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

[Pirate88179]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/11769030/Impossible-rocket-drive-works-and-could-get-to-Moon-in-four-hours.html




EM drive tests appear to show that it may actually work.



"The drive, which has been likened to Star Trek's Impulse Drive, has left scientists scratching their heads because it defies one of the fundamental concepts of physics – the conservation of momentum – which states that if something is propelled forward, something must be pushed in the opposite direction. So the forces inside the chamber should cancel each other out."


If this is true, it could be a huge step forward in space travel.

Bill

[MarkE]

It is a terribly written article.  The only new information is that some unspecified tests were conducted in Dresden.

[gravityblock]

do you know how is this working?

technicals details?

I know how it's working and I posted most of the technical details on this site nearly 5 years ago.  What they're showing to the public is only a small portion of the device.  What is being shown is nothing more than a modified cathode ray tube.  Seek and you shall find.  Also note, the technical details can almost be found in your username of "madama".  What a coincidence!

Gravock

[MarkE]

do you know how is this working?

technicals details?

It is my position that Shawyer is wrong.  This is what Shawyer claims:  E/M waves bouncing around a metal can that uses a near vacuum dielectric has E/M wavefronts that propagate close to the speed of light.  When those wavefronts hit a metal wall, Faraday induction occurs resulting in reflections.  Shawyer claims that by tapering the can, the net force of the reflections in one direction along the central axis will be different than in the other, giving rise to a net accelerating force parallel to the central axis.  Various SMEs who have examined his math in detail assert that he misaccounts for the forces on the tapers and so his idea is one of GIGO.  NASA tests should be complete this year that competently isolate sources of experimental error to see once and for all if there is something to Shawyer's claims or not. 

Personally, I chalk Shawyer's ideas up to something that belongs in the Museum of Unworkable Devices.  I think his idea is akin to propelling something by placing a laser in a cavity with a highly reflective mirror at one end and a highly absorbant material at the other.  Or to put it another way:  a fan in a sailboat blowing on the sailboat's sail.

[gravityblock]

It is my position that Shawyer is wrong.  This is what Shawyer claims:  E/M waves bouncing around a metal can that uses a near vacuum dielectric has E/M wavefronts that propagate close to the speed of light.  When those wavefronts hit a metal wall, Faraday induction occurs resulting in reflections.  Shawyer claims that by tapering the can, the net force of the reflections in one direction along the central axis will be different than in the other, giving rise to a net accelerating force parallel to the central axis.  Various SMEs who have examined his math in detail assert that he misaccounts for the forces on the tapers and so his idea is one of GIGO.

I agree with your analysis above.  I must say though, the effect does have something to do with the vacuum.  This leads to questions, such as do they even have the slightest idea to what is going on, or is it more misdirection for the general public?

Gravock