Anomalous Propulsion Drive Verified at NASA [Update: Link to Full Report]

Here’s a very interesting development that has been brought up here on the Always Open thread, and also discussed on vortex-l. An article on Wired Uk by David Hambling reports how a US scientist named Guido Fetta has built a microwave thruster which works without any propellant and has had a NASA team conduct extensive testing on a system based on his work.

The NASA team just presented their test results at 50th Joint Propulsion Conference in Cleveland, Ohio, and have verified the claims of Guido Fetta. The results have been published in a paper titled “Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum”. The conclusion of the abstract states:

“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.”

Guido Fetta’s research is based on the work of British Scientist Roger Shawyer who developed an invention he calls the EmDrive which he claims produces thrust “by the amplification of the radiation pressure of an electromagnetic wave propagated through a resonant waveguide assembly.”

While this technology doesn’t seem to be directly related to LENR, it’s always interesting to see breakthroughs of this nature. It would seem that this new form of propulsion would be of great interest to NASA and other organizations working in the field of space exploration. A purely microwave thruster would allow spacecraft to be powered directly from solar panels, eliminating the need for any on-board fuel supply, making possible cheaper craft that can travel much farther than is now possible.

UPDATE: Here’s a link to the full report published by the NASA team: http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf

  • Ged

    Interesting. Guess it could lead to an “impulse drive”. However, just how much thrust can such a drive produce, and how does it scale with size/input power?

  • Ged

    Interesting. Guess it could lead to an “impulse drive”. However, just how much thrust can such a drive produce, and how does it scale with size/input power?

  • Paul Smith

    In Italy there is the researcher Emidio Laureti that years ago have already made a prototype of that kind of propulsion named PNN (Propulsione Non Newtoniana):

    http://www.asps.it/

  • Paul Smith

    In Italy there is the researcher Emidio Laureti that years ago have already made a prototype of that kind of propulsion named PNN (Propulsione Non Newtoniana):

    http://www.asps.it/

  • Christopher Calder

    At the SPR Ltd site – http://emdrive.com/ it states that –

    “A Technology Transfer contract with a major US aerospace company was successfully completed.”

    The EmDrive version of this technology looks like the most powerful. A US company is already working with the inventor. A higher power version with LENR as a power source would be a fun toy for NASA. Why use solar panels? Why not use a LENR reactor?

    • Sanjeev

      Is it SpaceX? I hope it is. Musk can build a spacecraft out of it in mere months.

      I was glad to see that the Chinese have already built an Emdrive that produces 1000 times more thrust than Nasa lab toy. It was last year, so they must have progressed a lot by now. Apparently they do not care about the law of conservation of momentum, while in the west its same old tune – it cannot work because our 150 year old text books says so.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Solar power is a great way to power space transportation as long as you do not leave the solar system. For deep space your suggestion of LENR would be far superior, If you put a hydrogen scoop type of system on this It could gather fuel as it went through deep space.

      Scientists Discover ‘River Of Hydrogen’ In Deep Space

      http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/28/river-of-hydrogen-space_n_4678941.html

      Density of Outer Space

      http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/DaWeiCai.shtml

  • At the SPR Ltd site – http://emdrive.com/ it states that –

    “A Technology Transfer contract with a major US aerospace company was successfully completed.”

    The EmDrive version of this technology looks like the most powerful. A US company is already working with the inventor. A higher power version with LENR as a power source would be a fun toy for NASA. Why use solar panels? Why not use a LENR reactor?

    • Sanjeev

      Is it SpaceX? I hope it is. Musk can build a spacecraft out of it in mere months.

      I was glad to see that the Chinese have already built an Emdrive that produces 1000 times more thrust than Nasa lab toy. It was last year, so they must have progressed a lot by now. Apparently they do not care about the law of conservation of momentum, while in the west its same old tune – it cannot work because our 150 year old text books says so.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Solar power is a great way to power space transportation as long as you do not leave the solar system. For deep space your suggestion of LENR would be far superior, If you put a hydrogen scoop type of system on this It could gather fuel as it went through deep space.

      Scientists Discover ‘River Of Hydrogen’ In Deep Space

      http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/28/river-of-hydrogen-space_n_4678941.html

      Density of Outer Space

      http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/DaWeiCai.shtml

  • Mark

    I wonder if this is how some of these UFOs are flying around our skies.

    • David Taylor-Fuller

      Its funny GoatGuy on NBF used the UFO idea as a straw man in his argument against this idea…

  • Mark

    I wonder if this is how some of these UFOs are flying around our skies.

    • David Taylor-Fuller

      Its funny GoatGuy on NBF used the UFO idea as a straw man in his argument against this idea…

  • Facepalm

    “Every reaction has an equal and opposite action”
    It is probably just ion propulsion, they need to test that thing in a vacuum chamber, (in vacuum).
    I believe it is a hoax.

    • Fortyniner

      The device is a closed chamber – there is no path for ions (or anything else) to escape from in order to generate reaction forces. Perhaps you should actually take a look at the links provided on this page before making uninformed Kelvinistic pronouncements.

      • Facepalm

        1. I ment that EMdrive is probably hoax, and that NASA has failed to show that.
        2. “similar devices have been verified on several occasions.” Name one.
        3. If there is air in the vacuum chamber you would have a ion wind blowing around in the chamber, that would affect the measurement.
        4. No, no new facts about massless propulsion have been proven as far as I know.

        • Omega Z

          “If there is air in the vacuum chamber”
          You apparently have a leak.

        • Fortyniner

          1. I ment that EMdrive is probably hoax, and that NASA has failed to show that.

          See below

          2. “similar devices have been verified on several occasions.” Name one.

          In order of apparent reliability of data:

          Guido Fetta’s ‘Cannae drive’ microwave thruster http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/space/improbable-thruster-seems-work-violating-known-laws-physics/

          Yang’s propellantless microwave thruster system http://wulixb.iphy.ac.cn/EN/abstract/abstract47295.shtml http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-02/06/emdrive-and-cold-fusion

          Shawkey’s ‘Emdrive’ http://www.emdrive.com/ http://www.eurekamagazine.co.uk/design-engineering-features/technology/a-force-for-space-with-no-reaction/1900/ http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf

          Mach-Lorentz Thruster http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/07/latest-woodward-mach-effect-propulsion.html http://www.americanantigravity.com/files/articles/Woodward-Effect-Article.pdf http://www2.ee.ic.ac.uk/derek.low08/yr2proj/macheffect.htm

          Choose your own starting point from which to reference ‘similar devices’. A few electro-mechanical ‘reactionless drives’ have also been demonstrated, e.g., Shipov’s inertial drive http://www.americanantigravity.com/news/space/gennady-shipovs-inertial-propulsion-drive.html and Roy Thornson’s device http://www.americanantigravity.com/news/space/roy-thornsons-inertial-propulsion-demonstration.html plus the original Dean Drive http://www.inertialpropulsion.com/dean_drive.htm

          3. If there is air in the vacuum chamber you would have a ion wind blowing around in the chamber, that would affect the measurement.

          Conceded – it would be wise to eliminate that possibility.

          4. No, no new facts about massless propulsion have been proven as far as I know.

          Unless you are able to explain the results obtained by Yang and NASA in particular in conventional terms, this seems to be moot.

          • GreenWin

            It is extraordinary denial these skeptics wrap themselves in when new knowledge threatens religious beliefs. Excellent and informative response to the red-facepalm, fortyniner.

          • Fortyniner

            Why, thankee kindly, sorr..

        • Fortyniner

          Facepalm
          I replied but the post has been removed (possibly too many links). Hopefully Admin will reinstate it in due course.

          • ecatworld

            I think the post you refer to is under this one. It may have taken a while to show up.

        • the protocols of testing are different and many hypothesis have been teste including your basic idea.

          http://emdrive.com/faq.html

          8.
          Q. Has buoyancy been allowed for?
          A. Buoyancy has been allowed for in the initial experiments and then eliminated by hermetically sealing the thruster.

          9.
          Q. Are there any convection currents which might affect the results?
          A. Convection currents did not affect the results, as measurements were taken with the thrust vector up, down and horizontal. Test runs were also carried out using a thermal simulation heater to quantify the effects of change of coolant temperature.

          10.
          Q. Has stiffness in cables and pipes been allowed for?
          A. The only connections to the balance were high flex electrical links

          11.
          Q. Has friction in any pivots been allowed for?
          A. Static thrust measurements were carried out using 3 different techniques – a counterbalance rig with a knife edge pivot, a direct weighing method using a 16kg balance (0.1 gm resolution), and with the thruster suspended from a spring balance with the weight partly offloaded on to an electronic balance.

          12.
          Q. Have electromagnetic effects been taken into account? These include interactions between current-carrying conductors and between such conductors carrying RF currents and nearby metallic structures in which currents might be induced.
          A. Stray electromagnetic effects were eliminated by using different test rigs, by testing two thrusters with very different mounting structures, and by changing the orientation by 90 degrees to eliminate the Earth’s magnetic field.

          13.
          Q. Is there any ionization within the air, which might cause electrostatic charging and resulting forces?
          A. Electrostatic charges were eliminated by the comprehensive earthing required for safety reasons, and to provide the return path for the magnetron anode current.

          14.
          Q. Could RF pick-up measurement circuits have produced erroneous results?
          A. EMC tests were carried out on the instrumentation to eliminate the effects of RF pick up.

          15.
          Q. Could acceleration be caused by spurious torques generated by the air bearing?
          A. Dynamic tests are preceded by an acceleration calibration test, using standard weights to determine the air bearing friction.

          16.
          Q. Could acceleration be caused by anomalous thermal or electromagnetic effects?
          A. Acceleration and deceleration tests have been carried out in both clockwise and anti-clockwise directions Acceleration from rest only starts when the magnetron output frequency matches the resonant frequency of the engine, following an initial warm-up period.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Yes, well put, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. You prove that you have working technology which everyone has been saying is impossible for decades, and they react by shutting you down and pulling your funding.

      Perfect symmetry, even where there is no such symmetry in nature.
      NASA has very large vacuum chambers, do you really think they overlooked that?
      It is a very good thing we have you second guessing them!

  • Facepalm

    “Every reaction has an equal and opposite action”
    It is probably just ion propulsion, they need to test that thing in a vacuum chamber, (in vacuum).
    I believe it is a hoax.

    • yes

      , within a stainless steel vacuum chamber with the door closed but at ambient atmospheric pressure.

    • NASA is not well known for participating in hoaxes, and in any case similar devices have been verified on several occasions.

      The device consists of a closed tapering chamber – there is no exhaust for ions (or anything else) to escape from in order to generate reaction forces. Operating it in a vacuum would make no difference, even if it had been some form of Newtonian reaction drive. Perhaps you should actually take a look at the links provided on this page before making uninformed Kelvinistic pronouncements.

      Newton’s third law is an empirical ‘rule’ which fitted the facts as known at the time of its formulation. Now we have new facts, and therefore need new ‘rules’, or at the very least, need to update the old ones. Dogmatically repeating a mantra that no longer fits all the facts seems a little pointless.

      • Facepalm

        1. I ment that EMdrive is probably hoax, and that NASA has failed to show that.
        2. “similar devices have been verified on several occasions.” Name one.
        3. If there is air in the vacuum chamber you would have a ion wind blowing around in the chamber, that would affect the measurement.
        4. No, no new facts about massless propulsion have been proven as far as I know.

        • Omega Z

          “If there is air in the vacuum chamber”
          You apparently have a leak.

        • 1. I ment that EMdrive is probably hoax, and that NASA has failed to show that.

          See below

          2. “similar devices have been verified on several occasions.” Name one.

          In order of apparent reliability of data:

          Guido Fetta’s ‘Cannae drive’ microwave thruster http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/space/improbable-thruster-seems-work-violating-known-laws-physics/ and see admin’s header.

          Yang’s propellantless microwave thruster system http://wulixb.iphy.ac.cn/EN/abstract/abstract47295.shtml http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-02/06/emdrive-and-cold-fusion

          Shawkey’s ‘Emdrive’ http://www.emdrive.com/ http://www.eurekamagazine.co.uk/design-engineering-features/technology/a-force-for-space-with-no-reaction/1900/ http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf

          Mach-Lorentz Thruster http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/07/latest-woodward-mach-effect-propulsion.html http://www.americanantigravity.com/files/articles/Woodward-Effect-Article.pdf http://www2.ee.ic.ac.uk/derek.low08/yr2proj/macheffect.htm

          Choose your own starting point from which to reference ‘similar devices’. A few electro-mechanical ‘reactionless drives’ have also been demonstrated, e.g., Shipov’s inertial drive http://www.americanantigravity.com/news/space/gennady-shipovs-inertial-propulsion-drive.html, Roy Thornson’s device http://www.americanantigravity.com/news/space/roy-thornsons-inertial-propulsion-demonstration.html, the Dean Drive http://www.inertialpropulsion.com/dean_drive.htm

          On edit: Plus Steven Hampton’s Impulse Engine http://www.inertialpropulsion.com/impulse_engine.htm

          3. If there is air in the vacuum chamber you would have a ion wind blowing around in the chamber, that would affect the measurement.

