumptions based on simplistic examples which are so out of context they have literally no application.


You cannot compare one apple to another apple which can manipulate it's inherent properties at will because the comparison is completely out of context... context matters. We will engineer and manipulate materials at the atomic level in the future and we will have the ability to change the inherent properties of matter to suit our needs... it's called progress.


"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." -
Albert Einstein



AC

[allcanadian]

@All


Here is the nature of the problem at hand as I see it.


Now I have a rock and a balloon on a table and Mark tells me energy is always conserved and there is nothing I can do to change this fact with respect to the rock and balloon. At which point I say this is true in the sense that if I do nothing then nothing will happen or work in equals work out as it stands... then I say watch this.


At this point I fill the balloon with helium and tie the rock to it and it starts to rise and the wind carries it away and out of sight. Then I say.... what you said is true however the balloon and rock are now interacting with external energy I did not input because I have changed the properties of the system. The force imparted by the wind over a very great distance was not my doing I simply changed the variables and properties to change the result.


So yes Mark is correct and work in equals work out and energy is always conserved when applied in the right context which is constrained. However it does not apply to a change in properties which allows the system to interact with the external environment. My input filling the balloon with helium has no direct relation to the force acting on the balloon over any distance.


As such the simple argument that nothing can happen is false because as always it is dependent on the variables and context in which they are applied. We cannot use the most basic example to explain a more complex one which interacts with the external environment... that is absurd.


The only question we need ask here is ... Is our energy input to change a physical property equivalent to the work which may be performed due to the change in properties as it relates to it's environment?. In the case of the balloon, rock and helium it is not equivalent in which case we might consider other ways in which we could apply this same thought.




AC

[MarkE]

@Mark E

I believe you are wrong and that we are about to make a leap in technology.

You are welcome to that view.  We should know for certain within a few months.  As the tests have gotten cleaner, the apparent thrust has gotten smaller, strongly suggesting that when the tests are really clean the apparent thrust will vanish completely.  Reliable data will tell the story either way.

Think of it this way, the airplane did not come about because of the invention of wings, propellers or more powerful engines.

Well actually manned flight did come about when power to weight ratio became high enough and the Wright brothers worked out a viable control scheme.

It came about when people came to understand we could accelerate a volume of air and use the inertia of this volume to produce a force. It came to be when we understood the fluid we call air could be rendered semi-rigid and we could act upon it.

Bernoulli came a couple hundred years before the Wright brothers.  His principle was key, but without an engine with a good enough power to weight ratio powered flight was still an impossibility.

This technology is really no different and it is supposed that we cannot act on an empty space using the same kind of thinking that concluded we could not act on air. As such it comes as no surprise that your argument is the exact same one used 100 years ago. That is you cannot act on something which is not present...but there is something present Mark.

You may think so, but again: reliable data tells the tale.  Reliable data is not yet on Shawyer's side, and the building body of evidence suggests that it won't ever be.

Personally I find it strange that some who proclaim to know so much understand so little. Think of it this way, all particles which make up matter are known to absorb and radiate energy in discrete packets symmetrically. Where do you think this energy comes from?, if it is a proven theory and it is then where do you think this absorbed energy comes from and where is it radiated to?. Rather than dumb down matter to the level of bulk tangible objects we should understand matter as we know it is fluid and made of billions if not trillions of particles, fields and motion.

If you think you have superior physical theories to those in present use, you are free to articulate them and execute experiments where you expect they will distinguish themselves.

Now if extremely short wavelength electromagnetic waves could interfere with the energy we know is always being absorbed and radiated at the particle level then this continuous process at that level may become asymmetrical which may produce a force. However you never thought of that did you?, you never thought to consider that the energy input may act on a deeper level than the simple surface effects you seem preoccupied with.

If, and if, and if some more.  If you have an idea then find a way to test it to see if it has merit.

This is the future and it started with nano-technology and the understanding that we can engineer the inherent properties of matter rather than simply accepting them as they are.

Nano technology utilizes material characteristics with finer control than at larger scales.  The underlying materials themselves do not change.

Why we already have nano-materials which can have strong magnetic properties in one instance and a few micro-seconds later have absolutely no magnetic properties. how does this relate to your understanding of ferromagnetism?, when we can simply turn an inherent material property on and off at will?. You see you have made many assumptions based on simplistic examples which are so out of context they have literally no application.

You allege that I think one thing or another or assume one thing or another.  I would like to see citations that support those claims.

You cannot compare one apple to another apple which can manipulate it's inherent properties at will because the comparison is completely out of context... context matters. We will engineer and manipulate materials at the atomic level in the future and we will have the ability to change the inherent properties of matter to suit our needs... it's called progress.

Technology does march on.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." -
Albert Einstein



AC

Magical thinking is also counter productive.