- 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 1:27 pm to mizzoukills
Posted on 11/10/16 at 1:27 pm to mizzoukills
It's all good until they rocket your brave arse to Uranus
1
Posted on 11/10/16 at 1:59 pm to rantfan
does it have brakes?
Posted on 11/10/16 at 2:10 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
The news is not that it doesn't require fuel.
Well, that IS part of the news, though, just not the big thing from a "wow, we might be looking at new physics" standpoint.
Not requiring fuel means you don't have to lift the fuel off the planet, allowing for the possibility of significantly reducing mass if you can get a large lightweight solar array to provide the power. If you can significantly reduce the launch mass, you can either make the launches cheaper, which bumps up the number of things you can sling off the planet or you can put more mass of interesting equipment on the spacecraft in lieu of the fuel you'd otherwise be lifting to orbit only to throw it overboard for propulsion once you get on orbit.
The mass reduction if this allows for the elimination of fuel is a huge deal because Tsiolkovsky was a tyrant.
This post was edited on 11/10/16 at 2:15 pm
Posted on 11/10/16 at 2:14 pm to TigerPaul
quote:
does it have brakes?
It supposedly has an Ionastic Fluvent Charge braking system which when applied in a vacuum stops forward motion within less than 1 second.
This post was edited on 11/10/16 at 2:17 pm
Posted on 11/10/16 at 2:17 pm to mizzoukills
NASA continues to show us how awesome they are, and yet keep getting their funding cut.
Posted on 11/10/16 at 2:18 pm to mizzoukills
Newton's third law just became a suggestion
Posted on 11/10/16 at 2:20 pm to tigerfoot
Another scientist who has created another version of this engine is launching it into space sometime early next year on a cubesat to see if ut works.
Posted on 11/10/16 at 2:21 pm to Kracka
quote:
NASA continues to show us how awesome they are, and yet keep getting their funding cut.
When NASA starts focusing on human space flight instead of earth science they'll get more funding.
NOAA should be doing the earth science. NASA should be looking out, not in.
Posted on 11/10/16 at 2:23 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
NOAA should be doing the earth science. NASA should be looking out, not in.
completely agree
Posted on 11/10/16 at 2:41 pm to mizzoukills
I mean the obvious answer:
Posted on 11/10/16 at 2:58 pm to Lokistale
All you book readin smart folks that took physics, The joke is on you. All fake magic yall were learnin. Devil will get you
Posted on 11/10/16 at 3:01 pm to Crawdaddy
quote:
All you book readin smart folks that took physics, The joke is on you. All fake magic yall were learnin. Devil will get you
Wanna join me for some Spirit Cookin tonight?
Posted on 11/10/16 at 3:02 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
How's he powering it?
Posted on 11/10/16 at 3:17 pm to Korkstand
quote:
It would probably settle into orbit around the target. "Traditional" fuel and engines would be required to land safely.
Landing wouldn't even be the biggest issue. Leaving once you've landed would be.
Posted on 11/10/16 at 3:38 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
Extension cords plugged into 650 houses.
This post was edited on 11/10/16 at 3:38 pm
Posted on 11/10/16 at 4:04 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:Solar panels. It's just a proof of concept. He'll be using the em drive engine to simply keep the satellite in orbit. Satellites have a decaying orbit. Large ones have engines on them that burn periodically to maintain their orbit. Cubesats are just allowed to eventually burn uo in the atmoshphere. If hi satellite can maintain orbit then his engine works.
How's he powering it?
Posted on 11/10/16 at 5:08 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
who wrote this drivel? Assuming the same shitty journalists following politics.
1. It does not violate newtons 3rd law, which is for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, or simply force in = force out. It even states it in the article: force in is a megawatt and force out is 1.2 newtons. Won't get into how horrible the ROI is on that, because hopefully as the technology improves, that gap will close.
2. It states that it requires no fuel, but what it means is fuel in the traditional way, i.e. Not using fuel as a propellant. But fuel is still needed to create the energy to power the drive, and therefore would still need to be accounted for.
