NASA confirms that the ‘impossible’ EmDrive thruster really works, after new tests

[Photographer]

Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/researchers-conduct-successful-new-tests-of-emdrive/#ixzz3qY7aJ0Xr

Engineer Roger Shawyer’s controversial EmDrive thruster jets back into relevancy this week, as a team of researchers at NASA’s Eagleworks Laboratories recently completed yet another round of testing on the seemingly impossible tech. Though no official peer-reviewed lab paper has been published yet, and NASA institutes strict press release restrictions on the Eagleworks lab these days, engineer Paul March took to the NASA Spaceflight forum to explain the group’s findings. In essence, by utilizing an improved experimental procedure, the team managed to mitigate some of the errors from prior tests — yet still found signals of unexplained thrust.

Isaac Newton should be sweating.

Flying in the face of traditional laws of physics, the EmDrive makes use of a magnetron and microwaves to create a propellant-less propulsion system. By pushing microwaves into a closed, truncated cone and back towards the small end of said cone, the drive creates the momentum and force necessary to propel a craft forward. Because the system is a reaction-less drive, it goes against humankind’s fundamental comprehension of physics, hence its controversial nature.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Yay for the universe being wilder and weirder than we thought, yet again :)

Time for a new (well, more nuanced) understanding of physics.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

28. Reality is not only stranger than we imagine...

It is stranger than we CAN imagine!

[leveymg]

2. May be propellant-less but still requires a fuel source to generate microwaves.

Last edited Wed Nov 4, 2015, 03:31 PM - Edit history (1)

We know that microwaves can heat up your frozen dinner, so no surprise that this drive creates a heat gradient that can be directed as a propulsive stream. Radar waves are the same thing, and work in the same manner, if directed at a surface.

[-none]

5. The fuel source is electricity.

It could be nuclear or solar panels. Your microwave oven heats stuff by using microwaves tuned to the resonate frequency of water. Heat the water, heat the food.

This provides thrust the same way a normal rocket does. By pushing against a solid surface on one end and escaping by a hole on the opposite side of the solid surface, in a tuned chamber. Microwaves are energy. The force is weak, but then so is the solar wind against humongous sails.

[leveymg]

6. Or hamsters. Lots of hamsters on lots of treadmills.

[-none]

7. The lack of gravity might be a problem fer them critters to run the wheel.

[leveymg]

9. Just put the wheels inside of a big wheel. Vala - instant gravity, or something out of Ezekiel

That much is long-accepted engineering. Or, give them little velcro shoes.

[-none]

12. Velcro shoes?

Why didn't NASA think of that?

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

24. They can always return to basics

Conservation of moomentum

[mindwalker_i]

10. The system is enclosed, so it isn't a heat gradient causing the thrust

That is one of the things NASA was specifically trying to rule out. They succeeded.

There is a project that someone is doing on Hackaday.io to build this, and he's had some success. If it works, it would seem that conservation of momentum is violated, which would have some rather extreme consequences for the universe.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

14. I tend to believe in the Law of Conservation of Momentum

I get a bit leery of perpetual motion machines as well.

[mindwalker_i]

18. There's good reason to be skeptical

I am skeptical, but also drawn to it because of the possibilities. From what I've heard, the effect is predicted by the quantum mechanics equations, and just recently people are able to test it - the effect is so small as to be near the limits of technology. Since QM is really damn successful, it seems reasonable to accept the possibility that it predics something that Newton's equation doesn't like.

If momentum is not conserved, then I wonder what IS conserved. There might be some property beneath momentum. Particle "spin" is not spin in the classic sense, and it is conserved and quantized (as far as is known). But what, really, is quantum spin, then? It seems to be a deeper property of matter.

Incodentally, atoms are perpetual motion machines. Planets are effectively in perpetual motion. Both will come to an end with the universe, but then time will also likely cease to exist/happen, so the term will no longer make sense.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

22. Planets are not perpetual motion machines

They are kept in their orbits through the sun's gravity pulling on them as they attempt to move away from the sun. There isn't any friction in interplanetary space, so there is nothing to slow the planet down to alter its orbit.

[mindwalker_i]

23. "Planets are not perpetual motion machines"

Tht's more a matter of definition. They will be in motion perpetually (ignoring the sun going nova or the universe ripping apart - or The Big Crunch, but that doesn't look like it will happen). My point was that an absolute ban on certain ideas may blind one to possibilities. My tendency to get excited about things and be less skeptical than I should be isn't the best way either, to be sure.

In this case, there is reason to be open to the idea of this thruster since the equations of QM support it.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

25. A true perpetual motion machine is one which breaks one of the first two laws of thermodyamics

A planet in orbit does not.

