The EM-Drive Starship

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-12-09 23:53:04

I was thinking about this, and if the EM-Drive actually works, we can build this sort of starship:
Lets build a starship the size of an O'Neill Cylinder, it is 4 miles wide and 20 miles long, and it rotates for gravity.
Instead of having windows to let in sunlight, we have an artificial light source powered by electricity, the power source is the EM-Drive. There are a bunch of EM-Drives applying tangential thrust to a wheel, spinning it, and the wheel turns a generator producing electricity, some of the electricity is fed back to the EM-Drives that are spinning the wheel, the surplus powers the artificial lighting that keeps the colony lit up and warm, and some goes to the main EM-Drive thrusters accelerating the starship. The starship needs no fuel, and it needs no reaction mass, it just accelerates for as long as the EM-Drives have people to maintain them. The ship accelerates slowly, but over time it draws closer to the speed of light. The ship will need thick shielding to protect against cosmic rays, you might think there is a limit to how fast this starship can go, but it can always build thicker shielding to protect itself enroute, it has a surplus of energy that its EM-Drive keeps on producing from nothing, so it can make as much matter as it needs, and it can thicken the shields up front so it can go even faster. Can you see a problem with this starship?

elderflower · 2016-12-10 03:42:31

Perpetuum mobile!

GW Johnson · 2016-12-10 13:48:22

I agree with Elderflower. Perpetual motion is implied by the claims for these drives so far. They deserve tests to be sure, but until shown hard data (implying new physics), I put a lot more faith in energy conservation.

As for the data so far, what tests have taken place have been under conditions quite far from the usual thrust stands, and I'd hazard the guess that the equipment for measuring thrust out of these strange devices was not designed by someone who had ever heard of a tare force.

Sorry, that's just the open-minded skeptic in me talking. That attitude has served me well for over 4 decades, about a whole host of things (including thrust stand design).

GW

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-12-10 17:14:38

Why do you suppose the story has stuck around for so long then? Cold Fusion didn't last this long. If the story is false, it should be easy to disprove, now they are talking about sending one into space. I disagree with the test they propose, putting it into orbit and seeing if it could arrest orbital decay due to atmospheric drag. What is there is less atmospheric drag than supposed? That is not proof at all! What I would like to see would be to use such a drive to achieve a higher orbit, not one that slows down orbital decay!

kbd512 · 2016-12-10 19:59:20

Tom,

Unlike "hot fusion" devices, of which there are exactly zero working examples with tens of billions of dollars invested, there are quite a number of actual working "cold fusion" devices for a few tens of millions invested. These "cold fusion" devices are applications of lattice enabled nuclear reactions and nothing more exotic than that. Although "hot fusion" produces far more energy output, 1,000,000 times the energy density of gasoline is more than sufficient for all current space power applications and quite a number of applications here on Earth.

In any event, an orbital experiment would prove beyond all possible doubt that EMDrive works as advertised. If the satellite stays in LEO for two years without any other form of propulsion, then it works, period. Every spacecraft in LEO requires periodic re-boost, or it reenters, period. Two years is enough time to confirm that.

Typical scientists like to think that they understand more about the way things actually work than the way things actually work would suggest and typical engineers tend to think that if the hardware isn't sitting at the end of an assembly line that it isn't real. The engineer's perspective has some basis in reality, but both groups tend to be a bit more self-deluded than they'd ever want anyone else to know about.

SpaceNut · 2016-12-10 20:53:11

The E-cat is an example of a cold fusion as what goes in is not the same as what will come out.....

Now back to EM-Drive.... microwaves with no exhaust, yet which the inventors claim do produce thrust.
Theory:
1 Is effects produce different radiation pressures at the two ends of the drive, leading to a net force.
2 Lorentz (electromagnetic) forces.
3 drive is actually pushing against "quantum vacuum virtual plasma" of particles that shift in and out of existence.

http://emdrive.com/

Leaked NASA paper shows the 'impossible' EM Drive really does work

The Impossible Propulsion Drive Is Heading to Space, Enough argument. It's time to actually test this crazy thing.

Evaluating NASA’s Futuristic EM Drive

proposal of shapes....

not quite this thou

Test article in vaccumn

Proposed use is 90 metric ton, 2 MegaWatt nuclear electric propulsion mission to Mars. Nuclear Electric Propulsion spacecraft equipped with an EM Drive with a thrust/powerInput of 0.4 Newton/kW. With this design, a mission to Mars would result in a 70-day transit from Earth to the red planet, a 90-day stay at Mars, and then another 70-day return transit to Earth.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-12-10 22:42:04

So what does happen if you attach EM drives to the rim of a wheel to make it spin and then attach the wheel to an electric generator to generate an electric current that then powers the EM drives at the rim? If we can power this from space itself, we need never invent fusion, we wouldn't need solar energy, we can have as much energy as we want any place and get as close to the speed of light as we like. We can have relativistic starships that power themselves from space! Reminds me of flubber!

