Orbiter-Forum  

Go Back   Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Math & Physics
Register Blogs Orbinauts List Social Groups FAQ Projects Mark Forums Read

Math & Physics Mathematical and physical problems of space flight and astronomy.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-07-2013, 08:43 AM   #16
Einion Yrth
Hoopy Frood
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jedidia View Post
 Coding: It doesn't work, and you don't know why
Or it works until you find the bug that should have prevented it ever doing so.
Einion Yrth is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-07-2013, 08:49 AM   #17
Urwumpe
Certain Super User
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jedidia View Post
 Coding: It doesn't work, and you don't know why
Quote:
Originally Posted by Einion Yrth View Post
 Or it works until you find the bug that should have prevented it ever doing so.
I think Einion Yrth is closer to the reality of coding.
Urwumpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-07-2013, 04:22 PM   #18
Face
Beta Tester
 
Face's Avatar

Default

Back into the topic, I've read the linked article and searched for John Costella's "paper".

A nice read, and underlines one of the mistakes many reaction-less thruster designer make: misinterpreting temporal displacement for sustained movement. It is also often the reason for observed "thrust" from such asymmetrical construct when tested in water or air. If you wobble around an asymmetrical body in water or air fast enough, it will move due to simple medium replacement. That's why it is so important to test especially micro-thrust proposals at least in vacuum. IMHO even a pendulum test is not enough, if not done in vacuum.

Well, maybe they should just enclose their designs in perfect sphere shells .
Face is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 11:34 AM   #19
TR1978
Donator
Default

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...le-space-drive
TR1978 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 11:48 AM   #20
jedidia
shoemaker without legs
 
jedidia's Avatar
Default

We had a short excursion on that in the random comments thread.

Basically we're waiting for confirming and more rigurous experiments (they really should put the thing into a vaccum chamber and see what happens then... the more possible error sources can be excluded, the better).

If it turns out to work (something everyone is very sceptical of, but I do think it does deserve some real good looking into), it probably won't be for the reasons anyone assumed, even the guys that built the thing. All those are in pretty blatant violation of well-proven physics.
If it does work, it'll probably be for some shenanigans that we just didn't know about yet and that somehow makes sense in the larger context and the constructors of the thing stumbled over it by blind luck without actually understanding what's happening.

But, as several people said in the RTC, it's still very possible that the story will end the same way as the "neutrinos traveling FTL" some while back.
jedidia is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 12:07 PM   #21
boogabooga
Bug Crusher
 
boogabooga's Avatar
Default



I glue a piece of iron to a scale. I hold a magnet over the iron.

Low and behold, the scale shows a reduction in force. I therefore conclude that the iron produces thrust...

BTW, go over to http://cannae.com

Tab over to Theory of Operation. Do the subsections "principles of operation" and "conservation laws" show a (fake?) 404 error page for everyone?

Seriously, are you kidding me????

All the videos hinting at how much money you can make by investing in the magic motor that doesn't need any fuel are online though.

You can all draw your own conclusions.
boogabooga is online now   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-01-2014, 12:21 PM   #22
TR1978
Donator
Default

Hehe, I in no way have any knowledge to have an opinion on this, I just found it interesting that Nasa had tested it and got strange results. :-D
TR1978 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 02:28 PM   #23
kamaz
Unicorn hunter
 
kamaz's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Face View Post
 The question of how the theory might work is not so important as results IMHO. If the thruster is capable of producing thrust in space - measurable beyond every reasonable doubt - it just works.
Indeed, it appears that the device works.

That said, it does not necessarily mean that the device works the way the inventor imagines it does. History of science is full of such situations.
kamaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 02:34 PM   #24
Urwumpe
Certain Super User
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kamaz View Post
 Indeed, it appears that the device works.

That said, it does not necessarily mean that the device works the way the inventor imagines it does. History of science is full of such situations.
No. It only means that they have measured some quantity. This does not mean much about the system observed and the theories behind it.

