08-01-2014, 05:24 AM | #1 |
Join Date: Mar 2013
|
[Spaceships] Real Life Non-Super Science Reactionless Engines
From this news article: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...le-space-drive
For those who don't want to read it, there is are reproducible proof that specific microwaves inside a closed vessel will produce thrust. Based upon statements in the article about using it on satellites I'd give it the same thrust as an Ion Drive system. TL would be 9, but we COULD make microwaves as far back as WW2, so it could possibly be built earlier then that |
08-01-2014, 06:23 AM | #2 |
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
|
Re: [Spaceships] Real Life Non-Super Science Reactionless Engines
This FAQ by the inventor is interesting.
Note however, because the EmDrive obeys the law of conservation of energy, this thrust/power ratio rapidly decreases if the EmDrive is used to accelerate the vehicle along the thrust vector. (See Equation 16 of the theory paper). Whilst the EmDrive can provide lift to counter gravity, (and is therefore not losing kinetic energy), auxiliary propulsion is required to provide the kinetic energy to accelerate the vehicle. Emphasis added It'll bear a static load, but not accelerate a vehicle. So it's a sort of suspension, not a drive. Still amazing, though. 30 Newtons per Watt is astounding.
__________________
Decay is inherent in all composite things. Nod head. Get treat. |
08-01-2014, 11:20 AM | #3 | ||
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: [Spaceships] Real Life Non-Super Science Reactionless Engines
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
08-01-2014, 11:24 AM | #4 |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: [Spaceships] Real Life Non-Super Science Reactionless Engines
Having that from NASA seems weird. Genuinely bad experiment control by NASA, or just a badly-written article?
|
08-01-2014, 11:39 AM | #5 |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
|
Re: [Spaceships] Real Life Non-Super Science Reactionless Engines
May be an interesting phenomenon anyway. Maybe this will lead the way to something bigger?
__________________
“When you arise in the morning think of what a privilege it is to be alive, to think, to enjoy, to love ...” Marcus Aurelius |
08-01-2014, 11:47 AM | #6 | |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: [Spaceships] Real Life Non-Super Science Reactionless Engines
Quote:
*I assume this is the problem you were referring to, Anthony. I don't really have the physics background to think up any other issue with it being closed and at standard atmospheric pressure (aside from being at atmospheric pressure doesn't lend itself well to figuring out how the device would function in the vacuum of space). |
|
08-01-2014, 11:52 AM | #7 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: [Spaceships] Real Life Non-Super Science Reactionless Engines
Quote:
There are multiple mechanisms that can result in pushing air around (heating or ionization, mostly, but I'm not going to exclude other options without more data), which is why you should test in a vacuum. |
|
08-01-2014, 12:40 PM | #8 |
Join Date: Mar 2010
|
Re: [Spaceships] Real Life Non-Super Science Reactionless Engines
This does look a bit like another form of the ion wind effect. I've just glanced at a couple of articles about this, but if it's been tested in an atmosphere I'd guess someone's just reinvented the ionocraft. Again.
I stated out a realistic reactionless drive for GURPS once - 'Realistic' meaning it had the same performance as a pure photon drive. I got something like .0001 or .00001 g (Can't remember exactly offhand) for 6 Power Points, assuming 1 PP represents 50 kw output per ton of spaceship. By that standard 30 Newtons per watt is spectacular. (Note: Take my estimate for a photon drive with several grains of salt. Math is not my strong point.)
__________________
When choosing your user name, DO NOT get clever. Typing that combination of letters, numbers, and special characters every time you want to log in will get old really fast. |
08-01-2014, 02:34 PM | #9 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: [Spaceships] Real Life Non-Super Science Reactionless Engines
Quote:
Not having tested in vacuum is a pretty serious flaw though.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
08-01-2014, 02:46 PM | #10 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: [Spaceships] Real Life Non-Super Science Reactionless Engines
Without more information, it's hard to say, but it makes me inclined to think they've got an instrument error. In any case, the 'negative control' failing most certainly means it's not something that should be published as anything resembling a success.
|
Tags |
spaceships |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|