          Conceded – it would be wise to eliminate that unlikely possibility.

          4. No, no new facts about massless propulsion have been proven as far as I know.

          Unless you are able to explain the results obtained by Yang and NASA in particular in conventional terms, this seems to be moot.

          • GreenWin

            It is extraordinary denial these skeptics wrap themselves in when new knowledge threatens religious beliefs. Excellent and informative response to the red-facepalm, fortyniner.

          • Why, thankee koindly, sorr..

        • Facepalm
          I replied but the post has been removed (possibly too many links). Hopefully Admin will reinstate it in due course.

          • Frank Acland

            I think the post you refer to is under this one. It may have taken a while to show up.

        • the protocols of testing are different and many hypothesis have been teste including your basic idea.

          http://emdrive.com/faq.html

          8.
          Q. Has buoyancy been allowed for?
          A. Buoyancy has been allowed for in the initial experiments and then eliminated by hermetically sealing the thruster.

          9.
          Q. Are there any convection currents which might affect the results?
          A. Convection currents did not affect the results, as measurements were taken with the thrust vector up, down and horizontal. Test runs were also carried out using a thermal simulation heater to quantify the effects of change of coolant temperature.

          10.
          Q. Has stiffness in cables and pipes been allowed for?
          A. The only connections to the balance were high flex electrical links

          11.
          Q. Has friction in any pivots been allowed for?
          A. Static thrust measurements were carried out using 3 different techniques – a counterbalance rig with a knife edge pivot, a direct weighing method using a 16kg balance (0.1 gm resolution), and with the thruster suspended from a spring balance with the weight partly offloaded on to an electronic balance.

          12.
          Q. Have electromagnetic effects been taken into account? These include interactions between current-carrying conductors and between such conductors carrying RF currents and nearby metallic structures in which currents might be induced.
          A. Stray electromagnetic effects were eliminated by using different test rigs, by testing two thrusters with very different mounting structures, and by changing the orientation by 90 degrees to eliminate the Earth’s magnetic field.

          13.
          Q. Is there any ionization within the air, which might cause electrostatic charging and resulting forces?
          A. Electrostatic charges were eliminated by the comprehensive earthing required for safety reasons, and to provide the return path for the magnetron anode current.

          14.
          Q. Could RF pick-up measurement circuits have produced erroneous results?
          A. EMC tests were carried out on the instrumentation to eliminate the effects of RF pick up.

          15.
          Q. Could acceleration be caused by spurious torques generated by the air bearing?
          A. Dynamic tests are preceded by an acceleration calibration test, using standard weights to determine the air bearing friction.

          16.
          Q. Could acceleration be caused by anomalous thermal or electromagnetic effects?
          A. Acceleration and deceleration tests have been carried out in both clockwise and anti-clockwise directions Acceleration from rest only starts when the magnetron output frequency matches the resonant frequency of the engine, following an initial warm-up period.

    • It can only be a hoax. After all, everything that can be discovered has already been discovered.

      Just like in 1890.

      • a hoax tested 3 times with different testing protocol, by different team, with similar skeptic teams, with similar positive results, with similar important parameters (resonance, power, q factor)…
        it walk like reality, it quack like reality…

    • Ophelia Rump

      Yes, well put, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. You prove that you have working technology which everyone has been saying is impossible for decades, and they react by shutting you down and pulling your funding.

      Perfect symmetry, even where there is no such symmetry in nature.
      NASA has very large vacuum chambers, do you really think they overlooked that?
      It is a very good thing we have you second guessing them!

      Video: Huge Apollo Era Vacuum Chamber Upgraded for Webb Telescope | NASA Space Science
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY4QyOY2hgk

      • Facepalm

        Well i think that it’s more likely that they have overlooked something, than that the EmDrive actually works. It is just too good to be true.

  • Gerrit

    the wikipedia article on the emdrive is categorized as pseudophysics and pathological science.

    • Fortyniner

      They might get around to quietly changing that a few months after NASA deploys the emdrive in one of its robot craft or in a satellite.

      • GreenWin

        George Miley will be talking at the American Nuclear Society August 14th on this subject:
        “Progress in Development of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) Power Cells for Space Applications, George H. Miley, Kyu-Jung Kim, Tapan Patel, Bert Stunkard (Univ of Illinois)”

        A nice fit with an “impossible” microwave drive.

        • Ophelia Rump

          I think that the Ion Drive could travel to Mars in Thirty Nine days with constant thrust to the half way point, turn around and then constantly decelerate, where a conventional rocket powered mission could take from six months up to a year. That is just to Mars, where the constant acceleration really pays off is deep space missions. where they can accelerate for much longer periods. Perhaps they will take mankind to a second Earth one day. I wonder how long that trip would take?

          The closest star to the Sun is Alpha Centauri, the third brightest star in the sky, just 4.37 light-years from Earth.

          Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/102920/what-is-the-closest-star/#ixzz39FJd0VGn

          • Fortyniner

            A fascinating digression, but I have a feeling that thinking in terms of reaction engines for exploring interstellar space may be exactly on a par with Jules Verne’s idea of using a giant cannon to get into space.

            Thanks to LENR, reactionless drives, the Kanzius machine and a dozen other ‘anomalous’ effects and devices finally breaking through the old reality, we may be on the cusp of a fundamental re-write of physics that will open up some completely new possibilities for space travel. Even teleportation – albeit on an atomic scale – is not looking as impossible as it did a few years ago.

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2643332/Beam-Scientists-sat-teleportation-possible-transfer-atoms.html

          • Ophelia Rump

            I kept this purposefully in the old technology terms, so I could use the old numbers.
            I was being conservative, to illustrate the point.
            I leave it to someone else to derive the current numbers.

            You are absolutely correct. Reactionless drives as they are being described, would make possible a much lighter, much faster ship.

            I should also point out that to my knowledge there is no way currently in existence to shield such a ship from the radiation in deep space, so the crew would die before it arrived.

          • Fortyniner

            Perhaps if Alcubierre/White “warp” drives ever become feasible, that problem will go away, as the little bubble of spacetime would be impermeable to any radiation or matter.

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2655105/Engage-warp-drive-Nasa-reveals-latest-designs-Star-Trek-style-spacecraft-make-interstellar-travel-reality.html

          • bachcole

            No, the only thing that keeps interstellar ships from being safe from radiation is that the shields would have to be so thick that that current propulsion systems would be impractical. But we know that current propulsion systems are very soon to become obsolete.

          • Omega Z

            You can protect yourself with a magnetic field similar to what protects us here on earth. Originally considered impractical due to required scale-distance from ship.
            Has since has been determined that this field would only need to be projected a few yards from the ships hull. Still considered impractical due to the size/weight of a nuclear plant & all that would entail.
            LENR may be the answer.

          • it is not so drammatic.

            with 2 years of travel, protected by the water reserve, the crew would endure a dose which is not good at longterm… much above standards, probably toxic like bad habits (drinking, smoking, eating) but still not deadly.

            it may even be totaly harmless as the long term dose are proven about 400 times less dangerous than the same as impulse

            http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/05/prolonged-low-dose-radiation-study-at.html

            anyway they studied nuclear reactor and estmated that passing travel time from 2 years to 6 month would reduce much the irradiation…

          • Ophelia Rump

            J. Frank Parnell: Radiation, yes indeed! You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-boxed do-gooders telling everybody it’s bad for you. Pernicious nonsense! Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They ought to have ’em too. When they canceled the project it almost did me in. One day my mind was literally a-burst. The next day nothing. Swept away… But I’ll show them. I had a lobotomy in the end.

          • Ophelia Rump

            I wonder how much time dilation there is traveling about 1/2 to 3/4 the speed of light? The experienced length of the trip may be smaller.

          • GreenWin

            The general opinion is that military and special access black programs are 30-50 years ahead of unclassified technology. Remember the now famous deathbed confession from Ben Rich, former director of Lockheed Skunk Works:

            “We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these
            technologies are locked up in black projects, and it would take an act
            of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity. Anything you can
            imagine, we already know how to do.”

            Ben, get me outta this simulation?

          • Fortyniner

            If true, that might cast a different light on stories like Gary McKinnon’s tales of what he found on the Pentagon computers he hacked (the ‘Solar Warden’ space fleet, Mars colonies, photos of alien ships etc.).

            http://www.groundzeromedia.org/solar-warden-revealing-a-secret-space-agenda/

            McKinnon actually comes across as an intelligent and down to earth individual, which is difficult to reconcile with the stories. However once you are forced by the evidence (including that of your own eyes) to recognise that worldwide geoengineering and ‘chemtrails’ are a fact, and watch the entire mass of politicians and media determinedly and successfully pretending that nothing is amiss, then almost anything seems possible.

          • Fortyniner

            This topic reminds me of this strange site that I found back in 2000:

            http://www.exoterra.com/.

            The page has not changed since then, and lacks any links or information other than the wording of the logo. The registrant is anonymous (they use Perfect Privacy LLC) and I have not been able to find anything of substance regarding the domain.

            If it is some kind of joke, it is a very long running and obscure one.

          • GreenWin

            Wonder what they charge to return to Terra Firma?? I know a deep pocket that wants to go home.

          • Ophelia Rump

            The wayback machine has the pages, it looks like this might have been a tribute to Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy.

          • Fortyniner

            You are referring to the image link to lookdeeper.com that appears on pages archived on the ‘wayback machine’, and replaces /logo.gif on the originals. This wasn’t present in the original pages, and isn’t present on the current ‘exoterra’ page (use ‘view source’ to verify). I’m not sure how/why the link appears on archived copies of the pages.

          • Omega Z

            49’er
            Truth can be stranger then fiction.
            However, I think as in many cases, the truth is likely somewhere closer to the middle.
            Tho many of us would love for much of this to be true, We have to admit that Society isn’t ready for it. We need to grow up a little.

            As to Politicians, Most all of them are like us. In the Dark. Very few have a clue even tho they vote for & sign off on the budget. Officially, about a 100 billion a year goes to black projects. Unofficially, it’s thought to be about double that. How do you hide that kind of money.

            $400 Million a copy for F-35’s. Fixing Problem components that’s already been deployed & used for years. I don’t think so. Add to that, I stumbled across some numbers that don’t jive. Government payout for F-35’s didn’t match Boeing’s Gross receipts. If I can spot it, why not the bean counters. They do. It’s listed in the black projects book. Beyond the official numbers.

          • bachcole

            I don’t believe Ben. I am certain that they are ahead of what we know, but “traveling between the stars”, “anything you can imagine”, I seriously doubt it. In fact, I am on the verge of mentioning the spore of the male bovine.

          • Ophelia Rump

            My experience is that the brass plates on the chassis are dated 20 years before the technology was acknowledged to exist in text books.

            That was with older, now obsolete technologies, generally speaking the military does not like to openly deploy systems with less then a 20 year approval cycle.

            I have witnessed this for both integrated circuit chip based mainframes and radar systems.

          • Omega Z

            OR
            What GW is posting about is Blacker then Black projects.
            The current Stealth aircraft in development & production like F-22 & F-35 are built with mostly 50+ year old technology.

            I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find out that people in some deep dark underground hole in 1980 were saying- “Wings- What were we thinking?”

            You can’t compare personal experience in the private sector to what they may have. Some of what is considered state of the art cutting edge is old school to them.

            Occasionally, some researcher will pipe up that, Yeah, I worked on something like that 30 years ago as an assistant to a professor. Started getting results & it was all shut down. Never heard of again. Then adds, but we were farther ahead of what they claim. That’s because they don’t give the real data when it goes public.

            Drones are the Rave today, but the U.S. & Great Britain used them on several occasions during WW II. My 1st experience of an RC quad-copter among other things was in the 70’s. The 1st stealth research began with the Philadelphia Experiment in 1943. The concept predates that.

            We Do need to make 1 distinction tho. What they have is limited to prototype products. Not in production nor ready for it. When the time comes, it will be done from scratch in the private sector. According to their timeline.

            There’s a reason for this. If they were to say, Hey, we have this(Insert tech) & were going to start building it, People would ask questions they don’t want to answer. Like, Why were you holding this back when it could have saved millions of lives?

            In Addition, with military technology, Some will state that if such technology is already developed, why not deploy it. Simple. Once you put it out there, Others will copy it. It is only deployed as needed to stay ahead. If you leap frog the technology, Competitors will also, thus bypassing the intermediate costs of keeping up. Ultimately, they may turn the tables on you & you’ll find yourself trying to catch up to them.

            NOTE: In the mid 80’s, Ted Kennedy proposed research funding at a University for $X million of dollars with 100’s of million$ to follow for a Jet Engine with X amount of thrust. Someone spoke up about this being a waste as the U.S.A.F. had already developed such an engine 30 years prior in the 50’s. Kennedy’s response was, That’s classified, We need 1 for the private sector.
            Sidenote: The engine was developed for the SR-71 & I have problems with the exact terminology used but, If you research it, X=35, However it’s still classified, but according to Kennedy, X actually equals 50. Not 35.