If you let a jet engine fall from a cliff on a force sensor plate, you could also measure a huge force and claim that the jet engine produced it.

That the engine produced a thrust force in all expected directions (though weaker than expected) does not mean much - it could for example also be interaction with earths magnetic field - we are talking about microNewtons here, after all. Or heating of the ambient air inside the engine, etc....

(The oil cooler of a P-51D Mustang produced a few orders of magnitude more thrust than this engine, for example, without consuming fuel itself.)

Last edited by Urwumpe; 08-01-2014 at 02:39 PM.
Urwumpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 02:51 PM   #25
fsci123
Future Dubstar and Rocketkid
 
fsci123's Avatar
Default

Being a dumb teen I have no knowledge of this so...

I think that the whole "drive" functions by converting the microwaves into oscillating magnetic fields on both the "drive" and the testing chamber. The "thrust" is actually the result of the "drive" being propelled by magnetic force...similar to an eddy current motor on trains.
fsci123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 03:02 PM   #26
jedidia
shoemaker without legs
 
jedidia's Avatar
Default

Quote:
microNewtons
Isn't mN supposed to mean miliNewtons?
jedidia is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 03:17 PM   #27
boogabooga
Bug Crusher
 
boogabooga's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urwumpe View Post
 No. It only means that they have measured some quantity. This does not mean much about the system observed and the theories behind it.

If you let a jet engine fall from a cliff on a force sensor plate, you could also measure a huge force and claim that the jet engine produced it.

That the engine produced a thrust force in all expected directions (though weaker than expected) does not mean much - it could for example also be interaction with earths magnetic field - we are talking about microNewtons here, after all. Or heating of the ambient air inside the engine, etc....

(The oil cooler of a P-51D Mustang produced a few orders of magnitude more thrust than this engine, for example, without consuming fuel itself.)
I refer back to the iron on the scale. You can be showing microNewtons of force on your balance. That isn't sufficient. If for example the steel girders in the building are experiencing an equal force in the opposite direction, this is a nonstarter.
boogabooga is online now   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-01-2014, 03:25 PM   #28
Urwumpe
Certain Super User
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jedidia View Post
 Isn't mN supposed to mean miliNewtons?
The article had been writing microNewtons AFAIR, while the Chinese claimed to have measured milliNewtons.
Urwumpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-01-2014, 04:11 PM   #29
kamaz
Unicorn hunter
 
kamaz's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urwumpe View Post
 No. It only means that they have measured some quantity. This does not mean much about the system observed and the theories behind it.
You're essentially saying that both NASA and the Chinese employ people with no understanding of experimental design. I'll just say that I disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urwumpe View Post
  If you let a jet engine fall from a cliff on a force sensor plate, you could also measure a huge force and claim that the jet engine produced it.
But if you drop two engines, one powered and the other one unpowered and you measure a difference in force, then you have a case that the engine works -- and this is essentially what has been done here.

FYI, electrokinetic/electrogravitic effects have been demonstrated in a scientifically rigorous manner back in 1950s, and amateurs have since come up with numerous independent reproductions. The mainstream academia does not recognize these results... but having worked in academia for years, this does not surprise me in the slightest.
kamaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 04:25 PM   #30
boogabooga
Bug Crusher
 
boogabooga's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kamaz View Post
 You're essentially saying that both NASA and the Chinese employ people with no understanding of experimental design. I'll just say that I disagree.
I don't know about Urwumpe, but that's what I'm saying, to a degree.

Perhaps when "mainstream" academics were skeptical of FTL neutrinos, you could say:

"You're essentially saying that CERN employ people with no understanding of experimental design. I'll just say that I disagree."

I was a summer intern at a NASA center some years ago. They're very good, but trust me, they are also human.
boogabooga is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Math & Physics


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:12 PM.

Quick Links Need Help?


About Us | Rules & Guidelines | TOS Policy | Privacy Policy

Orbiter-Forum is hosted at Orbithangar.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2007 - 2017, Orbiter-Forum.com. All rights reserved.