Relativity drive: The end of wings and wheels?

unitx · 2006-09-08 23:16:00

Reaction-less drive, hover cars, and airplanes without wings....

(subscribers only)
September 8, 2006
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fun … heels.html

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Articles/A … eID=295931

New Scientist quotes

...Potentially, it could pack the punch of a rocket in a box the size of a suitcase. It could one day replace the engines on almost any spacecraft. More advanced versions might allow cars to lift from the ground and hover. It could even lead to aircraft that will not need wings at all.......

(Referring to the engineer)

His credentials are certainly impressive. He worked his way up through the aerospace industry, designing and building navigation and communications equipment for military and commercial satellites, before becoming a senior aerospace engineer at Matra Marconi Space (later part of EADS Astrium) in Portsmouth, near where he now lives. He was also a consultant to the Galileo project, Europe's satellite navigation system, which engineers are now testing in orbit and for which he negotiated the use of the radio frequencies it needed.

[Shawyer] calculates that the thrust from a microwave engine could be as high as 30,000 newtons per kilowatt - enough to lift a large car.

dicktice · 2006-09-09 11:36:42

This has got to be pure rubbish.

noosfractal · 2006-09-09 12:25:19

‘You can’t beat the laws of physics. If it is used to accelerate, the Q value drops. It is best used to lift a body and oppose a force, for instance to counteract gravity. It cannot be used to accelerate further.’

Translation: I am a scam artist.

The Tajmar result has gotten everyone excited, research dollars are starting to flow, and these scam artists are putting their hands up for a share. It's sickening. I hope they go to jail for fraud.

GCNRevenger · 2006-09-09 15:03:33

Laws of physics like... the variability of the speed of light? Which this thing seems to be built on? Like not being able to exert force in the absense of some other acceleration? Maybe thermodynamics violations with 30kN of thrust per 1kw?

To put the funding in another prespective... the rocket & aircraft companies are desperate for something that changes the rules, since they are together locked in a terrible battle for supremecy over who can squeeze out the last bit of efficiency from their product systems best. Something, anything that would change the rules would ensure global domination. So they are willing to throw some money at anybody.

Michael Bloxham · 2006-09-18 11:41:38

I was initially skeptical when I read the New Scientist article, but after pondering the inner workings of the engine, I'm not quite as sure as I was that it wouldn't work. The fact that he readily acknowledges its limitations (it is only efficient when stationary) is intriguing.

I reckon he's invented the repulsor-lift.

GCNRevenger · 2006-09-18 12:59:38

Nonsense, this is New Scientist were are talking about here too. Even the basic operating principles of the device violate the laws of physics, imparticularly the constancy of the speed of light.

Michael Bloxham · 2006-09-18 15:48:53

New Scientist magazine has been a lot more open-minded to alternative theories concerning the fundamental constants, radical unifying theories etc., which is perhaps why they've decided to publish this particular article: It's their way of reminding everyone that some things are still uncertain.

GCNRevenger · 2006-09-18 16:12:17

Its also their way of showing that they are a fluff wannabe science magazine.

C M Edwards · 2006-09-19 07:30:28

It's probably just the old delta drive scam all over again, but...

I wonder where the measured force is coming from in his apparatus?

We're assuming it's Shawyer's thumb on the end of the balance, but it doesn't have to be. This could be a case of inadequate experimental design or the deliberate obfuscation of proprietary information.

Microwave cavity Lorentz forces are a real enough phenomenon, and it is theoretically possible to use them to transfer angular momentum. If he is really measuring something and not just having us on for fun and profit, it might not be a thrust, but a twist.

A solid state "flywheel" would still be worth having, and quite useful on a spacecraft. There could still be something to this, even if the fluff piece cited isn't realistic.

Other groups likely to publish to higher standards than New Scientist are getting involved. If it's a sham, we'll probably hear from them shortly. I say we wait for the big reveal.

unitx · 2006-09-24 00:55:02

The only reason I'm giving this guy any attention is because of his experience in the aerospace industry. I think there's a piece of the puzzle we're missing. I understand Newton's third law quite well and I myself don't see how it can work. I just don't see how Shawyer could have worked his way up as far as he did when he didn't understand basic physics. Just give the guy a chance before you flame him.

noosfractal · 2006-09-24 01:49:32

The critiques on the wikipedia article are devistating ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive#Analysis

( Shawyer published a clueless "theory" paper )

This guy shows where Shawyer likely went wrong in theory and in practice ...

http://uk.geocities.com/remicornwall/Mi … EMProp.pdf

The British space applications research community should publicly denounce him to avoid further sully of their reputation.

GCNRevenger · 2006-09-24 06:13:45

The only reason I'm giving this guy any attention is because of his experience in the aerospace industry. I think there's a piece of the puzzle we're missing. I understand Newton's third law quite well and I myself don't see how it can work. I just don't see how Shawyer could have worked his way up as far as he did when he didn't understand basic physics. Just give the guy a chance before you flame him.

We're not talking "basic physics" here, this is fairly advanced stuff. Why should we listen to an engineer making wild claims about the field of physics that he doesn't understand?