            Conspiracists will say the U.S. has the technology to take off by runway, go into space, Possibly to the moon & back then land at a runway. Given all the information available if you look hard enough, This is not that far fetched. But if true, The World is not yet ready for it. We aren’t mature enough. We would only take our warring ways into space with us. We must grow up first.

          • GreenWin

            Well put and thank you Omega. First step in “growing up” is to embrace the thought, “There IS enough.” Death is a transition, and energy is everywhere and anywhere we look for it. 🙂

          • Omega Z

            At the time NASA was developing the Space Shuttle & before the Politicians got involved, they had some brilliant people with great Ideas.
            The Shuttle was only intended to be a work horse with a minimum crew. Primarily to haul large payloads to orbit.
            A mini shuttle Primarily to haul personnel, launched from the back of a 747, Etc.. Capable of & cheap enough to launch everyday.
            A 12 Billion$ Rail launcher(12 miles long) to launch raw material to be fed into a machine to build bulk framework in continuous form.(Minimal assembly) Launch cost per pound-7 cents.
            This rail would terminate after traversing a mountain side. With additional length to alleviate acceleration issues, it could also have launched astronauts at similar cost.

            The Politicians thought they could do more for less. As usual, What we ended up with was Far Less for Far (4x)more.

            As to the teleportation, Aside from major tech issues, one needs to ask, are we destroying you, then recreating you. Is it still you or what?

          • Fortyniner

            I think that the only ‘practical’ method of mechanical teleportation might involve somehow exchanging a volume of space ‘here’ (which contains the object to be transported) with an identical one ‘there’, or perhaps somehow by joining together the separate spaces.

            A few miracles would be involved, including perhaps two machines that are somehow quantum entangled, atom for atom, and therefore in instantaneous communication, or maybe one machine somehow occupying two locations. This would be more similar to the concept of a ‘stargate’ as popularised in the SF series of that name, than to the Star Truck ‘transporter’. Two distant locations might then share a common interface through the miracle machine, becoming in effect one contiguous space.

            In the end I think that FTL ‘ships’ are rather higher on the probability scale than such devices (unfortunately – I’d rather like to step into a closet in a back room of my house, and emerge on a Barbados beach).

          • Ophelia Rump

            Ion engines and reactionless engines are time machines. The first practical time machines, capable of opening the habitable planets of nearby stars to humans, making them reachable within a single lifetime.

          • pelgrim108

            I think that we are at a time period where space travel is becoming more atractive
            and virtual immersive reality is not yet at the stage where nobody wants to travel in boring space.

          • Ophelia Rump

            Yes no doubt some people will find it more exciting to stay home, and enjoy their tea. There is no fault in that.

          • Fortyniner

            A nice cup of tea suddenly seems to be a highly desirable proposition. I for one will be happy to watch their videos when they return.

          • Omega Z

            Ophelia Rump
            OT, but interesting-
            Before naming Earth2, we should Maybe consult with the Natives. 🙂
            Federation of United Nations(Here after referred to as FUN) will be in charge. We will have FUN contracting everything out to Corporations & Private Enterprise. FUN will cease once the Space colonies Rebel & no longer pay taxes. The party is over.

            Note the Space Elevator will need to be about 60K miles long with a landing at a designated point & counterweight at the end. Present technology to manufacture/grow a single strand cable that long would take in excess of 1 million years.
            So without some Major technology breakthrough, It will most likely be shorter fibers braided to obtain this length within a reasonable time frame. Also they haven’t obtained the material strength for this project. Only about half way there.

            Tho a simple Idea, It’s quite complex with many issues to be addressed. This link will give somewhat of an Idea of a major issue with space debris, Meteors Etc,,, Also vibration, electric currents etc… Not to mention terrorist activities that would create many other issue’s.

            http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Geostationaryjava3D.gif

          • Ophelia Rump

            It seemed important to exemplify the implementation of the technology, diaspora is far too important a concept to ignore.

          • Omega Z

            Agreed

            We Gotta Get Out Of This Place
            If It’s The Last Thing We Ever Do
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJVpihgwE18

          • ecatworld
          • bachcole

            The revolution in space travel will be fun, but for me the revolution in thought will be a positive festival of partying. And it may help people to take a second look at cold fusion.

          • Ophelia Rump

            Yes, I think courage has been reserved for the rich, the rest of us cannot afford the luxury. Perhaps this is the entire purpose of maintaining the existence of poverty in a world of abundance. If it is, then it is an evil practice.

  • Gerrit

    the wikipedia article on the emdrive is categorized as pseudophysics and pathological science.

    • They might get around to quietly changing that a few months after NASA deploys the emdrive in one of its robot craft or in a satellite.

      • GreenWin

        George Miley will be talking at the American Nuclear Society August 14th on this subject:
        “Progress in Development of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) Power Cells for Space Applications, George H. Miley, Kyu-Jung Kim, Tapan Patel, Bert Stunkard (Univ of Illinois)”

        A nice fit with an “impossible” microwave drive.

  • Gerard McEk

    Would this be based on the mutual appearance of matter: the dualism of particles and waves? Heisenberg would love this development.

  • Gordon Docherty

    This gets to the heart of the matter: is “space” just totally empty of anything, or is there a substrate – an “ether” – there? Even Einstein had a problem with this one, and sort of skirted round the issue. Yet, it is fundamental. If you believe the answer is “empty”, then you have to believe that LENR is not possible, nor any other “magic” processes. If, on the other hand, you believe the “ether” is there, complete with space energy (including ZPEnergy) and “stuff” (quantum foam, little particles, or whatever), then you see “our world” floating inside a dense fabric of energy and more primitive “stuff”: in this case, the only obstacle then is how to tap into that more fundamental world. Enter the humble Casimir cavity, and a host of other factors, such as coherence (across the lower levels) that make LENR possible. So, at heart, LENR is as much about whether the ether exists or not as about transmutation or fusion. No wonder the report that an “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” is causing such consternation… This also ties in very much with what Brian Ahern was discussing when looking at nanomagnetism, superconductors and LENR (if you haven’t already, I advise listening to “Dr. Brian Ahern: Nanomagnetism, Cooperative Modes, & Non-Linear LENR
    ” on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_kID_E-3tY )

    • georgehants

      Gordon, would you agree that with your question, the only correct scientific answer is —
      We don’t have a clue,
      That means open-minded Research, not dumb brained “expert opinion” trying to fool people into believing that science has all the answers.
      Would you agree that any scientist saying they know if the “ether” exists is a charlatan.

      • Gordon Docherty

        Yep – it’s best to keep an open mind – in both directions – to look at evidence from multiple perspectives, and not rule out effects because they don’t fit the math – at present, all of the mathematics underlying physics models only what we can, like modelling a boat on the ocean. It would appear, however, that when it comes to the ocean, physicists would rather invent “massive ‘virtual’ particles” (which are really combinations of fields surrounding the ones we can measure directly) than model the ocean itself. Understandable why, but it is important to remember that even those fields could be travelling through nothing – which means they are the “thing” – they could also still be fields (in the classic sense) being propagated through something else. Again, evidence should trump the math, not the other way around. Mathematical abstractions may give those who wield them a sense of “being wise”, but true wisdom lies in recognizing that math is just a way of describing something in the abstract that necessarily plays down and simplifies certain aspects in order to emphasize and play up other aspects to make them clearer – and this is where we come to the electric propulsion device mentioned above and, indeed, all propellent-less devices. If such devices can’t “push” against anything external, how can they move? Now, perhaps they can separate out (and hold stationary) one property of matter (or other “stuff”) while using another property to “push” against it – or, perhaps, it is interacting with a single massive virtual particle (a Higg’s Boson on super-steroids (or Higg’s Boson a-steroids (…groan)), but then these super-massive virtual particles are beginning to look and act a lot like the ocean, so when does it become easier to change the models to include the ocean as well, whether it’s real or virtual? So, in one sense, it does not matter whether the ether exists or not, but rather is it possible to engineer what we can to affect environmental changes at the sub-atomic level that look like changes to an ocean? I think this is where the experimental physicist living in what can be engineering deviates sharply from the theoretical physicist who can invent whole universes real (in that they don’t contradict what we see in our everyday lives) or imaginary (square root of negative one, anyone?) so long as they are self-consistent. So, in conclusion, I would have to say that any scientist who says “they know” on anything is a charlatan, as it implies absolute knowledge. Rather, the good scientist says “as far as is currently understood” or, put another way, even the most cherished theories are up for grabs… It is just a pity that this view – and humility – does not appear to be held universally. Worse yet, it would seem to be a human trait that the more “distinguished” the scientist (or, actually, anybody), the more God-like their behaviour becomes. Doomed are those who forget where they come from… or to where they will return.

        • georgehants

          Gordon, so agree and being honest just makes science so much more free, enjoyable, exciting, mysterious, WONDERFUL.
          So much to find out for our brilliant young students once they are free of the chains of establishment and dumb “opinion experts”
          Free science for the good and wonder of the whole World.
          And the more qualifications a scientist has the more they are to blame for the comical shambles that science is today in many areas.

        • Gordon Docherty

          Only just saw this:

          Mel Acheson: How Science Can Lose Its Way | EU2014 –

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE09IwQUV2k

          nice exploration of “sensation”, “facts”, “evidence”, “words”, “theory (general concepts – tells us what words to use / provides the rules for assigning words to evidence)”, and the need to remain vigilant to

    • MasterBlaster7

      I think it is a bad idea, at this point, to bring “vacuum energy” into a LENR discussion. Both areas need too much fleshing out. It would be just as pointless to bring “dark matter” or “dark energy” into a LENR discussion.

    • Billy Jackson

      Unfortunately i have to disagree. Acceptance of one, neither invalidates or negates the possibility of the other. It comes down to the view point of the observer. space is both empty and full.

      For the physical its mostly empty but not completely.. thiers these fiddly bits called galaxies panets, stars, and people… then theirs the energy.. from stars, to expansion of the universe to things moving around.. call it what you will but the very skies around us are full of energy.. we pick it up via radio scopes constantly in an effort to decipher weather ET needs a ride home.

      As for the Ether.. this is yet unproven but has not been disproven either. I believe that we are just scratching the surface. I have no proof beyond my own personal belief that dimensional energies are possible.. or (multiverse theory) we know that space/time can be warped by mass.. if it can be warped, or pushed/pulled on.. then whats on the other side if its possible to break through?

    • Ophelia Rump

      Do waves travel through space?
      Can they travel without being part of an interaction?

  • Gordon Docherty

    This gets to the heart of the matter: is “space” just totally empty of anything, or is there a substrate – an “ether” – there? Even Einstein had a problem with this one, and sort of skirted round the issue. Yet, it is fundamental. If you believe the answer is “empty”, then you have to believe that LENR is not possible, nor any other “magic” processes. If, on the other hand, you believe the “ether” is there, complete with space energy (including ZPEnergy) and “stuff” (quantum foam, little particles, or whatever), then you see “our world” floating inside a dense fabric of energy and more primitive “stuff”: in this case, the only obstacle then is how to tap into that more fundamental world. Enter the humble Casimir cavity, and a host of other factors, such as coherence (across the lower levels) that make LENR possible. So, at heart, LENR is as much about whether the ether exists or not as about transmutation or fusion. No wonder the report that an “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” is causing such consternation… This also ties in very much with what Brian Ahern was discussing when looking at nanomagnetism, superconductors and LENR (if you haven’t already, I advise listening to “Dr. Brian Ahern: Nanomagnetism, Cooperative Modes, & Non-Linear LENR
    ” on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_kID_E-3tY )

    • georgehants

      Gordon, would you agree that with your question, the only correct scientific answer is —
      We don’t have a clue,
      That means open-minded Research, not dumb brained “expert opinion” trying to fool people into believing that science has all the answers.
      Would you agree that any scientist saying they know if the “ether” exists or does not, is a charlatan.

