Latest experiments strongly suggest EM thruster = vaporware

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

prfesser

LIFETIME SUPPORTER
TRF Supporter
Joined
May 7, 2017
Messages
3,906
Reaction score
5,925
Location
Murray, KY
A snarky but amusingly-written article:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/nasas-em-drive-is-a-magnetic-wtf-thruster/ An excerpt:
----------
"And the winner is… Physics, without much doubt. 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."
----------
One of the nice things about these new experiments is that they illustrate one of the important features of science: it is self-correcting. Hypothesis constructed and tested --> Experimental results published --> Folks get all excited :w: --> Other scientists perform carefully-constructed experiments to establish either repeatability or bullshit --> Bullshit established, previously excited folks now :cry:

Best -- Terry
 
A snarky but amusingly-written article:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/nasas-em-drive-is-a-magnetic-wtf-thruster/ An excerpt:
----------
"And the winner is… Physics, without much doubt. 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."
----------
One of the nice things about these new experiments is that they illustrate one of the important features of science: it is self-correcting. Hypothesis constructed and tested --> Experimental results published --> Folks get all excited :w: --> Other scientists perform carefully-constructed experiments to establish either repeatability or bullshit --> Bullshit established, previously excited folks now :cry:

Best -- Terry

Ha! Imagine that!
 
The believable situation is when the experiment and the theory coincide. The original theoretical idea on the EM machine was that the electromagnetic force on the forward end of the device would be greater than the force on the rear and there would be a net thrust. I believe that this idea was later theoretically discredited, but an experiment had shown a very small force. However, this very small result was in doubt and the further experiments proceeded. Since the possible benefit could be important, i.e., the concept of propulsion without propellant, further test devices have been built and investigated, even though a convincing theoretical development is not there. Looking at the very first reference in this thread, the calculation showing that a magnetic interaction with the Earth's magnetic field with an imperfect electrical wire agreeing with the measured thrust could very well mean that the experimental thrust measurement can be eliminated with a more accurate test and the controversy put to rest.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, this is only a conference paper and has not been through the peer review process. It would have more weight if it appeared in AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power as a rebuttal to the original EM Drive article which was published in JPP.

Well, it carries more weight than the "snarky, but amusing" article in the original post. :)

I was somewhat bothered that the article didn't link to the paper or even name the researchers.

Anyway, I would be concerned about the lack of peer review if there was something controversial in the paper. The authors aren't making any extraordinary claims. Instead they are offering a rather mundane explanation for the earlier test results.
 
Back
Top