His engine is based on principles we know to be false, in a subject that appears to be over his head. Why should we throw money at him?

unitx · 2006-09-24 08:04:54

We're not talking "basic physics" here, this is fairly advanced stuff. Why should we listen to an engineer making wild claims about the field of physics that he doesn't understand?

Newtonian physics isn't basic physics? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that's what you learn in high school.

John Creighton · 2006-09-24 14:12:23

The critiques on the wikipedia article are devistating ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive#Analysis
( Shawyer published a clueless "theory" paper )
This guy shows where Shawyer likely went wrong in theory and in practice ...
http://uk.geocities.com/remicornwall/Mi … EMProp.pdf
The British space applications research community should publicly denounce him to avoid further sully of their reputation.

yup

Shawyer's calculations, however, are based on basic Newtonian mechanics and an incomplete understanding of special relativity, and therefore must be in error. However, since Shawyer has refused to subject his claim to patent argument or to peer-reviewed journal, no formal scrutiny exists. Flaws that have been suggested[Please name specific person] include:
* The analysis of the effect of the wave reflecting off the two ends of the waveguide is incomplete due to failing to consider the forces caused by the wave impinging upon the conical side of the waveguide; if the large end of the waveguide and the combined system of the small end and the conical sides are considered separately, they both have the same cross-sectional area so one would expect that the radiation pressure upon them would be equal in magnitude yet opposite in direction, thus producing zero net force.
* The consideration of different frames of inertial reference is invalid. In other words, the operation of the device boils down to construction of a ship with a large sail at one end and a small sail at the other end, then standing in the middle and blowing uniformly in all directions; this would only create forces within the boat rather than a force capable of propelling the boat away from any fixed body.
* The New Scientist article also mentions that as the EMDrive begins to move, the microwave energy resonating in the chamber is drained very quickly - quicker than it can be replenished. This implies that the system is suitable for producing a static force, but not acceleration. This violates Newton's first law. This means the EMDrive, if developed further, would be suitable for hovering vehicles and objects, but not for flying around as people would like to imagine. This violates Einstein's general theory of relatvity since a hovering vehicle is undergoing an acceleration in accordance with Einstein's classic "man in an elevator" argument (the equivalence principle).

noosfractal · 2006-09-24 16:37:48

Newtonian physics isn't basic physics? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that's what you learn in high school.

Even Shawyer recognizes that the device can't work under Newtonian physics and appeals to some as yet unexplained relativistic effect.

unitx · 2006-09-25 02:56:51

I was referring the the concept of momentum.

nickname · 2006-09-25 17:11:40

Lets not forget about internal shock as a drive mechanism.
Internal shock bends Newtonian laws, yet works.
Maybe that is how it works or doesn't?

Lets also not forget that basic understanding of anything isn't clear enough that anyone should say it violates anything.
Maybe it just violates what we understand.

publiusr · 2006-10-27 12:10:35

I just find it laughable that people will fall all over themselves to come up with hairbrained schemes--everything BUT building bigger LVs over time.

Less Professor Cavors

And more Brunels

noosfractal · 2006-10-27 13:21:08

Why Shawyer’s ‘electromagnetic relativity drive’ is a fraud
Dr. John P. Costella
http://www.assassinationscience.com/joh … rfraud.pdf

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-09-08 23:16:00

Re: Relativity drive: The end of wings and wheels?

#2 2006-09-09 11:36:42

Re: Relativity drive: The end of wings and wheels?

#3 2006-09-09 12:25:19

Re: Relativity drive: The end of wings and wheels?

#4 2006-09-09 15:03:33

Re: Relativity drive: The end of wings and wheels?

#5 2006-09-18 11:41:38

Re: Relativity drive: The end of wings and wheels?

#6 2006-09-18 12:59:38

Re: Relativity drive: The end of wings and wheels?

#7 2006-09-18 15:48:53

Re: Relativity drive: The end of wings and wheels?

#8 2006-09-18 16:12:17

Re: Relativity drive: The end of wings and wheels?

#9 2006-09-19 07:30:28

Re: Relativity drive: The end of wings and wheels?

#10 2006-09-24 00:55:02

Re: Relativity drive: The end of wings and wheels?

#11 2006-09-24 01:49:32

Re: Relativity drive: The end of wings and wheels?

#12 2006-09-24 06:13:45

Re: Relativity drive: The end of wings and wheels?

#13 2006-09-24 08:04:54

Re: Relativity drive: The end of wings and wheels?

#14 2006-09-24 14:12:23

Re: Relativity drive: The end of wings and wheels?

#15 2006-09-24 16:37:48

Re: Relativity drive: The end of wings and wheels?

#16 2006-09-25 02:56:51

Re: Relativity drive: The end of wings and wheels?

#17 2006-09-25 17:11:40

Re: Relativity drive: The end of wings and wheels?

#18 2006-10-27 12:10:35

Re: Relativity drive: The end of wings and wheels?

#19 2006-10-27 13:21:08

Re: Relativity drive: The end of wings and wheels?

Board footer