[mindwalker_i]

26. That's a decent definition

I kind of take it more literally as something that is in motion forever. That would be the literal definition of perpetual motion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. The general theory now is that some planet's orbits have changed considerably, like Jupiter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nice_model

(from the city of Nice, not 'this is nice')

Collisions with other objects have changed their orbits, over millions of years.

[mindwalker_i]

31. Well yeah, it's impossible for it not to

"Perpetual" in this case was meant to indicate that the orbits would stay the same for a long frigging time - so it was really an approximation. Atoms would be a better approximation, but they will end when the universe rips apart, or there's a big crunch.

Earth's moon get further away over time because tides turn a lot of energy into heat, through friction, and that energy comes from the moon's orbit. It would be interesting to see what Jupiter's moons do, and how that's complicated by the radiation fields around Jupiter.

[eppur_se_muova]

16. According to the published abstract, this was NOT done in a vaccuum ...

although the torsion balance was mounted in a vaccuum chamber, it was operated at ambient pressure. As long as energy is being put into the system and it has not reached equilibrium, a heat gradient can and will be produced. Thermal convection of the surrounding atmosphere will produce forces easily large enough to be measured -- but only in atmosphere. This readily explains why both test articles produced measurable "thrust", even though only one was designed to do so. Again, this is informative reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer#Explanations_for_the_force_on_the_vanes

A test done under the very highest attainable vaccuum would carry some credibility. A test carried out in atmosphere will only measure large unintended effects which swamp any weak forces being sought. Reminder: there is no *official* NASA endorsement of these claims, so "NASA" did not "succeed" here. No one did.

[mindwalker_i]

19. Interesting, I read somewhere that one of these tests was done in vaccuum

Thought it was the NASA one - maybe the previous experiement?

[eppur_se_muova]

27. see my post #21 nt

[mindwalker_i]

29. Cool, thanks

[eppur_se_muova]

15. Directed radiation produces reactive thrust, even if directed into vaccuum --

just like a rocket engine works in vaccuum.

[leveymg]

17. Action-reaction and all that jazz.

[MisterP]

3. I smell cult press release

[Ratty]

4. Pee Eeew

Sure is stinky in here.

[xocet]

8. This article claims "new tests". The referenced tests are actually from 2013, and...

these "new tests" show significant, critical problems with the research.


This topic has been debunked and the OP belongs in the Skepticism, Science and Pseudoscience Group.

Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum
David A. Brady, Harold G. White, Paul March, James T. Lawrence, and Frank J. Davies
NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas 77058

This paper describes the eight-day August 2013 test campaign designed to investigate and demonstrate viability of using classical magnetoplasmadynamics to obtain a propulsive momentum transfer via the quantum vacuum virtual plasma. This paper will not address the physics of the quantum vacuum plasma thruster, but instead will describe the test integration, test operations, and the results obtained from the test campaign.

...

Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the “null” test article).

...

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140006052.pdf

The OP's linked article

NASA confirms that the ‘impossible’ EmDrive thruster really works, after new tests
By Rick Stella — November 3, 2015

Engineer Roger Shawyer’s controversial EmDrive thruster jets back into relevancy this week, as a team of researchers at NASA’s Eagleworks Laboratories recently completed yet another round of testing on the seemingly impossible tech.

...

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/researchers-conduct-successful-new-tests-of-emdrive/#ixzz3qYZoCwPd

links back to an article from last year

NASA confirms ‘impossible’ thruster actually works, could revolutionize space travel
By Drew Prindle — August 1, 2014

When Roger Shawyer first unveiled his EmDrive thruster back around 2003, the scientific community laughed at him. They said it was impossible, that it was based on a flawed concept, and couldn’t work because it goes against the laws of conservation of momentum. But somehow, despite all of the reasons it shouldn’t work, it does.

Scientists at NASA just confirmed it.

...


http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/nasa-confirms-impossible-space-drive-actually-works-revolutionize-space-travel/#ixzz3qYauUeve

which carries the link to the "paper" (which is not a peer-reviewed paper) at the top of this reply.


[hr]

Please see Sean Carroll's blog regarding the so-called "EMdrive" for the debunking:

Warp Drives and Scientific Reasoning
Posted on May 26, 2015 by Sean Carroll

A bit ago, the news streams were once again abuzz with claims that NASA was investigating amazing space drives that violate the laws of physics. And it’s true! If we grant that “NASA” includes “any person employed by NASA,” and “investigating” is defined as “wasting time and money thinking about.”

I say “again” because it was only a few years ago that news spread about a NASA effort aimed at a warp drive, a way to truly break the speed-of-light limit. Of course there are no realistic scenarios along those lines, so the investigators didn’t have any tangible results to present. Instead, they did the next best thing, releasing an artist’s conception of what a space ship powered by their (wholly imaginary) warp drive would look like. (What remains unclear is how the warpiness of the drive affected the design of their fantasy vessel.)

