Slashdot Mirror


German Test Reveals That Magnetic Fields Are Pushing the EM Drive (arstechnica.com)

"Researchers in Germany have performed an independent, controlled test of the infamous EM Drive with an unprecedented level of precision," writes PvtVoid. "The result? The thrust is coming from interactions with the Earth's magnetic field." From the report: Instead of getting ahold of someone else's EM drive, or Mach-effect device, the researchers created their own, along with the driving electronics. The researchers used precision machining and polishing to obtain a microwave cavity that was much better than those previously published. If anything was going to work, this would be the one. The researchers built up a very nice driving circuit that was capable of supplying 50W of power to the cavity. However, the amplifier mountings still needed to be worked on. So, to keep thermal management problems under control, they limited themselves to a couple of Watts in the current tests. The researchers also inserted an enormous attenuator. This meant that they could, without physically changing the setup, switch on all the electronics and have the amplifiers working at full noise, and all the power would either go to the EM drive or be absorbed in the attenuator. That gives them much more freedom to determine if the thrust was coming from the drive or not.

Even with a power of just a couple of Watts, the EM-drive generates thrust in the expected direction (e.g., the torsion bar twists in the right direction). If you reverse the direction of the thruster, the balance swings back the other way: the thrust is reversed. Unfortunately, the EM drive also generates the thrust when the thruster is directed so that it cannot produce a torque on the balance (e.g., the null test also produces thrust). And likewise, that "thrust" reverses when you reverse the direction of the thruster. The best part is that the results are the same when the attenuator is put into the circuit. In this case, there is basically no radiation in the microwave cavity, yet the WTF-thruster thrusts on. So, where does the force come from? The Earth's magnetic field, most likely. The cables that carry the current to the microwave amplifier run along the arm of the torsion bar. Although the cable is shielded, it is not perfect (because the researchers did not have enough mu metal). The current in the cable experiences a force due to the Earth's magnetic field that is precisely perpendicular to the torsion bar. And, depending on the orientation of the thruster, the direction of the current will reverse and the force will reverse.
The researchers' conclude by saying: "At least, SpaceDrive [the name of the test setup] is an excellent educational project by developing highly demanding test setups, evaluating theoretical models and possible experimental errors. It's a great learning experience with the possibility to find something that can drive space exploration into its next generation."

22 of 309 comments (clear)

  1. THIS is science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is what we should be teaching in schools and promoting in daily life/culture.

    1. Re:THIS is science by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 3, Informative

      OK, I've found what your second point refers to. "The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia."

      The first point probably has so many examples I can't be bothered looking for them, but if I did, I'd start with climate change.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    2. Re:THIS is science by famebait · · Score: 5, Informative

      Dear Gods, not again. Can we please just kill this thing once and for all?

      *"Vegetable" is not a botanical category.*

      "Vegetable" is a culinary term.
      All vegetables are some part of a plant.
      Botany always has a specific name for that part, but that does not exclude them from vegetables,
      Salad does not cease to be vegetable for being botanically leaves or buds.
      Celery does not cease to be a vegetable for being botanically a leaf stalk.
      Artichoke does not cease to be a vegetable for being botanically a flower.
      Carrot does not cease to be a vegetable for being botanically a root.
      Tomato does not cease to be a vegetable for being botanically a fruit. Nor do squash, peppers, eggplant, cucumber, okra, avocado, or any number of others.

      "Vegetable" refers to basically any part of a plant used for food, except those commonly placed firmly in more specific categories. One of those more specific categories is "fruit" (in the culinary sense), which usually requires it to be sweet and/or tart and used substantially for those qualities.
      Some of the others are grain (usually botanically fruit before threshing), nuts (always botanically fruit), spices (includes a number of fruits botanically speaking), and herbs.

      Culinary terms are made for utility in cooking, not for classification of plants - for that we have botany.
      Thus the distinctions are inherently vague:

      How big or mild-flavored does a leaf have to be to move from herb to vegetable?
      At what size, mildness, or degree of dessication does a chili move from vegetable to spice?
      How sweet would a plantain have to be to leave the vegtable section and move in with the banana?
      Is it not fair to look for sugar cane and rhubarb in the fruit section, even though botanically they are not?
      Is the sweet potato with the vegetables bacause it is a root or because of its usage? Or maybe in your shop it is not?

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    3. Re:THIS is science by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A "bug" is defined culturally, not scientifically ...

      100% False. Bugs are a specific order of insects whose defining characteristic is a particular arrangement of sucking mouthparts. Examples include tree-hoppers, box elder bugs, and stink bugs.

  2. Thrust is coming from interactions with the Earth by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 5, Funny

    No problem... we will just have to take the Earth with us.