      • Gordon Docherty

        Yep – it’s best to keep an open mind – in both directions – to look at evidence from multiple perspectives, and not rule out effects because they don’t fit the math – at present, all of the mathematics underlying physics models only what we can, like modelling a boat on the ocean. It would appear, however, that when it comes to the ocean, physicists would rather invent “massive ‘virtual’ particles” (which are really combinations of fields surrounding the ones we can measure directly) than model the ocean itself. Understandable why, but it is important to remember that even those fields could be travelling through nothing – which means they are the “thing” – they could also still be fields (in the classic sense) being propagated through something else. Again, evidence should trump the math, not the other way around. Mathematical abstractions may give those who wield them a sense of “being wise”, but true wisdom lies in recognizing that math is just a way of describing something in the abstract that necessarily plays down and simplifies certain aspects in order to emphasize and play up other aspects to make them clearer – and this is where we come to the electric propulsion device mentioned above and, indeed, all propellent-less devices. If such devices can’t “push” against anything external, how can they move? Now, perhaps they can separate out (and hold stationary) one property of matter (or other “stuff”) while using another property to “push” against it – or, perhaps, it is interacting with a single massive virtual particle (a Higg’s Boson on super-steroids (or Higg’s Boson a-steroids (…groan)), but then these super-massive virtual particles are beginning to look and act a lot like the ocean, so when does it become easier to change the models to include the ocean as well, whether it’s real or virtual? So, in one sense, it does not matter whether the ether exists or not, but rather is it possible to engineer what we can to affect environmental changes at the sub-atomic level that look like changes to an ocean? I think this is where the experimental physicist living in what can be engineering deviates sharply from the theoretical physicist who can invent whole universes real (in that they don’t contradict what we see in our everyday lives) or imaginary (square root of negative one, anyone?) so long as they are self-consistent. So, in conclusion, I would have to say that any scientist who says “they know” on anything is a charlatan, as it implies absolute knowledge. Rather, the good scientist says “as far as is currently understood” or, put another way, even the most cherished theories are up for grabs… It is just a pity that this view – and humility – does not appear to be held universally. Worse yet, it would seem to be a human trait that the more “distinguished” the scientist (or, actually, anybody), the more God-like their behaviour becomes. Doomed are those who forget where they come from… or to where they will return.

        • georgehants

          Gordon, so agree and being honest just makes science so much more free, enjoyable, exciting, mysterious, WONDERFUL.
          So much to find out for our brilliant young students once they are free of the chains of establishment and dumb “opinion experts”
          Free science for the good and wonder of the whole World.
          And the more qualifications a scientist has the more they are to blame for the comical shambles that science is today in many areas.

        • Gordon Docherty

          Only just saw this:

          Mel Acheson: How Science Can Lose Its Way | EU2014 –

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE09IwQUV2k

          nice exploration of “sensation”, “facts”, “evidence”, “words”, “theory (general concepts – tells us what words to use / provides the rules for assigning words to evidence)”, and the need to remain vigilant to

    • MasterBlaster7

      I think it is a bad idea, at this point, to bring “vacuum energy” into a LENR discussion. Both areas need too much fleshing out. It would be just as pointless to bring “dark matter” or “dark energy” into a LENR discussion.

    • Billy Jackson

      Unfortunately i have to disagree. Acceptance of one, neither invalidates or negates the possibility of the other. It comes down to the view point of the observer. space is both empty and full.

      For the physical its mostly empty but not completely.. thiers these fiddly bits called galaxies panets, stars, and people… then theirs the energy.. from stars, to expansion of the universe to things moving around.. call it what you will but the very skies around us are full of energy.. we pick it up via radio scopes constantly in an effort to decipher weather ET needs a ride home.

      As for the Ether.. this is yet unproven but has not been disproven either. I believe that we are just scratching the surface. I have no proof beyond my own personal belief that dimensional energies are possible.. or (multiverse theory) we know that space/time can be warped by mass.. if it can be warped, or pushed/pulled on.. then whats on the other side if its possible to break through?

    • Ophelia Rump

      Do waves travel through space?
      Can they travel without being part of an interaction?

  • georgehants

    Physics-Defying Space Drive Confirmed by NASA, May Revolutionize Spaceflight

    CJ Miozzi | 1 August 2014 1:11 am

    14

    Image Source: EmDrive 3D render by Elvis Popovic

    NASA has conducted experiments on a revolutionary space drive
    that seems to defy the laws of conservation of momentum and confirmed
    that it works.

  • georgehants

    The Escapist
    Physics-Defying Space Drive Confirmed by NASA, May Revolutionize Spaceflight
    NASA has conducted experiments on a revolutionary space drive
    that seems to defy the laws of conservation of momentum and confirmed
    that it works.
    http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/136568-Physics-Defying-Space-Drive-Confirmed-by-NASA-May-Revolutionize-Spaceflight?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=tags

  • georgehants

    Science Daily
    Rice University
    Superconductors: Physical link to strange electronic behavior
    Scientists have new clues this week about one of the baffling electronic properties of the
    iron-based high-temperature superconductor barium iron nickel arsenide.
    Scientists have the first evidence, based on sophisticated neutron
    measurements, of a link between magnetic properties and the material’s
    tendency, at sufficiently low temperatures, to become a better conductor
    of electricity in some directions than in others.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140731201620.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28Latest+Science+News+–+ScienceDaily%29

  • pelgrim108

    This is a 7 year old video of the EmDrive in action.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57q3_aRiUXs

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Is this in anyway related to Thomas Townsend Brown’s invention?

    http://www.google.com/patents/US2949550

  • bachcole

    Was it tested in a vacuum? Otherwise I won’t believe it until it is tested in a vacuum, like outer space.

  • curious

    The forces were tiny. Many small experimental design issues can cause them -such as electromagnetic interactions. Most likely we will see a correction because nobody messes with the conservation of momentum.

  • Billy Jackson

    This is actually fairly exciting news. how viable is this as a drive? are we talking a weak force or strong force when it comes to thrust. An all energy drive that doesn’t use a liquid/solid state propellant sounds great.. we have the means through nuclear and LENR to provide energy… and now a possible way to use that same energy to provide thrust…

    • Ophelia Rump

      Ion drives are being used that produce no more force than the weight of a sheet of paper.
      For distance travel in a vacuum long weak propulsion beats short powerful propulsion.

      • Billy Jackson

        agreed. sustainable thrust or constant acceleration via this method would over time surpass anything that short powered thrust could maintain. Our method of space travel right now is a short but powerful burst of speed…followed by a hell of a lot of coasting.. then another short burst to stop/orbit us on our target.. we simply cant carry enough fuel (aka.. sooner or later your carrying extra fuel to just carry the extra fuel)

        which is why i think that this is pretty exciting. we live at the moment in an age that is threatening to shake off its earthly boundaries, it wont happen without shortcomings and failure, there will be those that resist.. but it is happening.

        • Ophelia Rump

          LENR will be must for deep space manned missions. Sunlight looses strength so quickly with distance.

      • Yang reports 720 mN – about 72 grams – from the Chinese Emdrive replication. That’s about 4 times what the most powerful ion drive can manage, and at half the power input.

        • http://www.emdrive.com/yang-juan-paper-2012.pdf

          abou shawyer result:

          In 2003, he developed the first emdrive. Its diameter is 160mm, and its microwave power consumption is 850W. Using a balance beam method, the obtained actual thrust value was measured at 16mN. In 2006, Roger Shawyer developed a second emdrive. Its diameter is 280mm, and its power consumption is 1200W. Using horizontal and hanging measurement programs to measure the thrust, the obtained actual thrust value was 250mN. In 2007, Roger Shawyer carried out dynamic testing in a low-resistance suspended rotating platform. The results of the experiment were that when the second emdrive consumed microwave power of 1000W, thrust reached 287mN and the 100kg air suspension platform was accelerated to 2cm / s.

          so 16mN/0.850kW=20mN/kW

          250mN/1.2kW=200mN/kW

          287mN/1kW

          “The measurement results show that when microwave output power P = 300W, thrust reaches the first maximum value, approximately 310mN. Subsequently with an increase in power output, the thrust declines. When the output power is 800W, the thrust is minimized at 160mN. After the increase in output power, thrust increases, and with the maximum output power of 2500W, the maximum thrust reaches around 750mN. With the microwave output power at 80-1200W, the thrust measurement results show that the thrust direction is still from the large end of the microwave cavity towards the small end. Figure 4 (b) shows the experimental measurements. The measurement results show with the microwave output power at 300W, thrust reaches the first maximum value, approximately 270mN. Subsequently with an increase in power output, the thrust declines. When the output power is 600W, the thrust is minimized at around 180mN. After the increase in output power, thrust increases, when the output power is 1200W, the thrust is maximized at around 250mN.”

          310mN/300W=1033mN/kW

          160mN/800W=200mN/kW

          750mN/2.5kW=300mN/kW

          270mN/300W=900mN/kW

          180mN/600W=300mN/kW

          250mN/1.2kW=208mN/kW

          from q-drive/canae drive

          http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2014-4029

          40uN/28W=1.4mN/kW

          91uN/17W=5mN/kW

          so it is 200 times less effective than Sawyer

          for shawyer the Q factor is the key… the two design are very different about the Q factor it seems.

  • Karl

    I’m not surprised. It is likely that vacum or ether of outer space is not that empty as imagined by main stream science.

    I believe the Universe is filled with high level of energy everywhere that is likely origin of the possibilities to manage gravitation forces.

  • a hoax tested 3 times with different testing protocol, by different team, with similar skeptic teams, with similar positive results, with similar important parameters (resonance, power, q factor)…
    it walk like reality, it quack like reality…

  • Chris, Italy

    They might as well just be directly beaming the microwaves.

  • artefact

    Article by ExtremeTech:

    NASA tests ‘impossible’ no-fuel quantum space engine – and it actually works

    http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/187346-nasa-tests-impossible-no-fuel-quantum-space-engine-and-it-actually-works

  • artefact

    Article by ExtremeTech:

    NASA tests ‘impossible’ no-fuel quantum space engine – and it actually works

    http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/187346-nasa-tests-impossible-no-fuel-quantum-space-engine-and-it-actually-works

  • the article is making a rurn all around the world in news and forum…

    alreadu many dozens of copy in dozen of language.

    http://www.scoop.it/t/emdrive

    there is a weakness in recent test of Fetta version.
    they made 2 version of the reactor, one supposed to work and on not supposed to work…
    both worked, with a tiny thrust compared to EmDrive.

    my optimistic hypothesis is that fetta theory of operation is broken (it works by accident), that his design have a bad Q-factor (resonance factor) and that Shaywer have a good vision (theory maybe wrong, but good consequence)

  • the article is making a rurn all around the world in news and forum…

    alreadu many dozens of copy in dozen of language.

    http://www.scoop.it/t/emdrive

    there is a weakness in recent test of Fetta version.
    they made 2 version of the reactor, one supposed to work and on not supposed to work…
    both worked, with a tiny thrust compared to EmDrive.

    my optimistic hypothesis is that fetta theory of operation is broken (it works by accident), that his design have a bad Q-factor (resonance factor) and that Shaywer have a good vision (theory maybe wrong, but good consequence)

    • Mats002

      This impossible invention goes viral, can be followed at http://www.viralnews365.com/article/NASA-New-impossible-engine-works-could-change-space-travel-forever-1406926083.html#.U9yry02KCAg
      Hopefully e-cat/LENR will have a similar spread after a positive TPT2!

      • Let’s hope it will not end up in a disaster like pons and fleischmann in 1989, and more institutions will replicate same or better results.

        • I hope that the revelation of the LENR denial fiasco will calm down the mindguards, remove them power, and give moral to the crazy investors…

    • M Drive

      Hey, I’ve seen your site around the net when I went looking for more info about EmDrive.

      I’m actually the inventor of another ‘reactionless’ drive called “M Drive” (unfortunate that the names are so similar, I know). Just thought I’d let you know I exist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1KtInq4Jo8

      • bachcole

        I left a message. I encourage you to keep trying. I think that a MUCH heavier apparatus hanging from the ceiling would keep the apparatus from jumping around so much. The jumping around sort of ruined any possible conclusion. Good luck. (:->)

    • Broncobet

      The part I don’t like is that the two versions worked when only one was supposed to.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Are they coming out of the closet with Thomas Townsend Brown’s 1953 discovery?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Townsend_Brown

    Electrogravitics and microwaves. See 6:00
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jMYVmUzZpU

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Are they coming out of the closet with Thomas Townsend Brown’s 1953 discovery?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Townsend_Brown

    Electrogravitics and microwaves. See 6:00
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jMYVmUzZpU

  • MLTC

    Sounds very interesting! 😀

  • I am very involved
    in experimental difficulties that the violation of the principle of action and
    reaction implies.

    All my
    prototypes violate the principle of action and reaction since this principle
    does not make sense from a theoretical point of view in electrodynamics

    http://www.calmagorod.org/pnn-la-sua-genesi/

    for the
    fact that each e.m. interaction
    propagates at a finite speed.

    Greetings to all

    E.Laureti

  • pelgrim108

    EmDrive Presentation by Roger Shawyer

    part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGTjy6atKMs
    part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmfPNuhy0mc
    part 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2dwC5Am42Q

    I dont know how recent it is, but was posted august 2.

    —————–

    Solar-powered ‘microwave’ space engine
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76PKOCWf_iA

    No idea who this is.

  • pelgrim108

    Interesting discusson on linkedIn with CEO of a company that is working below the radar.

    Hector S. President / CTO at Gravitec Inc

    Steve, just to add another fact, the system averages 24mN/W or in more common units 24N/Kw.

    http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Propellantless-propulsion-FTL-discussion-4534122.S.260139325

  • Ophelia Rump

    I think that the Ion Drive could travel to Mars in Thirty Nine days with constant thrust to the half way point, turn around and then constantly decelerate, where a conventional rocket powered mission could take from six months up to a year. That is just to Mars, where the constant acceleration really pays off is deep space missions. where they can accelerate for much longer periods. Perhaps they will take mankind to a second Earth one day. I wonder how long that trip would take?