The more recent “news” is not actually about warp drive at all. It’s about propellantless space drives — which are, if anything, even less believable than the warp drives. (There is a whole zoo of nomenclature devoted to categorizing all of the non-existent technologies of this general ilk, which I won’t bother to keep straight.) Warp drives at least inspired by some respectable science — Miguel Alcubierre’s energy-condition-violating spacetime. The “propellantless” stuff, on the other hand, just says “Laws of physics? Screw em.”

You may have heard of a little thing called Newton’s Third Law of Motion — for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you want to go forward, you have to push on something or propel something backwards. The plucky NASA engineers in question aren’t hampered by such musty old ideas. As others have pointed out, what they’re proposing is very much like saying that you can sit in your car and start it moving by pushing on the steering wheel.

...

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/05/26/warp-drives-and-scientific-reasoning/

[Johonny]

20. pretty much

Test have shown that the "signal" is vastly smaller than the thermal noise. Typically when something with no scientific explanation as to why it should work, and yet is claimed to work. The first thing that happens is people show how much of the "signal" was really noise (highly likely all of the original signal). After which they refine the testing until that "good" signal recedes into the back ground noise. Then it enters the realm of Voodoo science. The results at the AiAA last summer pretty much confirmed there was little legitimate interest in this drive. There's no reason it should work, it doesn't appear to work, and there is little point in a researcher wasting his career digging through the thermal noise to find that which isn't expected to be there anyways. But people will try because there's always someone that wants these things to "work".

[Xipe Totec]

11. I'll believe it when I see it on the official NASA website. nt

[eppur_se_muova]

13. Despite an alert for possible pseudoscientific content, I'm leaving this thread open for discussion.

As other posters have noted, the experimental evidence for this "drive" has real problems, and does not really represent NASA-sponsored research. As long as the discussion involves actual appeal to scientific principles, I say let it continue -- but I don't hold out the slightest hope for extraction of any meaningful measurements, after reading how the tests were carried out.

Reading the offered documents, I'm appalled that the tests were carried out in a vaccuum chamber, but not at high vaccuum -- tests were carried out at ambient pressure !! Any object surrounded by atmosphere and having an unequal distribution of heat is going to feel thrust in one direction or another, due to convective effects so large that any smaller, subtler effects will be swamped. The history of the Crookes radiometer provides an object lesson here (see especially point 4).

[eppur_se_muova]

21. An article in International Business Times has more details ...

... much of what is cited is yet unpublished, but the sources are identified.

EmDrive the future of space travel? New Nasa Eagleworks tests hint at breakthrough in interstellar flight

Mary-Ann Russon
By Mary-Ann Russon
November 4, 2015 14:49 GMT
Updated 11 hr ago

Researchers at Nasa's Eagleworks Laboratories say that they are still discovering signals of thrust which cannot be explained in their latest tests of the highly controversial electromagnetic space propulsion technology EmDrive.

The EmDrive is the invention of British scientist Roger Shawyer, who proposed in 1999 that based on the theory of special relativity, electricity converted into microwaves and fired within a closed cone-shaped cavity causes the microwave particles to exert more force on the flat surface at the large end of the cone (i.e. there is less combined particle momentum at the narrow end due to a reduction in group particle velocity), thereby generating thrust.
***
Despite this the researchers still noted that the thrust signals were being contaminated by thermal expansion of the copper frustum and aluminium radio frequency (RF) amp.

Unfortunately, the thermal expansion was even worse when the EmDrive was tested in a vacuum, which simulated outer space, largely because the vacuum had strong insulation properties.
***
Following the Nasa Eagleworks furore, in July Dr Martin Tajmar, Chair for Space Systems at the Dresden University of Technology's Institute of Aerospace Engineering, who is well known for debunking space propulsion systems, presented a paper showing that he and his researchers were able to measure effects similar to the EmDrive. However, the researchers were not able to establish the nature of the thrust measurement, or define if there were any other factors obscuring their results.
***
Also in July, Shawyer exclusively revealed to IBTimes UK that he had finally had a paper on the second generation of the EmDrive peer-reviewed and accepted by the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA).
***
more: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-future-space-travel-nasa-eagleworks-hints-breakthrough-interstellar-flight-1527184

More links at the article.

This article seems to include more up-to-date citations than the original post. It seems some of the original objections -- including testing in vaccuum -- are being dealt with. I remain sceptical, but the approach being taken does indeed appear to be one of pursuing repeatable, independently verifiable results. They're not there yet, and may never get there, but they seem to be doing the right things. And an experienced, prominent debunker is reserving judgement.

[lumberjack_jeff]

32. "Reaction-less drive"? I'll be first to say it: bullshit. n/t