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-12-10 22:42:19)

SpaceNut · 2016-12-11 10:27:13

To make it spin requires 180 degree drive units to keep a center to spin around of equal thrust pulsing with another set of them at 90 degrees complimenting each other pulsing to give the effect of movement around the center. Other wise it just goes straight....on an arc.....

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-12-11 11:54:44

You know if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is, but I may be wrong, in which case we found a "loophole" in physics, so I assume we would be extracting energy from the universe itself to accomplish this. We are using virtual particles as reaction mass, so we accelerate them and then they disappear as they merge with their negative component. One interesting question is at what velocity these virtual particles move relative to the spaceship as the come into being before they disappear, assuming you can extert a force on them, would you not also be exerting a force on their negative mass component as well? Suppose you exert a force only on the positive mass component, that particle then becomes a real particle, the negative mass component is left behind, and it nullifies some other real particle, such as a proton for instance, making it cease to exist. The particle it nullifies probably comes out of the ship itself. Is there any advantage in doing that. I believe if you accelerate a negative mass particle you don't get an equal and opposite reaction, but and equal and same reaction. So if you accelerate a proton in one direction you accelerate in the opposite direction, but if that proton is part of a virtual particle pair, you either accelerate its negative mass twin and you cancel out the acceleration from accelerating the proton, or the negative mass twin gets left behind and it hits the wall of the chamber nullifying another proton instead, the effect is the same as if you accelerated that proton that got nullified in the first place.

So the question left is why does this work? Physics states that it shouldn't, but if I works anyway, maybe what it is that some real particles emerge out of the quantum foam as the Universe expands, that would mean that as the Universe expands its mass increases, maybe instead of a big bang, the Universe is continuously expanding, and real particles some into existence into the expanding space, so maybe that is what he EM drive is accelerating.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-12-11 11:59:32)

Antius · 2016-12-11 13:38:00

If the EM drive works in the way proponents suggest and acceleration greater than 0.01g can be achieved, then I would suggest a 20 mile long starship is excessive. Why pick such a seemingly arbitary figure? If a viable EM drive starship can be constructed with a dry mass limit of 1000 tonnes, then the ship can be Earth launched using one of Musk's super boosters and kitted out in Earth orbit. That brings the project into the realms of mid 21st century affordability.

This assumes that the device does work in a way that allows acceleration to relativistic velocities. No one has a clear idea how this device works yet, which is a bit of a problem when it comes to dreaming up mission scenarios. But a smaller ship will always be cheaper. People don't usually build something any bigger than they need to, because cost is proportional to size.

Last edited by Antius (2016-12-11 13:46:06)

Terraformer · 2016-12-11 14:31:25

It wouldn't violate the conservation laws if it was (a) using the mach effect or (b) pushing off dark matter. If the latter, it should show a varying thrust depending on the direction it's moving.

SpaceNut · 2016-12-11 19:00:07

The lower image that I posted is a termal image and it may be that the dark mater is expanding due to heat causing this to happen,,,,

Void · 2016-12-11 20:58:29

I like the dark matter idea. I actually hope it is what is happening, because we would be knocking on dark matters door and getting noticed by it. Who knows what that could eventually get us?

But I will also offer this, which is of interest as well, in suggesting that something real may be happening with that device.

Virtual Particles:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … -of-light/
So, I guess the notion here is that virtual particles can be made real. But it requires an energy input. So, it's not something from nothing. It would be the conversion of energy to matter I would think. However, I don't have any knowledge that suggests that their is an emission of particles from the device.

I had thought the perhaps the device was simply heating up virtual particles, increasing their vibration, and that could selectively bounce them more at one end of the device than the other, before they winked out of existence. But I think I read something about virtual particles lacking a "Frame of reference" (No idea). Somehow that was supposed to rule out the pushing on virtual particles notion.

Don't know, would prefer dark matter as the answer though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Still don't understand, but this sounds impressive:

As a consequence, a real photon is massless and thus has only two polarization states, whereas a virtual one, being effectively massive, has three polarization states.

Huh???

Here is a fun question. If their are virtual particles of matter, and there is dark matter, what about virtual dark matter particles? Could the virtual world of particles link matter and dark matter somehow?

Last edited by Void (2016-12-11 21:16:29)

SpaceNut · 2016-12-11 21:23:01

This borders on the speed of light and what happens when its stopped. Maybe stopped light is dark matter and energy gets it moving again. Then this has simularities to a solar sail in that the light coming out of this chamber now is being expelled and causing a change in velocity.....