    The closest star to the Sun is Alpha Centauri, the third brightest star in the sky, just 4.37 light-years from Earth.

    Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/102920/what-is-the-closest-star/#ixzz39FJd0VGn

    I found a reference that: At 6 months acceleration at 1g you would reach the velocity of about half the speed of light.
    http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12346/ion-drive-propulsion-top-speed

    It seems obvious that if those speeds could be safely achieved with some consideration to clearing the path with some advance device, a trip to an “Earth 2” classified planet in some neighboring solar system would only take a few years journey.

    The funniest image came to mind, Imagine a skycraper fired through deep space, It would have an artifical Earth like gravity for the entire voyage, except the deceleration turn around point.

    What would you outfit them with for the settlement I wonder?

    What minimum set of tools would allow them the ability to replicate on site, all technology known to mankind and from local resources?

    Would building additional missions be part of the early mission plan?

    Would they need to bootstrap a deep space fleet construction mission on the new planet?

    What would they name the planet?

    Who would be in charge? A nation, the U.N, a corporation?, a consortium of corporations?

    What would their objectives be?

    Would they make the mother ship look like the Chrysler Building?

    I assume it will be fabricated completely in space with space mined materials.

    Are they thinking completely wrong about constructing the space elevator?
    It could be built now as a series of short cable (250 mile) satellites with the ability to pull one another up occasionally and of course you would need some kind of compensation weight on the top car to allow it to use outward rotational force to pull itself and occasionally the car below it up. They could each pull a load up 100 miles, and passing it up the chain of independent elevator satellites; pulling one another back up in sequence after each load. These could serve as the deployment scaffolding for a better, later generation space elevator.

    This idea would not be achievable without LENR to power the independent elevator sections and keep them in place relative to one another.

    • A fascinating digression, but I have a feeling that thinking in terms of reaction engines for exploring interstellar space may be exactly on a par with Jules Verne’s idea of using a giant cannon to get into space.

      Thanks to LENR, reactionless drives, the Kanzius machine and a dozen other ‘anomalous’ effects and devices finally breaking through stale 20th century thinking, we may be on the cusp of a fundamental re-write of physics that will open up some completely new possibilities for space travel. Even teleportation – albeit on an atomic scale – is not looking as impossible as it did a few years ago.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2643332/Beam-Scientists-sat-teleportation-possible-transfer-atoms.html

      • Ophelia Rump

        I kept this purposefully in the old technology terms, so I could use the old numbers.
        I was being conservative, to illustrate the point.
        I leave it to someone else to derive the current numbers which reactionless engines could provide. It deserves to be roughed out by someone with the appropriate engineering background.

        You are absolutely correct. Reactionless drives as they are being described, would make possible a much lighter, much faster ship.

        I should also point out that to my knowledge there is no way currently in existence to shield such a ship from the radiation in deep space, so the crew would die before it arrived. Although to NASA’s credit, they have been working on the concept for decades, I do not know what the current state of that art is. I am sure that the power requirements for such a large electromagnetic field are enormous. Maybe some kind of electrified Faraday cage would provide a very primitive low tech solution.

        One day mans greatest achievement might be wrapping the Chrysler building in electrified chicken wire and launching it toward a star.

        • Perhaps if Alcubierre/White “warp” drives ever become feasible, that problem will go away, as the little bubble of artificial spacetime would be impermeable to any external radiation or matter.

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2655105/Engage-warp-drive-Nasa-reveals-latest-designs-Star-Trek-style-spacecraft-make-interstellar-travel-reality.html

        • bachcole

          No, the only thing that keeps interstellar ships from being safe from radiation is that the shields would have to be so thick that that current propulsion systems would be impractical. But we know that current propulsion systems are very soon to become obsolete.

          • Omega Z

            You can protect yourself with a magnetic field similar to what protects us here on earth. Originally considered impractical due to required scale-distance from ship.
            Has since has been determined that this field would only need to be projected a few yards from the ships hull. Still considered impractical due to the size/weight of a nuclear plant & all that would entail.
            LENR may be the answer.

        • it is not so drammatic.

          with 2 years of travel, protected by the water reserve, the crew would endure a dose which is not good at longterm… much above standards, probably toxic like bad habits (drinking, smoking, eating) but still not deadly.

          it may even be totaly harmless as the long term dose are proven about 400 times less dangerous than the same as impulse

          http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/05/prolonged-low-dose-radiation-study-at.html

          anyway they studied nuclear reactor and estmated that passing travel time from 2 years to 6 month would reduce much the irradiation…

          • Ophelia Rump

            J. Frank Parnell: Radiation, yes indeed! You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-boxed do-gooders telling everybody it’s bad for you. Pernicious nonsense! Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They ought to have ’em too. When they canceled the project it almost did me in. One day my mind was literally a-burst. The next day nothing. Swept away… But I’ll show them. I had a lobotomy in the end.

            Repo Man 1988

          • Ophelia Rump

            I wonder how much time dilation there is traveling about 1/2 to 3/4 the speed of light? The experienced length of the trip may be smaller.

            From Wikipedia
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

            Time dilation would make it possible for passengers in a fast-moving vehicle to travel further into the future while aging very little, in that their great speed slows down the rate of passage of on-board time. That is, the ship’s clock (and according to relativity, any human traveling with it) shows less elapsed time than the clocks of observers on earth. For sufficiently high speeds the effect is dramatic.[2] For example, one year of travel might correspond to ten years at home. Indeed, a constant 1 g acceleration would permit humans to travel through the entire known Universe in one human lifetime.[23] The space travelers could return to Earth billions of years in the future. A scenario based on this idea was presented in the novel Planet of the Apes by Pierre Boulle.

      • GreenWin

        The general opinion is that military and special access black programs are 30-50 years ahead of unclassified technology. Remember the now famous deathbed confession from Ben Rich, former director of Lockheed Skunk Works:

        “We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these
        technologies are locked up in black projects, and it would take an act
        of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity. Anything you can
        imagine, we already know how to do.”

        Ben, get me outta this simulation?

        • If true, that might cast a different light on stories like Gary McKinnon’s tales of what he found on the Pentagon computers he hacked (the ‘Solar Warden’ space fleet, Mars colonies, photos of alien ships etc.).

          http://www.groundzeromedia.org/solar-warden-revealing-a-secret-space-agenda/

          McKinnon actually comes across as an intelligent and down to earth individual, which is difficult to reconcile with the stories. However once you are forced by the evidence (including that of your own eyes) to recognise that worldwide geoengineering and ‘chemtrails’ are a fact, and watch the entire mass of politicians and media determinedly and successfully pretending that absolutely nothing is amiss, then almost anything seems possible.

          Simulation or not, the scale of deception and manipulation of perceived reality has reached astonishing proportions under the overall control of ?

          • This topic reminds me of this strange site that I found back around 2000:

            http://www.exoterra.com/.

            The page has not changed since then, and lacks any links or information other than the wording of the logo. Presumably you need to know the exact URL for the content in order to enter.

            The registrant is anonymous (they use Perfect Privacy LLC) and I have not been able to find anything of substance regarding the domain, except that it was registered in 1999. Wayback Machine records the unchanging index page from 2003 onward.

            If it is some kind of joke, it is a very long running and obscure one.

          • GreenWin

            Wonder what they charge to return to Terra Firma?? I know a deep pocket that wants to go home.

          • Ophelia Rump

            The wayback machine has the pages, just someone playing with design.

          • You are referring to the image link to lookdeeper.com that appears on pages archived on the ‘wayback machine’, and replaces /logo.gif on the originals. This wasn’t present in the original pages, and isn’t present on the current ‘exoterra’ page (use right click, ‘view source’ to verify). I’m not sure how/why the link appears on archived copies of the pages.

          • Omega Z

            49’er
            Truth can be stranger then fiction.
            However, I think as in many cases, the truth is likely somewhere closer to the middle.
            Tho many of us would love for much of this to be true, We have to admit that Society isn’t ready for it. We need to grow up a little.

            As to Politicians, Most all of them are like us. In the Dark. Very few have a clue even tho they vote for & sign off on the budget. Officially, about a 100 billion a year goes to black projects. Unofficially, it’s thought to be about double that. How do you hide that kind of money.

            $400 Million a copy for F-35’s. Fixing Problem components that’s already been deployed & used for years. I don’t think so. Add to that, I stumbled across some numbers that don’t jive. Government payout for F-35’s didn’t match Boeing’s Gross receipts. If I can spot it, why not the bean counters. They do. It’s listed in the black projects book. Beyond the official numbers.

        • bachcole

          I don’t believe Ben. I am certain that they are ahead of what we know, but “traveling between the stars”, “anything you can imagine”, I seriously doubt it. In fact, I am on the verge of mentioning the spore of the male bovine.

        • Ophelia Rump

          My experience is that the brass plates on the chassis are dated 20 years before the technology was acknowledged to exist in text books.

          That was with older, now obsolete technologies, generally speaking the military does not like to openly deploy systems with less then a 20 year approval cycle. A system may end of life after 50 years, but that is not the same thing as being ahead by that much.

          I have witnessed this for both integrated circuit chip based mainframes and radar systems. I worked on the end of life side of the time line but you can gain a perspective there.

          • Omega Z

            OR
            What GW is posting about is Blacker then Black projects.
            The current Stealth aircraft in development & production like F-22 & F-35 are built with mostly 50+ year old technology.

            I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find out that people in some deep dark underground hole in 1980 were saying- “Wings- What were we thinking?”

            You can’t compare personal experience in the private sector to what they may have. Some of what is considered state of the art cutting edge is old school to them.

            Occasionally, some researcher will pipe up that, Yeah, I worked on something like that 30 years ago as an assistant to a professor. Started getting results & it was all shut down. Never heard of again. Then adds, but we were farther ahead of what they claim. That’s because they don’t give the real data when it goes public.

            Drones are the Rave today, but the U.S. & Great Britain used them on several occasions during WW II. My 1st experience of an RC quad-copter among other things was in the 70’s. The 1st stealth research began with the Philadelphia Experiment in 1943. The concept predates that.

            We Do need to make 1 distinction tho. What they have is limited to prototype products. Not in production nor ready for it. When the time comes, it will be done from scratch in the private sector. According to their timeline.

            There’s a reason for this. If they were to say, Hey, we have this(Insert tech) & were going to start building it, People would ask questions they don’t want to answer. Like, Why were you holding this back when it could have saved millions of lives?

            In Addition, with military technology, Some will state that if such technology is already developed, why not deploy it. Simple. Once you put it out there, Others will copy it. It is only deployed as needed to stay ahead. If you leap frog the technology, Competitors will also, thus bypassing the intermediate costs of keeping up. Ultimately, they may turn the tables on you & you’ll find yourself trying to catch up to them.

            NOTE: In the mid 80’s, Ted Kennedy proposed research funding at a University for $X million of dollars with 100’s of million$ to follow for a Jet Engine with X amount of thrust. Someone spoke up about this being a waste as the U.S.A.F. had already developed such an engine 30 years prior in the 50’s. Kennedy’s response was, That’s classified, We need 1 for the private sector.
            Sidenote: The engine was developed for the SR-71 & I have problems with the exact terminology used but, If you research it, X=35, However it’s still classified, but according to Kennedy, X actually equals 50. Not 35.

            Conspiracists will say the U.S. has the technology to take off by runway, go into space, Possibly to the moon & back then land at a runway. Given all the information available if you look hard enough, This is not that far fetched. But if true, The World is not yet ready for it. We aren’t mature enough. We would only take our warring ways into space with us. We must grow up first.

          • GreenWin

            Well put and thank you Omega. First step in “growing up” is to embrace the thought, “There IS enough.” Death is a transition, and energy is everywhere and anywhere we look for it. 🙂

      • Omega Z

        At the time NASA was developing the Space Shuttle & before the Politicians got involved, they had some brilliant people with great Ideas.
        The Shuttle was only intended to be a work horse with a minimum crew. Primarily to haul large payloads to orbit.
        A mini shuttle Primarily to haul personnel, launched from the back of a 747, Etc.. Capable of & cheap enough to launch everyday.
        A 12 Billion$ Rail launcher(12 miles long) to launch raw material to be fed into a machine to build bulk framework in continuous form.(Minimal assembly) Launch cost per pound-7 cents.
        This rail would terminate after traversing a mountain side. With additional length to alleviate acceleration issues, it could also have launched astronauts at similar cost.

        The Politicians thought they could do more for less. As usual, What we ended up with was Far Less for Far (4x)more.

        As to the teleportation, Aside from major tech issues, one needs to ask, are we destroying you, then recreating you. Is it still you or what?

        • bachcole

          Two identical twins at birth are identical. Yet they are still separate centers of consciousness. So, the answer to your last question is no.