  3. And not just any magnetic field... by macraig · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... it's the field being created by the planetary body we call Earth. Surprise! No one has ever tested an EM Drive beyond the influence of Earth. If they had, its efficacy would have quickly been dis-proven.

  4. Satellites by willy_me · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Could it at least be used to reposition satellites? It appears to be an energy hog but if one first accumulates sufficient solar power then it might work.

    1. Re:Satellites by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, it can be, and that system is called an electrodynamic tether, and it doesn't make use of the microwave cavity which is at the heart of the EM drive (which, according to this latest experiment, wasn't doing anything in the first place.)

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  5. Here Is A Link To The Actual Report by careysub · · Score: 5, Informative

    It was presented at the Space Propulsion 2018 conference.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  6. No surprise by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The EM drive, if it works, violates conservation of momentum, which can easily be used to also violate conservation of energy. (/. commenters on previous EM drive stories have gone into this at some length.)

    The EM drive was originally designed using standard physics (I think electromagnetism and possibly special relativity) and the inventor's calculations showed it would produce thrust. They did not realize that as the input physics conserved momentum but their calculation result violated it, this guaranteed their calculation was in error.

    The chances of this result being real were always really tiny. I'm happy there is now a good explanation for the anomalous experimental results.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    1. Re:No surprise by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My understanding is that the 'thrust' comes from radiation pressure in a truncated cone cavity, and the false result comes about by accounting for radiation pressure on the ends of the cone but ignoring it on the conical sides. If you include the conical sides in your calculation, you find zero thrust.

      However, it isn't actually necessary to point out the exact error. If you give me a list of numbers to add up, and all the numbers in the list is even, and I tell you I've calculated the total, and the total is an odd number, you know I've messed up. It isn't necessary to go over my calculations with a fine tooth comb to identify exactly where I went wrong. This case is the same - input physics conserves momentum, calculated result does not, calculations must be in error.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    2. Re:No surprise by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The EM drive, if it works, violates conservation of momentum, which can easily be used to also violate conservation of energy. (/. commenters on previous EM drive stories have gone into this at some length.)

      Moreover, if you violate the conservation of momentum then Noether's theorem tells you that you've violated the principle of invariance under translation. If that were true, no two observers in different locations could ever agree on the laws of physics because the outcome of identical systems would be different if they were in different places.

      The correspondence between conservation laws and physical symmetries is immensely useful when reasoning about systems like these. Noether's theorem doesn't require conservation of momentum to be true, but it explains the consequences if it is/isn't.

  7. Re:Thrust is coming from interactions with the Ear by Ramze · · Score: 4, Informative

    The EM drive does use fuel - just not a propellant. It also gives such a small amount of thrust, one can only measure it with a carefully controlled setup. This experiment basically proves the thrust is created from the charged craft interacting with Earth's magnetic field.... and the thrust doesn't go up much if any as the power on the craft goes from 5 watts to 50 watts. So, we're basically looking at motion powered by Earth's EM, not the craft's EM.

    We have about as much of a chance of boosting a craft into low Earth orbit with this as we do using a compass.

    Perhaps it'll be useful for something one day, but all I can come up with right now would be Back to the Future II style hoverboards, but for dust mites instead of people given what little thrust it gives -- also it is hard to steer given it tends to only move in alignment with Earth's magnetic field.

  8. Re:Thrust is coming from interactions with the Ear by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Once you've taken an EM drive and removed the useless cavity and microwave emitter, what you are left with is an electrodynamic tether which may indeed be useful, but doesn't owe anything to the EM drive.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  9. Re:Thrust is coming from interactions with the Ear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yep. In 5 billions years, give or take, our sun will become a liability.

    In less than 1 billion years earth will go into "moist earth" runaway with surface temperatures hot enough to melt iron.

    We will *have* to move our planet if we want to keep it.

    This is possible with current level of technology. You need only nudge a few asteroids close to earth to selectively transfer kinetic energy a few times per century to keep up with increasing output from the sun while still on the main sequence.

  10. Not "case closed" yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ..If the folks over at nasaspaceflight are to be believed

    Looks like the setup was very sloppy indeed.. with the wattage too low making any signal disappear into noise..

    Quoting:

    Looking at the pictures of Tajmar's experiment, no wonder they are seeing nothing but Lorentz. First of all their twisted pairs do not appear to be twisted enough. There should be at least two twists per inch. In the image below it appears that there is maybe one twist per two inches or so. And then look at the location of the main amplifier and the length of the main leads! :o

    At only 2W of RF power, no wonder they are only seeing Lorentz. It's almost like they designed their experiment to be susceptible to this form of error.

