Author Topic: NASA EM drive paper peer reviewed & published  (Read 3925 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jr2

  • The Mail Man
  • 212
  • It's prounounced jayartoo 0x6A7232
    • Steam
NASA EM drive paper peer reviewed & published
http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-nasa-s-peer-reviewed-em-drive-paper-has-finally-been-published


Hidden Text: Show
It's official: NASA's peer-reviewed EM Drive paper has finally been published



It works.

FIONA MACDONALD
19 NOV 2016

After months of speculation and leaked documents, NASA's long-awaited EM Drive paper has finally been peer-reviewed and published. And it shows that the 'impossible' propulsion system really does appear to work.

The NASA Eagleworks Laboratory team even put forward a hypothesis for howthe EM Drive could produce thrust – something that seems impossible according to our current understanding of the laws of physics.
 


In case you've missed the hype, the EM Drive, or Electromagnetic Drive, is a propulsion system first proposed by British inventor Roger Shawyer back in 1999.

Instead of using heavy, inefficient rocket fuel, it bounces microwaves back and forth inside a cone-shaped metal cavity to generate thrust.

According to Shawyer's calculations, the EM Drive could be so efficient that it could power us to Mars in just 70 days.

But, there's a not-small problem with the system. It defies Newton's third law, which states that everything must have an equal and opposite reaction.

According to the law, for a system to produce thrust, it has to push something out the other way. The EM Drive doesn't do this.

Yet in test after test it continues to work. Last year, NASA's Eagleworks Laboratory team got their hands on an EM Drive to try to figure out once and for all what was going on.
 


And now we finally have those results.

The new peer-reviewed paper is titled "Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum", and has been published online as an open access 'article in advance' in the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)’s Journal of Propulsion and Power. It'll appear in the December print edition.

It's very similar to the paper that was leaked online earlier this month and, most notably, shows that the drive does indeed produce 1.2 millinewtons per kilowatt of thrust in a vacuum:

Quote
Thrust data from forward, reverse, and null suggested that the system was consistently performing at 1.2 ± 0.1 mN/kW, which was very close to the average impulsive performance measured in air. A number of error sources were considered and discussed.

To put that into perspective, the super-powerful Hall thruster generates force of 60 millinewtons per kilowatt, an order of magnitude more than the EM Drive.

But the Hall thruster requires heavy rocket fuel, and that extra weight could offset the higher thrust, the team concludes.

Light sails on the other hand, which are currently the most popular form of zero-propellant propulsion, only generate force up to 6.67 micronewtons per kilowatt – two orders of magnitude less than NASA's EM Drive, says the paper.

But the team makes it clear that they also weren't attempting to optimise performance in these tests – all they were doing was trying to prove whether or not the drive really works. So it's likely that the EM Drive could get a lot more efficient still.

When it comes to how the drive actually works without messing up the laws of physics, that's a little less clear.

It's not the focus of this paper, but the team does offer a hypothesis:

Quote
[The] supporting physics model used to derive a force based on operating conditions in the test article can be categorised as a nonlocal hidden-variable theory, or pilot-wave theory for short.

Pilot-wave theory is a slightly controversial interpretation of quantum mechanics.

It's pretty complicated stuff, but basically the currently accepted Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics states that particles do not have defined locations until they are observed.

Pilot-wave theory, on the other hand, suggests that particles do have precise positions at all times, but in order for this to be the case, the world must also be strange in other ways – which is why many physicists have dismissed the idea.

But in recent years, the pilot-wave theory has been increasing in popularity, and the NASA team suggests that it could help explain how the EM Drive produces thrust without appearing to propel anything in the other direction.

"If a medium is capable of supporting acoustic oscillations, this means that the internal constituents were capable of interacting and exchanging momentum," the team writes.

"If the vacuum is indeed mutable and degradable as was explored, then it might be possible to do/extract work on/from the vacuum, and thereby be possible to push off of the quantum vacuum and preserve the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum."

Of course, this is just one hypothesis, based on one round of tests. There's a lot more work to be done before we can say for sure whether the EM Drive is really producing thrust – the team notes they that more research is needed to eliminate the possibility that thermal expansion could somehow be skewing the results.

And even once that's confirmed, we'll then need to figure out exactly how the system works.

The scientific community is also notoriously unconvinced about the propulsion system – just yesterday a Motherboard article on the EM Drive was deleted by the moderators of the popular subreddit r/Physics because they "consider the EM Drive to be unscientific".

But is the first peer-reviewed research ever published on the EM Drive, which firmly takes it out of the realm of pseudoscience into a technology that's worth taking skeptically, but seriously.

The next step for the EM Drive is for it to be tested in space, which is scheduled to happen in the coming months, with plans to launch the first EM Drive having been made back in September.