3. If they plan on using solar power to scale back on weight, that means power decreases exponentially as you move away from the sun. At some point you will get too far away, and be stuck in space. Hopefully you're traveling at significant speed at that time, otherwise you'd be stuck in the void of space. And if you need to redirect course anywhere in between, you lose momentum.
4. The max speed is not infinite even in space. With such low power output, I don't see how 70 days to mars is possible. According to newtons 2nd law (F=ma) and Einsteins law of general relativity (e=mc2), as you increase your speed speed, mass increases, and energy or force needed to continue to accelerate increases. This is why humans moving at light speed is virtually impossible with what we know now.
1. It does not violate newtons 3rd law, which is for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, or simply force in = force out. It even states it in the article: force in is a megawatt and force out is 1.2 newtons. Won't get into how horrible the ROI is on that, because hopefully as the technology improves, that gap will close.
2. It states that it requires no fuel, but what it means is fuel in the traditional way, i.e. Not using fuel as a propellant. But fuel is still needed to create the energy to power the drive, and therefore would still need to be accounted for.
3. If they plan on using solar power to scale back on weight, that means power decreases exponentially as you move away from the sun. At some point you will get too far away, and be stuck in space. Hopefully you're traveling at significant speed at that time, otherwise you'd be stuck in the void of space. And if you need to redirect course anywhere in between, you lose momentum.
4. The max speed is not infinite even in space. With such low power output, I don't see how 70 days to mars is possible. According to newtons 2nd law (F=ma) and Einsteins law of general relativity (e=mc2), as you increase your speed speed, mass increases, and energy or force needed to continue to accelerate increases. This is why humans moving at light speed is virtually impossible with what we know now.
Posted on 11/10/16 at 6:00 pm to pngtiger
quote:
who wrote this drivel? Assuming the same shitty journalists following politics. 1. It does not violate newtons 3rd law, which is for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, or simply force in = force out. It even states it in the article: force in is a megawatt and force out is 1.2 newtons. Won't get into how horrible the ROI is on that, because hopefully as the technology improves, that gap will close. 2. It states that it requires no fuel, but what it means is fuel in the traditional way, i.e. Not using fuel as a propellant. But fuel is still needed to create the energy to power the drive, and therefore would still need to be accounted for. 3. If they plan on using solar power to scale back on weight, that means power decreases exponentially as you move away from the sun. At some point you will get too far away, and be stuck in space. Hopefully you're traveling at significant speed at that time, otherwise you'd be stuck in the void of space. And if you need to redirect course anywhere in between, you lose momentum. 4. The max speed is not infinite even in space. With such low power output, I don't see how 70 days to mars is possible. According to newtons 2nd law (F=ma) and Einsteins law of general relativity (e=mc2), as you increase your speed speed, mass increases, and energy or force needed to continue to accelerate increases. This is why humans moving at light speed is virtually impossible with what we know now.
Ok thanks. I was a little worried that all the rocket scientists working for NASA supporting this paper and technology were crazy. Thankfully a poster on tigerdroppings has corrected them, I'll get this over to NASA STAT.
Posted on 11/10/16 at 6:57 pm to mizzoukills
quote:
scientists admit that the machine seems to break Newton's 3rd Law.
Some other scientists theorize it is not breaking Newton's 3rd law and validate what the other poster was saying:
quote:
"The EM drive operates by the same principle, for example, as a jet engine, where the high speed exhaust gases backwards (opposite reaction) push the airplane forwards," one of the researchers Arto Annila, told ScienceAlert over email. "Light at microwave lengths is the fuel that's being fed into the cavity ... and the EM drive exhausts backwards paired photons," he says. "When two photons travel together, but having opposite phases, then the pair has no net electromagnetic field, and hence it will not reflect back from the metal walls, but goes through." And those escaping photons are the equal and opposite reaction that's producing the EM drive's thrust.
Posted on 11/10/16 at 7:21 pm to mizzoukills
quote:
Question is: Why would scientists lie to us? Is it because they're learning a new realm of physics from FAR more advanced alien beings and feel the need to keep it quiet? Seriously, how do you explain scientists spending millions of dollars (perhaps billions) on a technology which shouldn't work?
because nothing is set in stone you idiot, science changes cmon you fricking idiot
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News