Void · 2016-12-11 21:33:49

Ya, exciting stuff. If dark matter exists, and humans make progress in defining and manipulating it who knows where that will lead?

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-12-11 23:58:52

There is one idea I haven't thought of before. What if the EM drive accelerates the positive components of virtual particles leaving the negative components to float around in space for a while. Lets say those negative particles are hurled away from the ship, and they each encounter interstellar protons and nullify those? ever hear of the Bussard Ramjet? Imagine we separate out virtual partical pairs and fuse the protons in a fusion reactor, hurling the negative mass particles away from the ship so they can nullify protons in interstellar space. Now here we just did the job of a magnetic scoop. The protons that arise up out of the quantum foam travel on average at the same speed as the ship whatever that is. The negative mass particles collide with positive particles at relativistic velocities. There is no drag on the ship, because it is not plowing ions in front of it, and therefore there is little drag!

This is another way of building an interstellar ramjet!

Void · 2016-12-12 15:50:01

I reserve the idea that the thruster will not work or,
It will work in space testing.

Either way, it is going to yield important information to us.

If it does not work, should want to identify why that was not identified in the ground testing.

If it does work we are going to want to know why.

SpaceNut · 2016-12-12 19:54:40

The positive component of a virtual particle would make it a Photon (light) with a negative electron floating around a means to make elements isotopic which would mean that we are stating with hydrogen in essence to make it happen of which I am sure that is not the case.

I agree that we need to build a demostrator and put it just outside of earth influence and or from the moons so as to get a valid test of functionality....

JoshNH4H · 2016-12-14 09:52:40

A couple of points to bring us all back to reality:

Emdrive violates the laws of physics
Cold Fusion (Sometimes euphemized as "Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" or "Lattice Energy Nuclear Reaction") has never been performed in a way that could be replicated by outside teams. Several teams claiming to have built a cold fusion machine have later been revealed to be lying or wrong.

You all have brains. Please use them to critically evaluate reports of physics-defying technological developments. More often than not these are untrue.

I realize that Tom's point in creating this thread was purely speculative and not predicated on Emdrive actually working, but it seems to have devolved into people arguing about the merits of various technologies that defy the laws of physics. That is to say, arguing the merits of technologies that have no merit.

There's nothing wrong with science fiction as long as you all accept that you're writing and not designing.

RobertDyck · 2016-12-14 10:22:44

Science is about learning new things. EM Drive is actually new. Science is not dogma, it is about constantly testing existing theories, constantly questioning accepted ideas. From what I read, there are two hypotheses to describe EM Drive. If either is correct, it doesn't violate laws of physics, it utilizes a principle that hasn't had a practical application before. At this point it's still pure research. Scientists doing what science is all about, discovering new things, questioning accepted assumptions, discovering how things actually work. I hope it does work out. It's not anywhere near ready to be used as mission critical technology, but that doesn't mean it's fiction. It's currently at the point of pure research.

As for cold fusion, also be careful about those who dismiss it. After spending multiple decades on giant expensive equipment to achieve fusion one particular way, those who committed their careers on that way are not willing to accept a different way that is simple, small, and inexpensive. For reasons that are biased and vested interests, they didn't want to accept the new way. The giant, expensive way has not worked, and after this many decades it's fair to conclude that approach will never work. So taking a radically different approach is highly warranted. One researcher in Italy refused to accept the dismissal of the original researcher. This second researcher continued the work, and his approach produced better results. His "cold fusion" isn't exactly cold, it's still hundreds of degrees Celsius, but not a high temperature plasma. He produced heat. Then that heat has to be used. Some have criticized total system efficiency after using the heat for a conventional steam power generator. However, his customer bought his prototype to use as a building heat source in Siberia. For that purpose, it's highly applicable.

Never forget, science is not dogma. Question everything. Don't knock someone who discovers something new.

JoshNH4H · 2016-12-14 11:28:43

Hi RobertDyck,

Peddle your hoaxes as much as you want. Science isn't dogma, but rational people can consider the sum total of the evidence and conclude that when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence on one side of a question that evidence to the contrary is mistaken.

You're welcome to try driving around in an emdrive propelled car and to try heating your house with cold fusion, but don't be surprised when you don't get anywhere and your house doesn't ever heat up.

kbd512 · 2016-12-14 13:53:21

Josh,

1. EMDrive does not violate physics. Our understanding of physics may not be entirely correct, but I assure you that all actual laws of the physical world continue to apply with full force- whether physicists fully understand them or not. Thus far, no one has been able to prove that EMDrive does not work, although lot's of claims have been made about experimental errors.