  11. Mu metal? Haven't they heard of helmholtz coils? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's the field being created by the planetary body we call Earth. Surprise! No one has ever tested an EM Drive beyond the influence of Earth. If they had, its efficacy would have quickly been dis-proven.

    Good grief.

    If it's the Earth's field, put the device inside a pair of helmholtz coils (or the slightly more complex coil systems that can smooth out the residual ripples further). Give them enough current to cancel the Earth's field and, if the gadget is getting its thrust from this interaction, the thrust will stop. Give them twice that, reversing the field, and the thrust will be in the opposite direction.

    I thought this test had already been done, by pretty much everybody including NASA.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  12. It's a torque, not a force. Can rotate, not move.. by Herve5 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Magnetotorquer bars have been used in space for dozens of years to desaturate the reaction wheels.
    These are perfectly adjusted to their function (no need for fancy EM things) and generate pure torques when interacting with the Earth magnetic field.
    Just, no forces, as, well, expected.

    --
    Herve S.
  13. Also: Twisted pair by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So, where does the force come from? The Earthâ(TM)s magnetic field, most likely. The cables that carry the current to the microwave amplifier run along the arm of the torsion bar. Although the cable is shielded, it is not perfect (because the researchers did not have enough mu metal).

    Also: What's wrong with using twisted pair? The individual half-twists may interact with a DC magnetic field, but on the average across a twist they cancel out.

    This has been used since at least the early days of telephony (where they used twisted pair - with the wires occasionally swapped as they go from pole to pole - not just to cancel out coupling to electrical noise from lots of sources (including power lines) but also - with different rates of twist on different pair and phantom-group - to cancel it out between different lines running along the same poles.

    Just like the four pair in your cat-N Ethernet cable each have a different rate of twist, so their signals stay separate.

    - - - -

    (I DO like the idea of swapping in the dummy load and seeing whether the thrust disappears. B-) )

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  14. Legacy of GM and Rolls Royce. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The researchers used precision machining and polishing to obtain a microwave cavity that was much better than those previously published. If anything was going to work, this would be the one.

    Now that reminds me of a story, back in my programming-for-the-auto-industry days.

    Seems that Rolls Royce, after sticking with manual transmissions for a long time, decided to consider manufacturing a car with an automatic transmission. So they got hold of the best on the hoi polloi market - the GM 350 turbo-hydramatic - to use as a reference.

    First they tested the heck out of it - and found it did exactly what an auto-tranny should. So how could they make something better? So they tore it down to see if there was anything they could improve. But everything was beautifully designed and machined. Except for one surface on one part, which was a little rough.

    So they machined it smooth and reassembled the transmission. And it didn't work at all. That surface was SUPPOSED to be a little rough. B-)

    - - - -

    Now personally, as much as I'd like to see a working reactionless electronic thruster, I'm not holding my breath waiting for a violation of the law of conservation of momentum. But it would be nice if something DID show up that worked.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  15. Re:Thrust is coming from interactions with the Ear by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For interplanetary space travel, yes. But that's not very exciting. Chemical rockets work fine for interplanetary travel on the order of years and decades at most with ion drives showing promise as a next step.

    The reason the EM drive was so exciting was because of the potential for interstellar travel in reasonable timeframes (sub-100 year) without having to lug around huge quantities of propellant (mass to throw out the back to accelerate you). If it actually worked, you could power it with a nuclear reactor and accelerate away without needing any propellant (violation of conservation of momentum).

    Traveling to Alpha Centauri (4.367 light years) in 100 years (assuming constant acceleration to the halfway point, decelerating the second half of the trip, and ignoring relativistic effects) would require reaching a peak speed of

    d = 0.5*vavg*t
    vavg = 2*d/t = 2*(4.367 c years)/(100 years) = 0.08734 c
    vmax = 2*vavg = 0.17468 c = 52,368 km/s

    To accelerate, you need to dump the energy you're producing into the propellant that you're ejecting in the direction opposite you're accelerating. The energy needed reach Earth's escape velocity (11.2 km/s) and to escape the solar system from Earth's orbit (16.6 km/s) are roundoff error compared to the energy needed to reach Alpha Centauri in 100 years.

    Energy for Earth escape velocity = 0.5*m*(11.2 km/s)^2
    Energy for solar system escape velocity = 0.5*m*(16.6 km/s)^2 = 2.2 times the energy to escape Earth
    Energy to reach Alpha Centauri in 100 years = 0.5*m*(52367 km/s)^2 = 21,861,469 times the energy to escape Earth

    So a trip to Alpha Centauri in 100 years would require nearly 22 million times more energy (and propellant to absorb that energy) than needed to escape Earth's gravity.

  16. Re:How Embarrassing by gravewax · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not embarrassing at all, this is how real science is supposed to work. People propose theories and then look for ways to test and verify results.