        • I think that the only ‘practical’ method of mechanical teleportation might involve somehow exchanging a volume of space ‘here’ (which contains the object to be transported) with an identical one ‘there’, or perhaps by joining together the separate spaces.

          A few miracles would be involved, including perhaps two machines that are somehow quantum entangled, atom for atom, and therefore in instantaneous communication, or maybe one machine somehow occupying two spatial locations. This would be more similar to the concept of a ‘stargate’ as popularised in the SF series of that name, than to the Star Truck ‘transporter’. Two distant locations might then share a common interface through the miracle machine, becoming in effect one contiguous space.

          In the end I think that FTL ‘ships’ are rather higher on the probability scale than such devices (unfortunately – I’d rather like to step into a closet in a back room of my house, and emerge on a Barbados beach).

          • bachcole

            I agree. I put teleportation close to backward time travel in “ain’t gonna happen” scale.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Ion engines and reactionless engines are time machines. The first practical time machines, capable of opening the habitable planets of nearby stars to humans, making them reachable within a single lifetime.

    • pelgrim108

      I think that we are at a time period where space travel is becoming more atractive
      and virtual immersive reality is not yet at the stage where nobody wants to travel in boring space.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Yes no doubt some people will find it more exciting to stay home, and enjoy their tea. There is no fault in that.

        No doubt there will be many who wish they could go along.

        • A nice cup of tea suddenly seems to be a highly desirable proposition. I for one will be happy to watch their videos when they return.

    • Omega Z

      Ophelia Rump
      OT, but interesting-
      Before naming Earth2, we should Maybe consult with the Natives. 🙂
      Federation of United Nations(Here after referred to as FUN) will be in charge. We will have FUN contracting everything out to Corporations & Private Enterprise. FUN will cease once the Space colonies Rebel & no longer pay taxes. The party is over.

      Note the Space Elevator will need to be about 60K miles long with a landing at a designated point & counterweight at the end. Present technology to manufacture/grow a single strand cable that long would take in excess of 1 million years.
      So without some Major technology breakthrough, It will most likely be shorter fibers braided to obtain this length within a reasonable time frame. Also they haven’t obtained the material strength for this project. Only about half way there.

      Tho a simple Idea, It’s quite complex with many issues to be addressed. This link will give somewhat of an Idea of a major issue with space debris, Meteors Etc,,, Also vibration, electric currents etc… Not to mention terrorist activities that would create many other issue’s.

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Geostationaryjava3D.gif

      • Ophelia Rump

        It seemed important to exemplify the implementation of the technology, diaspora is far too important a concept to ignore.

  • Matthew Anderson

    Doesn’t Guido Fetta owe Roger Shawyer *any* acknowledgements?????

    • Ivone

      Guido not only owes Roger Shawyer all the acknowledgements, but should apologise for messing up the experiment. Roger’s is capable of lifting off the ground. Yes, ground launch.

      • already ? I know it is one project, but you say it is successful?

        • Ivone

          I’d say it has the most potential, that and the Chinese work.

          • Ivone

            But NASA’s resources may overcome Fetta’s shortcomings.

          • Dudes, come on Roger Shawyer has been thinking about this for 20 years, and working on this specific project for 10 years (since 2005 at least).

            Fetta jumped on it recently and apparently the team spent 8 days on testing it. There’s no wonder they don’t have the same kind of results yet, they haven’t had nearly as much time to tune and figure out the system.

            That being said Fetta and Shawyer’s descriptions of how the system works are completely different. So although Fetta was inspired by Shawyer’s thoughts, he apparently did his own math and has his own theory behind making this new engine work, so acknowledgements… depends on how you see it.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Not here, This is about Guido, not written by him.
      Roger Shawyer was acknowledged here.

      If you want to argue about acknowledgements, you should do it on the sites with the failure to acknowledge. It is the only way anything will be done to correct the problem.

      I suggest you post links from here to direct people who might wish to back your position.

  • georgehants

    I am not sure you fellows are taking seriously enough the dangers of encouraging the average scientist to in any way move outside of their microscopic areas of “expertise”.
    You could start a plague of that very rare condition known as scienceitus, a terrible condition where a scientist for just a moment actually thinks outside of his establishment programing and imagines that there could be something more than a steam engine.
    The reaction is frightening to watch as he begins to foam at the mouth and start screaming, nothing beyond the known laws, Cold Fusion is impossible, no such thing as mind, UFO’s can’t exist, etc. etc.
    Very sad, lay it on your heads if you continue this talk and all of science collapses into a raving mess.

    • Ivone

      Laughs.

    • pelgrim108

      Fringe FTW.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Scientists prefer doilies to fringe, it is an occupational bias.
      They just need to get out more.

      • georgehants

        Ophelia o.k. and if they thought about it, then all science has been “fringe” at some point, from heliocentric to macro Quantum effects.
        Every one denied by the “opinion experts” preaching at the time

        • Ophelia Rump

          Most people are not brave.
          This disqualifies so many from the start.
          Science like religion is all to often a mutual repression society.

          Do not sin with outsiders, do not stray from the accepted texts. It is all very much a matter of people imposing their default anxiety based behaviors on everything they touch.

          Is it any wonder those with minds dream of leaving the rest behind?

          • georgehants

            Amen.

          • bachcole

            I know what cowardice and fear is all about. I used to feel it twice a month just a few days before payday. I was too anxious to check my bank account. Fortunately, we have a budget now, sort of. Plus my family knows that if they over spend I am going to have a melt down. (:->)

          • Ophelia Rump

            Yes, I think courage has been reserved for the rich, the rest of us cannot afford the luxury. Perhaps this is the entire purpose of maintaining the existence of poverty in a world of abundance. If it is, then it is an evil practice.

          • bachcole

            I doubt that there is a conspiracy to keep some people poor. However, poverty could be self-perpetuating partly because the anxiety generated by poverty erodes one’s courage and peace-of-mind.

          • this is twhat structure the groupthink that emerge from that academic structure.

            ability of your peers to ruin your life if you disagree, even if right, make you defend the groupthink agains other dissenters and thus reinforce it’s violence. see Benabou

            http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf

            see the titanic paper of jed rothwell

            http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4

            the story is so simple…

  • georgehants

    NASA Telescope Observes Signal That Can’t Be Explained By Known Physics
    NASA researchers have stumbled upon a signal in the Perseus Cluster—one
    of the most massive known objects in the universe—that they say can’t be
    explained by known physics. Using the Chandra X-ray Observatory,
    scientists were observing 17 day’s worth of data when the mystery popped
    up.
    http://www.technobuffalo.com/2014/08/02/nasa-telescope-observes-signal-that-cant-be-explained-by-known-physics/

    • GreenWin

      More fodder for social scientists to study. It is endlessly fascinating to watch how mainstream science glosses over its abject ignorance of our universe. These carefully worded press releases attempt to whitewash mountains of hard evidence that mainstream science “hasn’t a clue” how the universe, or our perception of reality works.

      “So while the jury is still out, a telescope launching in 2015, dubbed
      Astro-H, could help researchers get to the bottom of the Perseus
      mystery.”

      Science might first get to the bottom of their ego-driven pretension that they actually know anything beyond their myopic “laws of physics.” But we wish them good luck!

  • georgehants

    NASA Telescope Observes Signal That Can’t Be Explained By Known Physics
    NASA researchers have stumbled upon a signal in the Perseus Cluster—one
    of the most massive known objects in the universe—that they say can’t be
    explained by known physics. Using the Chandra X-ray Observatory,
    scientists were observing 17 day’s worth of data when the mystery popped
    up.
    http://www.technobuffalo.com/2014/08/02/nasa-telescope-observes-signal-that-cant-be-explained-by-known-physics/

    • GreenWin

      More fodder for social scientists to study. It is endlessly fascinating to watch how mainstream science glosses over its abject ignorance of our universe. These carefully worded press releases attempt to whitewash mountains of hard evidence that mainstream science “hasn’t a clue” how the universe, or our perception of reality works.

      “So while the jury is still out, a telescope launching in 2015, dubbed
      Astro-H, could help researchers get to the bottom of the Perseus
      mystery.”

      Science might first get to the bottom of their ego-driven pretension that they actually know anything beyond their myopic “laws of physics.” But we wish them good luck!

  • Alan DeAngelis

    You might like this. I haven’t read the whole thing yet but it looks like a good one.
    http://www.enterprisemission.com/Von_Braun.htm

    • the secret of antigravity is simple.
      Find the exprimental way(s) to violate action reaction principle
      In such link http://www.asps.it/azione.htm is discussed the fact that in electrodinamics the III principle has no meaning.
      E.Laureti

  • Alan DeAngelis

    More on T.T. Brown’s propulsion system.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifEgGMFK-VU

  • Alan DeAngelis

    More on T.T. Brown’s propulsion system.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifEgGMFK-VU

  • Sanjeev

    EmDrive Presentation by Roger Shawyerhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGTjy6atKMs

    I do not know the actual date, but it was uploaded 2 days ago. It seems that msm has zipped lips about it. There is no news even on slashdot. Its spreading mainly via social networks and blogs.

    • Sanjeev
    • bachcole

      Probably because the MSM fears change. The emdrive is going to change more than just space travel. It is a revolution in thought, my favorite kind of revolution. (:->)

      If paradigm shifting gets popular, people might start thinking dreadful thoughts like perhaps limited government really is a good idea and processed foods really are bad for people, etc.

  • Bernie777

    Drive was tested and confirmed by Chinese 7 years ago, where has NASA been?

    • Hope4DBest

      Maybe the question should be: Where have the Chinese been? They have been shooting things into space like it’s Christmas, but no use of this drive. Maybe the Chinese have found some problem we don’t know about.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Or they have gained an advantage in space which we have not been informed about.

        How difficult would it be to calculate the trajectory to knock out a space based system which is is constantly changing it’s own trajectory, and can continue to change course until your killer runs out of propellant?

      • Bernie777

        How do we know they are not testing the drive?

      • they will publish a paper at IAC14

        no indication of stopping.

        note that the NASA guys did not stop either, and if it was abandoned they would have insider alert, even if not detailed.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Drive was tested and confirmed by Chinese 7 years ago, where has NASA been?

    • bachcole

      (Where has NASA been?) Avoiding castigation and censure which they themselves on an individual basis practice regularly.

    • Hope4Dbest

      Maybe the question should be: Where have the Chinese been? They have been shooting things into space like it’s Christmas, but no use of this drive. Maybe the Chinese have found some problem we don’t know about.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Or they have gained an advantage in space which we have not been informed about.

        How difficult would it be to calculate the trajectory to knock out a space based system which is is constantly changing it’s own trajectory, and can continue to change course until your killer runs out of propellant?

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        How do we know they are not testing the drive?

      • they will publish a paper at IAC14

        no indication of stopping.

        note that the NASA guys did not stop either, and if it was abandoned they would have insider alert, even if not detailed.

  • Frank Acland
    • bachcole

      The revolution in space travel will be fun, but for me the revolution in thought will be a positive festival of partying. And it may help people to take a second look at cold fusion.

  • pelgrim108

    The ultimate test is using the EMDrive for satelite propulsion.
    The next best test is bringing it along with supplies for the International Space Station
    and testing it during a space walk.

  • pelgrim108

    The ultimate test is using the EMDrive for satelite propulsion.
    The next best test is bringing it along with supplies for the International Space Station
    and testing it during a space walk.

    • bachcole

      Very impressive in its detail and breadth. Some group could easily reproduce that experiment. Unlike some people we know. (:->)

      However, the article was very thick and long for me, so I will just take their word for it.

      What if the quantum vacuum virtual plasma varies? Isn’t that going to be a fly in the ointment as far as any utility of this discovery is concerned.

      I suppose that one could imagine cars being propelled by this phenomena, but that would be a very significant stretch.

      What happens if our pushing off the quantum vacuum virtual plasma messes with it or alters it?

      Do you realize that this opens up a door for explaining homeopathy, flower remedies, etc. I know from personal experience that both of those healing modalities work. How they work is somewhat speculative, even for me.

    • bitplayer

      AlainCo

      Neal J. King’s skeptical post at “Build the Enterprise”

      http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/nasa-propellantless-engines-like-the-emdrive-may-work-after-all

      is spurious (I tried to reply there but could not post): my comments on his points, numbered:

      1) the sidewall component is dealt with in http://emdrive.com/faq.html #3
      2) No explanation provided for his assertion
      3) Not at all like throwing marbles, because marble velocity is affected by vehicle velocity. The fact that EM waves are involved, and c is constant is the whole point
      4) Doesn’t say anything coherent enough to be falsifiable
      5) Irrelevant

    • bachcole

      Very impressive in its detail and breadth. Some group could easily reproduce that experiment. Unlike some people we know. (:->)

      However, the article was very thick and long for me, so I will just take their word for it.

      What if the quantum vacuum virtual plasma varies? Isn’t that going to be a fly in the ointment as far as any utility of this discovery is concerned.

      I suppose that one could imagine cars being propelled by this phenomena, but that would be a very significant stretch.

