"EmDrive" Topic

A honest-to-God reactionless drive?
link
link
link

link

link

Similar issues with White's warp drive experiments and how its been publicized (despite seemingly clear evidence that the experiment has showed that his theory doesn't work).

Actually, the reporters who were claiming that the tests failed were wrong. Here's a good breakdown of what the null tests really mean:

link

Pretty much everybody involved thinks that no one has a clue WHY this is happening, but something is.

Er, the article you posted has it right: The test tell you nothing. Or, more accurately, it tells you that there is no difference between the "EmDrive" and a "modified EmDrive that shouldn't work based on the theory behind how an EmDrive might work" (in other words, a brick), which means the drive doesn't work.

Even if it did work, you're still talking about 300 megawatts per Newton of thrust.

Or, more accurately, it tells you that there is no difference between the "EmDrive" and a "modified EmDrive that shouldn't work based on the theory behind how an EmDrive might work" (in other words, a brick), which means the drive doesn't work.

No. Taken at face value, that means it works, but not in the way they thought it worked. If both the standard device and the "this shouldn't work" device produced thrust, then the error is either in the understanding behind how it works OR in the manner in which the tests were conducted. Bad understanding or bad test just means we don't actually know whether or not it works, not definitively one way or the other. That's not the same thing as "it doesn't work."

"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."

That means it is not reactionless.

Parzival-- that's fair, and given that there are some pretty obvious ways in which the test was not properly executed (or at least was poorly reported) I'd lean "bad test." But its not really right to say the other option is that "'its' working but we don't know why" because whatever 'it' is is also somehow in the one with a non-functional drive (to be fair later reporting seems to suggest that they just really messed up their press on it and perhaps there is some small force being measured that wasn't in the true null test, but the poor way this was all handled doesn't inspire confidence in any of the results). Indeed, another strong possibility is that the fact this was done at atmospheric pressure with large amounts of energy could quite easily explain the veeerrrry small force produced in all the cases that involved this energy.

You know, until you test it in a vacuum its basically not tested at all. And outrageous claims require outrageous proof, so… I'm confident in saying this is probably just smoke and mirrors. That said, its a cheap experiment, they should do it again, properly, and have it peer reviewed, and then we can know for sure.

A teeny tiny force measured and an ad hoc theory cooked up to explain it. Spells out your basic faster-than-light neutrinos (remember how that was supposed to be "a very clever experiment" as well?) &c. Maybe this NASA subset (or somebody else) will run a better test later and get actual results but I'm betting it's just "static" they are getting.

Even if they are really getting some measurable thrust out of those microwave resonant chambers, the math for a photon drive says 300 megawatts power input per newton of thrust. If you can build a laser that big, why aren't you using the ginormous reactor to heat reaction mass directly?