2. Whereas "hot fusion" has yet to produce power output, "cold fusion" has been repeatedly been demonstrated to produce far more energy output than input required to sustain the reaction. The critics simply can't bring themselves to say "I don't understand why it works, but it works. Let's figure out why this works." Irrespective of whether or not "cold fusion" is actually "fusion", it is transmuting elements and it is producing far more heat output than electrical input.

Peer-Reviewed LENR Publications

Generally speaking, DoE, DoD, and DoN do not accept claims from people who say they have developed new technologies that exploit previously unknown or mis-understood aspects of physics without extraordinary proof.

Petty insults directed at people who may not have all the answers but are willing to accept that they don't know everything there is to know about physics is great for stifling free exchange of ideas and inhibiting the scientific process, which holds empirical evidence above theories and personal beliefs, but it's not a logically valid form of argumentation.

If, in the next decade, both of these technologies are actively utilized for power and propulsion, should we be equally as dismissive and condescending towards any comments you provide on the subjects of power and propulsion? Should we suggest that you use your head the next time you suggest something is impossible? My personal opinion is that we should not. And yes, extraordinary claims should always be viewed with a healthy amount of skepticism and require extraordinary proof. The evidence that EMDrive and LENR both work continues to build and there have been no experimental results thus far to buck that trend.

Not that it stops us from exchanging ideas, but nobody here is designing anything unless they happen to work for NASA.

SpaceNut · 2016-12-14 19:57:15

Isotopic reacts change after reaction when combined to create heat or power with an end materials output that is not isotpic when spent but transformed , which is a cold fusion indicator...
Dark matter is not part of the fundamental law but its been proven to exist.

Antius · 2016-12-15 06:28:16

JoshNH4H wrote:

Hi RobertDyck,
Peddle your hoaxes as much as you want. Science isn't dogma, but rational people can consider the sum total of the evidence and conclude that when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence on one side of a question that evidence to the contrary is mistaken.
You're welcome to try driving around in an emdrive propelled car and to try heating your house with cold fusion, but don't be surprised when you don't get anywhere and your house doesn't ever heat up.

Cold fusion and EM drive are two separate phenomena. They have nothing to do with each other (so far as we know how either of them work, or don't work).

We will know the truth when the EM drive is tested in orbit. If it is successful at station keeping, we will know that it works, at least to a degree. If it doesn't work, then it doesn't work. Just because we do not know how it works, does not make it automatically bogus. In the 18th Century, the idea of rocks falling from the sky seemed like a daft idea. Who could have imagined nuclear power back then? I prefer to hold judgement and wait and see. Especially given that someone else will be paying for the experimentation.

Last edited by Antius (2016-12-15 06:31:48)

JoshNH4H · 2016-12-15 08:01:30

Antique,

I am well aware that they are different technologies, but both were mentioned in this thread.

kbd512,

Please save your nonsense for someone who cares.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2016-12-09 23:53:04

The EM-Drive Starship

#2 2016-12-10 03:42:31

Re: The EM-Drive Starship

#3 2016-12-10 13:48:22

Re: The EM-Drive Starship

#4 2016-12-10 17:14:38

Re: The EM-Drive Starship

#5 2016-12-10 19:59:20

Re: The EM-Drive Starship

#6 2016-12-10 20:53:11

Re: The EM-Drive Starship

#7 2016-12-10 22:42:04

Re: The EM-Drive Starship

#8 2016-12-11 10:27:13

Re: The EM-Drive Starship

#9 2016-12-11 11:54:44

Re: The EM-Drive Starship

#10 2016-12-11 13:38:00

Re: The EM-Drive Starship

#11 2016-12-11 14:31:25

Re: The EM-Drive Starship

#12 2016-12-11 19:00:07

Re: The EM-Drive Starship

#13 2016-12-11 20:58:29

Re: The EM-Drive Starship

#14 2016-12-11 21:23:01

Re: The EM-Drive Starship

#15 2016-12-11 21:33:49

Re: The EM-Drive Starship

#16 2016-12-11 23:58:52

Re: The EM-Drive Starship

#17 2016-12-12 15:50:01

Re: The EM-Drive Starship

#18 2016-12-12 19:54:40

Re: The EM-Drive Starship

#19 2016-12-14 09:52:40

Re: The EM-Drive Starship

#20 2016-12-14 10:22:44

Re: The EM-Drive Starship

#21 2016-12-14 11:28:43

Re: The EM-Drive Starship

#22 2016-12-14 13:53:21

Re: The EM-Drive Starship

#23 2016-12-14 19:57:15

Re: The EM-Drive Starship

#24 2016-12-15 06:28:16

Re: The EM-Drive Starship

#25 2016-12-15 08:01:30

Re: The EM-Drive Starship

Board footer