Jump to content



Photo

Impossible Space Drive


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#16 T3X4S

T3X4S

    Neowinian

  • 1,008 posts
  • Joined: 28-October 13

Posted 02 August 2014 - 08:52

So many times people read a single article, research paper, scientific finding, or book and then consider themselves experts on the topic.  I remember a recent thread in here about if people believe if time travel were possible.  So many neowins were claiming to know the answer, with emphatic certainty.  Everything seems simple when you dont know all the details, and to quote my idol, Richard Feynman, "there is difference between knowing the name of something, and knowing something."

Unless there are theoretical physicists, or propulsion experts, or engineers - maybe just comment on the cool possibilities, or how it may not happen -




#17 EnterpriseT

EnterpriseT

    Neowinian

  • 2 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 02 August 2014 - 08:54

Indeed.  I'm rather curious as to why they didn't try to find where the error was, and make sure they had a proper vacuum... Seems somewhat sloppy for NASA work, to be honest...

 

Did they not? I didn't see anything that said the scientists didn't check for errors.



#18 The_Decryptor

The_Decryptor

    STEAL THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

  • 19,427 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 02
  • Location: Sol System
  • OS: iSymbian 9.2 SP24.8 Mars Bar

Posted 02 August 2014 - 09:15

Indeed.  I'm rather curious as to why they didn't try to find where the error was, and make sure they had a proper vacuum... Seems somewhat sloppy for NASA work, to be honest...


I just don't think they really care about it (Probably because it's a load of crap), the paper they released wasn't even about the experiment results, just how they went about performing the experiment.

#19 FloatingFatMan

FloatingFatMan

    Resident Fat Dude

  • 15,949 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 02 August 2014 - 09:22

Did they not? I didn't see anything that said the scientists didn't check for errors.

 

Their "Null device" control unit, that shouldn't have produced any thrust at all, produced thrust. Clearly, there's an error there somewhere.



#20 +Anarkii

Anarkii

    Member N° 1,455

  • 5,410 posts
  • Joined: 02-October 01
  • Location: Sydney, Australia
  • OS: Windows 8.2 Pro (8.1 Update 1)
  • Phone: iPhone 5, iOS 8

Posted 02 August 2014 - 09:29

Amazing! Would love this to happen for future space projects



#21 FloatingFatMan

FloatingFatMan

    Resident Fat Dude

  • 15,949 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 02 August 2014 - 10:21

I just don't think they really care about it (Probably because it's a load of crap), the paper they released wasn't even about the experiment results, just how they went about performing the experiment.

 

I dunno... They cared enough to spend the time and money on doing the experiment... Seems silly to not validate it properly...



#22 ichi

ichi

    Akihabara Style

  • 4,980 posts
  • Joined: 20-December 04

Posted 02 August 2014 - 11:25

It always got to me when there are those that attempt to stall or stop progress that would eventually affect human race.

 

Questioning the results of an experiment that should have theoretically provided different results in not stalling progress, but actually the opposite. 

 

See "polywater".



#23 ImUtrecht

ImUtrecht

    Neowinian

  • 44 posts
  • Joined: 22-December 13
  • Location: Utrecht
  • OS: osx

Posted 03 August 2014 - 06:21

Well science is science.

So I think that after these Nasa results more teams will do research into this engine.

It seems absolutely fascinating and i hope Roger Shawyer get's the credits that he seems to deserve.

It is always nice when somebody does something that is considered impossible by the then current standarts.

History is full with examples of people that did "impossible" things.

 

If i in 2010 would have said that a reusable rocket is possible in 5 years......

 

If he is right and he can build a version with much higher thrust then SpaceX would have the perfect engine for their MCT....

We have to wait for that, but the results of two independent teams confirming his thruster engine works makes me very hopeful.



#24 The_Decryptor

The_Decryptor

    STEAL THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

  • 19,427 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 02
  • Location: Sol System
  • OS: iSymbian 9.2 SP24.8 Mars Bar

Posted 03 August 2014 - 08:11

Except his results haven't been confirmed, the NASA study was flawed and they recognise that.

#25 Praetor

Praetor

    ASCii / ANSi Designer

  • 2,981 posts
  • Joined: 05-June 02
  • Location: Lisbon
  • OS: Windows Eight dot One dot One 1!one

Posted 03 August 2014 - 09:33

Huh? :huh:

 

Impossible is nothing is the Adidas logo, just like Just do It is Nike's; in here they are reversed.



#26 ImUtrecht

ImUtrecht

    Neowinian

  • 44 posts
  • Joined: 22-December 13
  • Location: Utrecht
  • OS: osx

Posted 03 August 2014 - 11:22

@ Decriptor

 

Sorry but this is not what i am reading here;

 

http://ntrs.nasa.gov...?R=20140006052#

 

"Test results indicate that the RF resonant cavity thruster design, which is unique as an electric propulsion device, is producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon and therefore is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma. Future test plans include independent verification and validation at other test facilities."

 

So time will tell and i am very curious what the results of the future tests will be.



#27 The_Decryptor

The_Decryptor

    STEAL THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

  • 19,427 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 02
  • Location: Sol System
  • OS: iSymbian 9.2 SP24.8 Mars Bar

Posted 03 August 2014 - 11:58

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).


See, the problem is that they built two of the things, one as a test and one as a control. The control one was designed such that it could not function, it was missing various components integral to the design.

Yet they got similar readings from both.

That's like saying that a high performance sports car, and one without an engine, performed a lap of a race track in similar times. It actually points to the watch being broken.

Never mind that for the engine to work as described, the laws of physics would have to be wrong, which means that either the engine doesn't function as described (And we've somehow found a entirely new type of physics not bound by the existing laws), or it just doesn't function.