Slashdot Mirror
Final NASA Eagleworks Paper Confirms Promising EM Drive Results (hacked.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Hacked: Earlier this month Hacked reported that a draft version of the much expected EmDrive paper by the NASA Eagleworks team, had been leaked. Now, the final version of the paper has been published. The NASA Eagleworks paper, titled "Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum," has been published online as an open access "article in advance" in the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)'s Journal of Propulsion and Power, a prestigious peer-reviewed journal. The paper will appear in the December print issue of the journal. The final version of the paper is very similar to the leaked draft. In particular, the NASA scientists confirm the promising experimental results: "Thrust data from forward, reverse, and null suggested that the system was consistently performing at 1.2 +/- 0.1 mNkW, which was very close to the average impulsive performance measured in air. A number of error sources were considered and discussed." The scientists add that, though the test campaign was not focused on optimizing performance and was more an exercise in existence proof, it is still useful to put the observed thrust-to-power figure of 1.2 mN/kW in context. "[For] missions with very large delta-v requirements, having a propellant consumption rate of zero could offset the higher power requirements. The 1.2 mN/kW performance parameter is over two orders of magnitude higher than other forms of 'zero propellant' propulsion, such as light sails, laser propulsion, and photon rockets having thrust-to-power levels in the 3.33--6.67 uN/kW (or 0.0033--0.0067 mN/kW) range."
In other words, a modest thrust without having to carry fuel can be better, especially for long-distance space missions, than a higher thrust at the cost of having to carry bulky and heavy propellant reserves, and the EmDrive performs much better than the other "zero propellant" propulsion systems studied to date.
They say that they have looked at outgassing, and assumed that its not relevant due to slow temp rise not producing rising force. But that does not cover possibility that the electromagnetic resonances are somehow vaporising and ejecting structure at much higher speeds. At .0012N thrust with 1kW input (and 100% efficiency) a rocket would need exhaust velocity of 1.6e6 m/s and consume around 0.8ng per second - damned difficult to weight with required sensitivity and hard to spot except by looking for evidence in the gases within the chamber as metals will condense out quickly.
... are more or less the same ones than before (= very unclear setup, situation very unlikely to represent the claimed break of the conservation laws, highly restricted conditions not telling much, etc.).
Summary of my impressions after quickly reading this paper:
- The actual methodology generating the thrust isn't clearly explained, 95% of this paper is about the testing conditions (measurements, sources of error, assumptions, etc.). Although I assume that detailed explanations on this front might drive to a level of clarity similar to the one of the tests, as explained in the next point.
- Complex testing setup which is very difficult to be adequately understood from outside. It seems that only people with actual experience under these specific conditions (and, ideally, with physical access to an equivalent setup) are in a position to critically analyse these tests and be specific about the (very likely IMO) source(s) of error.
- Even by ignoring the two aforementioned points, plainly believing that everything is fine and just analysing the results, there are various issues which are somehow against the reliability of this experiment and related out-of-proportion assumptions. Examples in fig. 9: a maximum displacement below 0.005 micrometres (extrapolating such a top performance to interstellar travels is sensible?!); assuming that the error in the measurements remain constant under different conditions (?!); testing just 3 different scenarios (40, 60, 80 W) and getting counter-intuitive results (30/40 = 0.75; 106/60 = 1.76; 76/80 = 0.95; 60 W delivering the best performance?!).
Fig. 19 is even more descriptive by showing a tremendous variability of the measurements; in the best-performing 60 W scenario, they vary from 130 to 45 micronewtons!! With only a few cases being similar enough (85 and 92); out of all the about 20 cases, there are only a few which are identical under the given conditions.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
IAATP working on quantum electrodynamics (QED) and other theories.
The fundamental problem with this experiment is that it appears to violate conservation of momentum. This violation is not something that can be discarded easily: it has been confirmed directly and indirectly in millions of experiments over decades.
Momentum conservation is also a cornerstone of quantum field theory (QFT) and it is a symmetry which survives quantization. The entire Standard Model (SM) is a momentum-conserving QFT. The SM has been confirmed to a high accuracy in particle accelerators for many years. Any violation of momentum conservation would have been quickly noticed. You cannot simply invoke 'quantum mechanics', 'zero point', 'vacuum fluctuations', etc. to explain excess thrust. Momentum conservation is fundamental, both classically and quantum mechanically.
So what about the EM drive results? There is a possibility that some new physics is at play, however it is vastly more likely that there is a systematic error which has not been eliminated. (If I had to guess I would imagine that because a large amount of RF energy is being pumped into large metal cavities, the apparatus is resting at the bottom of a standing wave potential.)
The way to finally confirm or refute this is to take the drive into space. In this case, it is almost certain that the net thrust would be equal to the momentum of the photon flux leaving the drive.
False.
Trinity, the very first man-made nuclear explosion, used Plutonium from the Hanford Engineering Works, created in the B, D, and F reactors. You do know that Plutonium doesn't exist in nature, right? It's either created in a reactor via neutron bombardment of U238, or in a cyclotron.
More than that, the Chicago Pile was the first man-made self-sustaining nuclear reaction (in 1941), and the basis of all reactor design that followed to support the Manhattan Project, which made bombs detonated in 1945.
Reactors very much came before the bombs.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.