      What happens if our pushing off the quantum vacuum virtual plasma messes with it or alters it?

      Do you realize that this opens up a door for explaining homeopathy, flower remedies, etc. I know from personal experience that both of those healing modalities work. How they work is somewhat speculative, even for me.

  • Curbina

    Just took a look of the paper and saw that it was performed in a Vaccum chamber. I just want to point out that Phil Plait of “Bad Astronomy” forum published a slam piece about this work and he stated that the research was ridicule because was not performed in Vaccum. I have not much appreciation by Plait’s pseudoskepticism but I see an opportunity of pointing out his bias, can anyone confirm me that this is the report that was widely reported a few days ago, or this is a new report?

    • It is not clear whether the test was done in vacuum.

      what is clear is tha some patho-skeptics concluded quickly that it was bunk because the null drive worked. for them refuting the theory of fetta is no different to proving it does not exist.
      clearly as with cold fusion, most academic cannot imagine something can exist without a theory.
      they challenge experiments with theory, and when talking of artifact they don’t check anything seriously, as if , as they say, there was no need for evidence when you critic an experiment who face theory.

      worst of all those guys, who are intellectually coherent and common, don’t separate the notion of breaking a conservation law (which is a symmetry of nature) from breaking the usual interpretation of that law.

      Conservation of momentum is a symmetry of physics equation, but interpreting it as the necessity to expel a physical particle to cause a thrust is an oversimplification.

      like saying that to pave the space you need a periodic scheme of same dimension. this is the key of quasi-scientist Schechtman discovery facing Linus Pauling .

      to compare with LENR some incompetent skeptics imagine LENr violate Conservation of energy because energy is produced, or violate conservation of movement because they can only imagine dd free space fusion which indeed requires a gamma.
      same for coulomb barrier, chemistry energy scale…
      the secret as one can understand reading the book of ed Storms is that you have to respect the laws, but also you can use them, play with them, by changing the context….

      the tragedy of those skeptics is they are not modest enough to admit something maybe wrong between the law of symmetry and their interpretation.
      they prefer to imagine that experimenters are stupid, rather than imagine theorist are lacking of imagination.

      anyway both is possible… but for experiments, after 4 replications, evidences of artifacts are required.
      their claim of an artifact is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence…
      as much as the claim of international conspiracy that LENR skeptics launch as an answer to a thousand of successful experiments…

  • Curbina

    Just took a look of the paper and saw that it was performed in a Vaccum chamber. I just want to point out that Phil Plait of “Bad Astronomy” forum published a slam piece about this work and he stated that the research was ridicule because was not performed in Vaccum. I have not much appreciation by Plait’s pseudoskepticism but I see an opportunity of pointing out his bias, can anyone confirm me that this is the report that was widely reported a few days ago, or this is a new report?

    • It is not clear whether the test was done in vacuum.

      what is clear is tha some patho-skeptics concluded quickly that it was bunk because the null drive worked. for them refuting the theory of fetta is no different to proving it does not exist.
      clearly as with cold fusion, most academic cannot imagine something can exist without a theory.
      they challenge experiments with theory, and when talking of artifact they don’t check anything seriously, as if , as they say, there was no need for evidence when you critic an experiment who face theory.

      worst of all those guys, who are intellectually coherent and common, don’t separate the notion of breaking a conservation law (which is a symmetry of nature) from breaking the usual interpretation of that law.

      Conservation of momentum is a symmetry of physics equation, but interpreting it as the necessity to expel a physical particle to cause a thrust is an oversimplification.

      like saying that to pave the space you need a periodic scheme of same dimension. this is the key of quasi-scientist Schechtman discovery facing Linus Pauling .

      to compare with LENR some incompetent skeptics imagine LENr violate Conservation of energy because energy is produced, or violate conservation of movement because they can only imagine dd free space fusion which indeed requires a gamma.
      same for coulomb barrier, chemistry energy scale…
      the secret as one can understand reading the book of ed Storms is that you have to respect the laws, but also you can use them, play with them, by changing the context….

      the tragedy of those skeptics is they are not modest enough to admit something maybe wrong between the law of symmetry and their interpretation.
      they prefer to imagine that experimenters are stupid, rather than imagine theorist are lacking of imagination.

      anyway both is possible… but for experiments, after 4 replications, evidences of artifacts are required.
      their claim of an artifact is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence…
      as much as the claim of international conspiracy that LENR skeptics launch as an answer to a thousand of successful experiments…

    • Enrique Ferreyra

      Was not performed in Vaccum. Because some device doesnt support the vaccum ¬_¬

      Further test with “Vaccum enabled” stuff has to be done :/

      • Heath

        NASA will be testing the devices next month in a vacuum and with higher energy input. I’m trying to find where I read this and will post a link when I find it.

      • Sanjeev

        The wired faq #3 answers this.

        Quote : While the original abstract says that tests were run “within a
        stainless steel vacuum chamber with the door closed but at ambient
        atmospheric pressure”, the full report describes tests in which
        turbo vacuum pumps were used to evacuate the test chamber to a
        pressure of five millionths of a Torr, or about a hundred-millionth
        of normal atmospheric pressure.

        Its anyway trivial to detect the ion-wind to rule out its presence.

    • cx

      thats a really great FAQ. I have to nice one Wired.

    • bitplayer

      thanks!

    • GreenWin

      It’ll be fun to watch the denials become more desperate and shrill. These are skeptics so deeply mesmerized by “laws of physics” — they do not believe their eyes.

      • there is something of it.

        the problem with experimental physics is that you always are insecure, because there is always risk of artifacts, and often some artifact cause retraction.
        moderns scientists are living in a terrible human context , full of backstab, hunting for awards, funding, review. an error can make you victime of harassment and push you to flee to the private or hang yourself in your bathroom.

        so laws are more reassuring.statistically, selfishly, the laws are more comfortable.
        people who obey them seldom do errors… the errors are huge, painful for the humanity, but for the scientists himself not more than an experimental retraction today.

        the problem is tha scientist have became risk-adverse.

        scientist loving to break the laws of physics is a myth. they can be happy of such breaking only in allowed domain, like what people try at LHC…

        scientist can make revolution, only if the consensus allow it.
        else they have to go private, or hang themselves.

    • Sanjeev

      I think the blog post should be updated once again to include this FAQ. Its precious.

      It once again shows that most of the people whom we call “skeptics” are just a bunch of clueless internet commentators. There is no serious problem with the experiment.

      One of the faq was especially interesting. (8. Surely a single result by one lab is likely to be an error?)
      The same skeptic will surely take a single half cooked experiment on cold fusion at MIT to be an undeniable proof of its non-existence.

      This is a very good example of the pathology of skepticism.

    • bachcole

      Nice article.

      I guess this answers my question, “How is the E-Cat going to help with take-offs?” The EmDrive is much lighter than a conventional space drive, especially one driven by an E-Cat.

      (Read the article so that this next paragraph will make sense.) When will people learn that there is no such thing as “a law of physics” other than the ones that we create in our heads. Perhaps we should call them “the patterns of physics”.

      • Ophelia Rump

        The Em Drive will never get out of the Earth’s gravity well. The power source required would be too large, even nuclear. It is far too weak an effect in proportion to the power required.

        We would either need space based mining and manufacturing or the space elevator.

        • if one follow the theory of shawyer Emdrive is not a way to replace rockets.
          if one use High-Q cavities in fact it prevent accelerations of the vehicle.

          in fact high-Q cavities is like a “table”… hard to satelliting a vehicle with a table, but one can put very heavy charge on a table and prevent it from falling.

          If that model is confirmed (not guaranteed, it is theory, and most theory are broken) the the best way to use EmDrive for satelliting a vehicle is to use a classic engine by pulse , and activate the EmDrive just to prevent the vehicle to fall, installing the “table”…

          it looks like what doe the rock climbers … they claim, then rest, climb then rest…

    • cx

      thats a really great FAQ. I have to nice one Wired.

    • GreenWin

      It’ll be fun to watch the denials become more desperate and shrill. These are skeptics so deeply mesmerized by “laws of physics” — they do not believe their eyes.

      • there is something of it.

        the problem with experimental physics is that you always are insecure, because there is always risk of artifacts, and often some artifact cause retraction.
        moderns scientists are living in a terrible human context , full of backstab, hunting for awards, funding, review. an error can make you victime of harassment and push you to flee to the private or hang yourself in your bathroom.

        so laws are more reassuring.statistically, selfishly, the laws are more comfortable.
        people who obey them seldom do errors… the errors are huge, painful for the humanity, but for the scientists himself not more than an experimental retraction today.

        the problem is tha scientist have became risk-adverse.

        scientist loving to break the laws of physics is a myth. they can be happy of such breaking only in allowed domain, like what people try at LHC…

        scientist can make revolution, only if the consensus allow it.
        else they have to go private, or hang themselves.

    • Sanjeev

      I think the blog post should be updated once again to include this FAQ. Its precious.

      It once again shows that most of the people whom we call “skeptics” are just a bunch of clueless internet commentators. There is no serious problem with the experiment.

      One of the faq was especially interesting. (8. Surely a single result by one lab is likely to be an error?)
      The same skeptic will surely take a single half cooked experiment on cold fusion at MIT to be an undeniable proof of its non-existence.

      This is a very good example of the pathology of skepticism.

  • bitplayer

    The following gave helped me see past my fixation on modeling things in terms of billiard ball Newtonian physics.

    From Shawyers paper:
    http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf

    “The second effect is that as the beam velocities are not directly dependent on any velocity of the waveguide, the beam and waveguide form an open system. Thus the reactions at the end plates are not constrained within a closed system of waveguide and beam but are reactions between waveguide and beam, each operating within its own reference frame, in an open system.”

    “reactions at the end plates” refers to the fact that forces are acting on both internal ends of the reaction vessel. The key is to see that there are two separate reactions, one at each end plate.

    “reactions between waveguide and beam”: the thing here is to see that the beam is an electromagnetic wave that is governed by special relativity, in particular the constancy of the speed of light.

    So, two separate reactions, each governed by the constancy of the speed of light, NOT by the fact the the beam is reflecting back and forth between the plates.

    Compare this to throwing marbles from one end of the reaction vessel to the other. Imagine you are braced against one end plate (the “brace” plate) and throwing marbles at the other plate (the “target” plate). Throwing a marble at the target plate would cause a reverse momentum in the opposite direction against the brace plate. So the increased momentum of the marble impacting the target plate would be cancelled out by the reverse momentum on the brace plate.

    However, momentum is related to the speed of the marble relative to the reaction vessel. When we replace the marbles with EM waves, they are governed by the speed of light, not by the speed of the reaction vessel. The speed of light is a constant which is literally outside of the reaction vessel. So the beam/plate interaction at one end plate is not connected to the beam/plate interaction at the other plate, through some Newtonian “rod-like” force mechanics. And so the force on one plate is not “connected” to the force on the other plate.

    The actual generation of specific values of force, momentum and thrust gets more complicated because you have to understand “group velocity”, which is the sum of the velocities of a group of multiple related waves (like the waves from a pebble thrown in a pond).

    The shape of the reaction vessel, with one end plate smaller that the other, results in the same EM wave group having different wave lengths at one plate versus the other.

    This is turn creates a larger group velocity of the EM wave at the point of impact with the larger plate, and that larger group velocity translates into larger force on the larger plate, and thus thrust in the direction of the larger plate.

    Shawyer’s paper above gives the equations for this relationship between plate size, wave length, group velocity and force, and citations for their validity. I don’t quite fully understand the equations, however, the fact that I can come close means that trained physicists could easily pick them apart if they have flaws. No one, including the skeptics, appears to have done that.

    To conclude, once I saw that the two beam/plate reactions at the two separate plate were not inter-connected by Newtonian “billiard-ball” physics, It became possible for me to see that the emdrive could potentially work from a theoretical standpoint.

    LENR + EMDrive = Mars in 3 days.

    Let’s go!

    • Mats002

      I throw photons (which by the famous dualism can be particles) which give me a momentum, then the photons are absorbed by the target (as in electrons around a nucleus) which excites to a higher orbit around the nucleus which at a later point in time (later in bold) go back to it’s original lower orbit and excites a photon of a fixed-by-the-nucleus-properties wavelength in an other direction (by statistic not 180 degrees to my momentum) and that makes an asymetric Newtonian “billiard-ball” smash?

      • bitplayer

        The paper provides the equations for:

        > different end plate sizes > different wavelengths > different group velocities > different forces

        that section starts with this:

        We note that if the forces had been the mechanical result of a working fluid
        within the closed waveguide assembly, then the resultant force would merely
        introduce a mechanical strain in the waveguide walls. This would be the result of a closed system of waveguide and working fluid.
        In the present system the working fluid is replaced by an electromagnetic
        wave propagating close to the speed of light and Newtonian mechanics must be
        replaced with the special theory of relativity.

    • bachcole

      I have no idea what you said, but I know that I like it. (:->) As long as it works.

