- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: NASA's "impossible" EM Drive actually works though in violation of physics
Posted on 11/10/16 at 9:36 am to Fun Bunch
Posted on 11/10/16 at 9:36 am to Fun Bunch
quote:can you dumb this shite down for me and explain why and the uses of it?
If they could get it to work on a larger scale with less power required, it would completely change the course of human history.
2
Posted on 11/10/16 at 9:36 am to mizzoukills
this is interesting especially in the context of classical Newtonian vs. modern Nubian physics, which accounts for increased output from a fixed amount of input. example--on paper, black people should not be better athletes or dancers. we all have the same parts, bones, ligaments, muscles, etc., but for some reason, theirs just work better. Nubian physics is finding other examples just like this when analyzing other supposed closed energy systems.
Posted on 11/10/16 at 9:36 am to Tigeralum2008
Yea. It'd have to accelerate a small fricking nuclear power plant to be operational and useful in space.
To put it in perspective, you need a 1400hp engine to turn a generator big enough to generate that much power. Enough power for 1.2 newtons of thrust.
To put it in perspective, you need a 1400hp engine to turn a generator big enough to generate that much power. Enough power for 1.2 newtons of thrust.
Posted on 11/10/16 at 9:37 am to Hu_Flung_Pu
think of what cutting edge science will be in 100, 200, 1000 years from now
Posted on 11/10/16 at 9:38 am to mizzoukills
quote:
The issue is the fact that the EM Drive defies Newton’s third law, which states that everything must have an equal and opposite reaction. So, according to Newton and our current understanding of the world around us, for a system to produce propulsion, it has to push something out the other way
This is BS, we just don't know/ can't measure what the reaction is..
Posted on 11/10/16 at 9:39 am to mizzoukills
quote:
But the EM Drive works without any fuel or propellants at all. It works by simply bouncing microwave photons back and forth inside a cone-shaped closed metal cavity. That motion causes the ‘pointy end’ of the EM Drive to generate thrust, and propel the drive in the opposite direction.
I'm not seeing where the energy needed to create this propulsion will come from? Will there not need to be a large volume of stored energy which serves the same logistical problem of storing propellant? It may be a safer form of fuel, but will it create the same need to store "fuel"/energy while traveling?
Posted on 11/10/16 at 9:44 am to Willie Stroker
quote:
I'm not seeing where the energy needed to create this propulsion will come from? Will there not need to be a large volume of stored energy which serves the same logistical problem of storing propellant? It may be a safer form of fuel, but will it create the same need to store "fuel"/energy while traveling?
In one of the videos it is discussed that the energy required for the EM Drive could one day be generated from nuclear reactors and solar arrays.
It is entirely feasible to think we will one day possess the ability to generate the kinds of energy these drives would need. The thrust to power ratio is what concerns me
Posted on 11/10/16 at 9:47 am to mizzoukills
Stap a flux capacitor on that bad boy and let's change history!
Posted on 11/10/16 at 9:48 am to Tigeralum2008
quote:
nuclear reactors
would be my guess
Posted on 11/10/16 at 9:51 am to Willie Stroker
quote:You're asking the same questions the rocket scientists are.
I'm not seeing where the energy needed to create this propulsion will come from? Will there not need to be a large volume of stored energy which serves the same logistical problem of storing propellant?
Posted on 11/10/16 at 9:53 am to shawnlsu
quote:No, because nothing of mass leaves the system.quote:I'm no scientist but isn't this your action/reation?
That motion causes the ‘pointy end’ of the EM Drive to generate thrust, and propel the drive in the opposite direction.
Posted on 11/10/16 at 9:53 am to Tigeralum2008
quote:We should never "expect" a law to be violated, regardless of the amount of energy required.
Violating the third law by pumping insane ratios of energy would seem to be expected if you ask me.
Posted on 11/10/16 at 9:55 am to shel311
quote:A spacecraft that can provide thrust using only solar panels would not need to carry its own fuel, and so can travel much farther and faster.
can you dumb this shite down for me and explain why and the uses of it?
Posted on 11/10/16 at 9:59 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:It doesn't matter, as any amount of thrust at all is useful in space. Even if it can only provide 0.000001 Newtons of thrust using a solar array in space, that is enough to make things happen. The acceleration would be very slow, but as long as it is positive and constant incredible speeds can be achieved.
To put it in perspective, you need a 1400hp engine to turn a generator big enough to generate that much power. Enough power for 1.2 newtons of thrust.
Posted on 11/10/16 at 10:11 am to mizzoukills
quote:
EM Drive
That's cool and all...but does it have that sweet screech of Twin Ion Engines?
If not, don't want.
Posted on 11/10/16 at 10:12 am to Korkstand
quote:
It doesn't matter, as any amount of thrust at all is useful in space. Even if it can only provide 0.000001 Newtons of thrust using a solar array in space, that is enough to make things happen. The acceleration would be very slow, but as long as it is positive and constant incredible speeds can be achieved.
exactly.
Trust would gain speed exponentially. It would start off incredibly slow but reach incredible speeds in a short time.
Scientists believe this machine could get us to Mars in 70 days.
Posted on 11/10/16 at 10:16 am to mizzoukills
How does it stop when it gets there?
This is incredible stuff no doubt, but it's still held down by the big issue: energy. Figure out how to produce big power from a small package and shite like this propulsion device and other technologies far more advanced than this will begin showing up at an astonishing rate.
We need a compact lasting source of high energy. A nuclear plant the size of a Volkswagen. Until we figure out cold fusion or something, we're stuck to this planet.
I'm a pretty firm believer that there is a harnesable energy source that we can/will discover that will accomplish this. I don't think we'll ever escape the fact that doing shite costs energy.
This is incredible stuff no doubt, but it's still held down by the big issue: energy. Figure out how to produce big power from a small package and shite like this propulsion device and other technologies far more advanced than this will begin showing up at an astonishing rate.
We need a compact lasting source of high energy. A nuclear plant the size of a Volkswagen. Until we figure out cold fusion or something, we're stuck to this planet.
I'm a pretty firm believer that there is a harnesable energy source that we can/will discover that will accomplish this. I don't think we'll ever escape the fact that doing shite costs energy.
This post was edited on 11/10/16 at 10:18 am
Posted on 11/10/16 at 10:23 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:It would probably settle into orbit around the target. "Traditional" fuel and engines would be required to land safely.
How does it stop when it gets there?
Posted on 11/10/16 at 10:30 am to mizzoukills
quote:
Imagine you're sitting in your car and push against your steering wheel. Will that motion cause your car to move forward?
you are so retarded.
it's not violating Newton's third law. They just haven't figured out yet where the that energy is going.
It's like when the marketing team at my company came out and said "we have this new motor that does this and that and b/c of this new technology there is less stress on the bearings, increasing reliability"
What that meant was, yeah those bearings will last longer now, but that torque the motor is creating is going to go somewhere. we found a way to take the force off these bearings, and now they are more concentrated on a different set of bearings on the machine.
As i brought up in our sales meeting, b/c i'm a jackass, you can't just say we removed this force from the machine. You simply removed it from a certain aspect of the machine and allowed some other aspect of the machine to absorb it. Using the stupid lingo they wanted us to use to sell it would be fine if you're selling to an idiot, which we usually are, but if you're talking to an engineer with a brain, he'd laugh at the stupidity of that marketing.
Posted on 11/10/16 at 10:37 am to mizzoukills
Most experiments with these that yield positive results have been because the positive thrust was so small it could able attributed to errors in measurement equipment. Put me in the camp that dismisses these things as impossible.
This post was edited on 11/10/16 at 10:42 am
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News