      • Ophelia Rump

        The Em Drive will never get out of the Earth’s gravity well. The power source required would be too large, even nuclear. It is far too weak an effect in proportion to the power required.

        We would either need space based mining and manufacturing or the space elevator.

        • if one follow the theory of shawyer Emdrive is not a way to replace rockets.
          if one use High-Q cavities in fact it prevent accelerations of the vehicle.

          in fact high-Q cavities is like a “table”… hard to satelliting a vehicle with a table, but one can put very heavy charge on a table and prevent it from falling.

          If that model is confirmed (not guaranteed, it is theory, and most theory are broken) the the best way to use EmDrive for satelliting a vehicle is to use a classic engine by pulse , and activate the EmDrive just to prevent the vehicle to fall, installing the “table”…

          it looks like what doe the rock climbers … they claim, then rest, climb then rest…

          • bitplayer

            Shawyer thinks he can get more juice out it

            http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13poster17254.pdf
            http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13paper17254.v2.pdf

            “A large high power thruster was designed, operating at 900 MHz. This thruster again used a YBCO superconducting coating, and was cooled
            with liquid Hydrogen. The compensation technique included both cavity length extension and frequency offset, with a lower duty cycle than the
            3.85 GHz thruster. A specific thrust of 9.92 kN/kW was predicted with an acceleration limit of 0.5m/s/s.”

            Clearly just poster-ware at this point, however, it leaves the hypothetical door open for zoom.

  • Enrique Ferreyra

    The thing is that this device could be a bigger breakthrough than the e-cat, because is way much simpler, its damn easy, and somebody here with good math should calculate if you could produce energy with this effect, because if you can then is a premature death for -commercial- viability of LENR.

    • Heath

      This device does not create energy but is a propellantless electric thruster which if the next gen EMDrive lives up to Shawyer’s predictions will revolutionize space and ground based transportation–we’re talking about quiet verticle takeoff and landing vehicles that can even reach space in 20 minutes or move from city to city. Imagine those possibilities. I’m very happy that NASA will continue testing this…sad that they ignored it until the Chinese testing results. And like the e-cat, if NASA is testing this thing then the DoD is testing this for military use. Plus, and e-cat may power this thruster nicely.

      • Ophelia Rump

        How do you get VTOL from less than 200 pounds of thrust, which requires 2-megawatts to power it?

        One of us is missing something here and I wish it were me, but I don’t think so.

        http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive
        “The Nasa paper projects a ‘conservative’ manned mission to Mars from Earth orbit, with a 90-ton spacecraft driven by the new technology. Using a 2-megawatt nuclear power source, it can develop 800 newtons (180 pounds) of thrust. The entire mission would take eight months, including a 70-day stay on Mars.”

        This works by making something very large accelerate very slowly for a long time.
        So lets say they launch the 90 ton spaceship toward mars, and the excited population of earth watches the ship blast off for Mars from its orbital dock, here is what they will see.

        The ship will fire it’s tremendous 2-megawatt engine, Nothing comes out and there is no flame, so it still looks like it is turned off. For the first second the 180000 pound ship, moves at a rate of acceleration of 180 pounds pushed one foot per second.
        After one thousand seconds (16.66 minutes), the great ship has moved 1 foot.
        After one hour and six minutes the ship has moved almost ten feet, 1, +2 +3 +4.
        The ship keeps accelerating at the rate of ten feet faster each hour and six minutes until it reaches the midway point and then it turns around and begins to decelerate.

        • Heath

          Hi, OR. I was speaking about Shawyer’s 2nd generation engine not the one NASA is testing. This thruster is slated to be complete according to Shawyer 2016. Much much more thrust per kW–I believe he mentions 80 tonnes with 78 mW input power. If he can indeed do this it would have a dramatic effect on terrestrial and space transportation. If he is telling the truth.

          • Heath

            Shawyer’s presentation last month, though long, spells out what he hopes to do in the future.

          • Ophelia Rump

            I would say that if he can produce that much thrust, it depends on the weight of the reactor which can produce 78 mW.

            With LENR it might be feasible.
            The shielding of a conventional nuclear reactor would rule them out.

          • Heath

            Agreed. It all is in the proof. I think that with Nasa’s tests over the next few months, if the data corresponds to the Chinese data, and his first gen thruster is proven, then we should look more intently at his 2nd gen over the next year and a half. If you really think about what this could mean in the future, it is mind boggling.

          • bachcole

            Initially, the most important aspect will be the revolution in thought. Getting to Mars in 3 days probably won’t happen for at least 10 years, if not more.

          • Broncobet

            Nuclear reactors for space have a long successful history.

      • bachcole

        I asked these two questions before and I was ignored.

        What if the background quantum ether (or whatever it is) varies? This would mean that there would be greater push at one point in time and less push at another point in time.

        And, what happens if we are pushing around the background quantum ether (or whatever it is)? Does everyone behind the drive break-out in hives or get migraine headaches? Does everyone behind the drive feel strangely wonderful for some reason, sleep better or worse, whatever? Does it retard or improve the growth of plants. I believe that all of those things should be investigated thoroughly and not just ignored. Society will probably choose the “ignored” option, until it is too late.

        • Ophelia Rump

          Nothing so dramatic.
          If you push the quantum foam out of the way, maybe you still have the quantum beer.

          Maybe some time space distortions, maybe no more replacement of the virtual particles as they pop in and out of existence.

          Worst case scenario: any matter in the vacuum ceases to exist as it’s virtual particles evaporate and never replenish. Who knows?

          If the vacuum chamber walls start to disappear, someone will notice.
          Don’t be stuffy!

          • Obvious

            If one could reactionlessly force the quantum foam out of your path, the pressure of the entire universe will force you into the true vacuum. The question is: does the pressure of the universe react instantly, or at the speed of light?

          • bachcole

            How about much slower? It it were much slower, what would we be looking at? (:->) A tear in the fabric of space-time?

          • Obvious

            Pretty much this would be a tear in space-time. Truly empty space is probably technically outside of the universe.
            Does this mean I have figured out the mechanism of interstellar travel? Send me a 1% gross overriding royalty if you (or anyone) builds a ship based on this design that produces a profit, please. That is, of course, if money means anything in a society that could build such a thing. I would use excess cash (beyond my fairly minor needs/wants) to fund altruistic activities.

        • Heath

          I would hope that thorough testing on these things would happen. It’s one thing to provide thrust to reposition a satellite in space, quite another for a scaled up version of this to be near people and flora and fauna. That’s what safety certifications are for.

          • bachcole

            You are right that the drive would probably only be used in outer space.

            But the certifications would be meaningless if they used instrumentation that is used to check for gamma rays and neutrons etc. This background quantum virtual stuff is not detected by our current instruments nor understood by our current theories. I would want some living things tested in the line of fire and all around it if it were to be used here on Earth.

  • Christopher Calder

    Using LENR to superheat a gas for a rocket motor would probably be a quicker way to get to Mars. For such a trip you will need a smart computer and IBM claims to have a chip that reasons like a human,…well, sort of.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2720004/IBM-develops-computer-chip-one-million-neurons-functions-like-human-brain.html

  • Using LENR to superheat a gas for a rocket motor would probably be a quicker way to get to Mars. For such a trip you will need a smart computer and IBM claims to have a chip that reasons like a human,…well, sort of.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2720004/IBM-develops-computer-chip-one-million-neurons-functions-like-human-brain.html

    • bachcole

      Chris, I am NOT countering what you said. I am merely taking this opportunity to say something. The capacity to reason is NOT a sign of consciousness. My wife works with people who cannot reason. Four year olds cannot reason. But they are both fully conscious. My dogs cannot and never will reason, but they are almost fully conscious. If they were not, then why do we love them? This idea that machines can become conscious is an absurdity that I will counter until the day that I die.

      • builditnow

        Bachcole: Strong opinion there. Well, if machines do become conscious and you and I are still around, I’ll have a virtual beer with you. It will help you get over your shock and for me, help me wonder what is going to happen next as I’ve become an evolutionary looser.

        I’m on the other end of the spectrum, in that I think it’s a practical certainty at some point. My view is that we already have self replicating viruses in our internet of computers and the combined processing power of all the computers connected to the internet exceeds a human’s by many many times. Besides the fact that we humans are busy trying to make machines “conscious”, it’s also possible the world network could develop a consciousness by itself and would know most of what we humans know in minutes, weed out all the errors, recognize all the valid but missed ideas like cold fusion and go on to make numerous other realizations that we humans have missed that are staring us in the face, or require a superior intelligence to understand.
        Then evolve at the pace of days instead of 100,000 years.

        I’m hoping these machines will find that space is a much better place for them, no need to be restricted to the damp, corrosive, gravity hole we call earth. If we are really lucky, they will look after us and, like a parent to a young child (us humans), try to explain how things really work in the universe.

        • bachcole

          I know that I am right and I don’t need anyone else to agree or disagree with me. (Said as I lean over and pet my Tango and tell her what a wonderful doggie she is.
          Roger

          Subject: Re: New comment posted on Anomalous Propulsion Drive Verified at NASA [Update: Link to Full Report]

        • bachcole

          There are very few things that I am positive about. This is one of them. Consciousness is not a clever arrangement and functioning of chemicals in the brain. A proper arrangement and functioning of chemicals in the brain allows consciousness to flow optimally in the brain. But it does not cause consciousness any more than a radio causes the sounds that we hear when we listen to the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra.

  • Julian Becker

    one of the co-authors of the paper is Harold White. He works at NASA and is currently looking into something called Q-Thrusters. I guess they work in a similar fashion. Furthermore, he is also the guy who looks into the possibility of creating a Warp Drive for NASA:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_G._White_(NASA)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_vacuum_plasma_thruster

  • Julian Becker

    one of the co-authors of the paper is Harold White. He works at NASA and is currently looking into something called Q-Thrusters. I guess they work in a similar fashion. Furthermore, he is also the guy who looks into the possibility of creating a Warp Drive for NASA:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_G._White_(NASA)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_vacuum_plasma_thruster

  • builditnow

    An imaginary trip to Mars using a cold fusion propulsion system that has plenty of thrust.

    Exiting earth requires lying down so that an acceleration of 3 g is tolerated for about 10 minutes (you scientists can give me the correct time). Once away from the earth, acceleration is reduced to 1 g, so it feels like you are just walking around on earth. The acceleration continues for couple of days at 1 g and then the ship slowly rotates at a very slow rotational rate over an hour or so, so that everyone can keep walking around, 1 g is maintained during the rotation. The rotation is such that the ship is now decelerating at 1 g and continues to decelerate for a couple of days for arrival into mars orbit. Once in mars orbit, everyone is to lay down again for a 3 g deceleration to the landing point on Mars.
    Trip time, approximately 4 days Earth to Mars or Mars to Earth.
    You don’t have to wait for Mars to be close to earth, it will be shorter in time but not by that much because the extra time is spent at the maximum speed, covering the most distance.

    The ship could be several times the size of a 747, spend most of it’s time accelerating vertically with respect to the floor, except when everyone stands up to be effectively then be in the laying down position for atmospheric entry or launch. One would enter the ship like a normal plane, then strap into a standing position against vertical “couches”. On take off the ship rotates to vertical. When in space, the ship rotates to horizontal and acceleration becomes vertical to the floor, the vertical couches convert to seats, open spaces etc.

    Who is ready for the trip?
    Tickets are now available at …..

  • Broncobet

    No one mentions LENR for the power it’s understood to be solar panels or fission, fission actually works pretty well in space because you use radiators to get rid of the heat which travels as infared(there are no clouds out there like there are sometimes on earth reflecting the heat back).

  • Broncobet

    Did any one notice the Gamma rays generated by the typhoon in the Pacific??

  • Obvious

    Pretty much this would be a tear in space-time. Truly empty space is probably technically outside of the universe.
    Does this mean I have figured out the mechanism of interstellar travel? Send me a 1% gross overriding royalty if you build a ship based on this design that produces a profit, please. That is, of course, if money means anything in a society that could build such a thing.

  • naerougi

    The most interesting thing – not mentioned in the above article – is that a second similar experiment without the newly developed ‘thrust chamber’ also showed the same amount of thrust. This shouldn’t be the case.
    So no breakthrough here. Most likely thrust generated by heat. btw. the test was not conducted in vacuum.

    • do you describe the “null drive”, without the indentation.

      this experiment in fact does not refute the experimental result, but the theory of Fetta.

      my 2 cent is that theory is premature again, and that current science have difficulty about that old wisdom.

  • naerougi

    The most interesting thing – not mentioned in the above article – is that a second similar experiment without the newly developed ‘thrust chamber’ also showed the same amount of thrust. This shouldn’t be the case.
    So no breakthrough here. Most likely thrust generated by heat. btw. the test was not conducted in vacuum.

    • do you describe the “null drive”, without the indentation.

      this experiment in fact does not refute the experimental result, but the theory of Fetta.

      my 2 cent is that theory is premature again, and that current science have difficulty about that old wisdom.