If it produces thrust there, the scientific community will need to sit up and take note. Watch this space.

You can read the full research paper here.


 

Offline watsisname

Re: NASA EM drive paper peer reviewed & published
I'm not sure how closely I equate r/Physics with "scientific community", but ok. :p  I think the broad scientific community is generally skeptical but interested -- it is a good lesson in the experimental process regardless of which way it ends up, and if it ends up valid then that's fantastic. :)
In my world of sleepers, everything will be erased.
I'll be your religion, your only endless ideal.
Slowly we crawl in the dark.
Swallowed by the seductive night.

 
Re: NASA EM drive paper peer reviewed & published
Exciting times :)

 

Offline Bobboau

  • Just a MODern kinda guy
    Just MODerately cool
    And MODest too
  • 213
Bobboau, bringing you products that work... in theory
learn to use PCS
creator of the ProXimus Procedural Texture and Effect Generator
My latest build of PCS2, get it while it's hot!
PCS 2.0.3


DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together

 

Offline Herra Tohtori

  • The Academic
  • 211
  • Bad command or file name
Re: NASA EM drive paper peer reviewed & published
So let's put the thrust/power figure in context.

Electromagnetic radiation itself has momentum, so you can gain tiny bit of thrust by turning off a light source and pointing it to the opposite direction of the thrust you want to generate.


The thrust/power relationship of EM-radiation is fairly easy to calculate:



The momentum of individual photon is

p = mc

where m is the mass equivalent of the photon's energy, gained from

E = mc²

which means

m = E/c²

and substituting that to the equation of momentum we get

p = E/c

..which through substitution tells us that the momentum of a photon is p = hf/c, or in another form p = h/λ, but these are not really relevant to the question of relating the energy of EM-radiation to the thrust it generates.


As we can now see, the momentum is directly correlated to the energy of the photons, so now we can look at how much force the photons are generating:


F = dp/dt

dp = dE/c

F = dE/dt * 1/c


Since change of energy (dE) in some time (dt) is the definition of power, we can substitute that into the equation:


F = P/c

...which means that the thrust generated by electromagnetic radiation is the radiant power divided by speed of light.



So how much is it? Well, to get a comparable reading to the one used in the article, let's use a power figure of 1 kW, and calculate it:


F = 1 kW / 299,792,458 m/s = 3.33564095e-6 N


In other words: EM-radiation alone produces about 3.3 µN (micronewtons) of thrust per kilowatt.



Looking at the produced thrust of the spoopy skellington drive, it produced 1.2 ± 0.1 mN/kW. If the given power corresponds to the power of the microwaves themselves, this is a roughly 360 times more thrust than one would expect from EM-radiation alone. If the power figure is given as the power rating of the device altogether then it's even more impressive, because the conversion from electrical power to the power of the microwaves is never fully efficient.


In practical terms, this in itself is still fairly weak thrust/power rating, but the real advantage of this is of course that now you can defeat the rocket equation with 1/360th the power cost of just using very large and bright spotlights at the rear end of your spacecraft. So as long as you can generate power, you can generate thrust, which of course accumulates over time and can propel ships to great speeds indeed. And as it is about 18% of the thrust generated by the remarkably efficient Hall thrusters (which are still constrained by the rocket equation), we're basically getting into the same magnitudes of thrust, at any rate. The question then becomes, how long can you generate power, rather than the propellant fraction of the ship. After all, independent means of power consumption also require some sort of energy storage, whether it's a radioactive isotope, fissile fuel, or perhaps in the future, fusion fuel.

In the inner solar system, solar panels can of course be used - but then you have to take into account drift from the radiation pressure applied to the solar panels themselves. So there are definitely some interesting practical problems to be solved, but if it really does work, and especially if the effect can be refined and improved (ie. creating more thrust for a given rate of power consumption) it could open some very very interesting possibilities in exploration of space.

All that said, I'm really rather looking forward to experimental confirmation of the system running onboard a spacecraft, still.
There are three things that last forever: Abort, Retry, Fail - and the greatest of these is Fail.

 
Re: NASA EM drive paper peer reviewed & published
A direct photon drive doesn't even beat the rocket equation because at the power-to-thrust ratio involved you have to take E=mc^2 into account and it behaves exactly as you'd expect for a completely classical rocket with an exhaust velocity of c.
The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell.

 

Offline Bobboau

  • Just a MODern kinda guy
    Just MODerately cool
    And MODest too
  • 213
Re: NASA EM drive paper peer reviewed & published
yeah, this working in space really is the be all and end all.
Bobboau, bringing you products that work... in theory
learn to use PCS
creator of the ProXimus Procedural Texture and Effect Generator
My latest build of PCS2, get it while it's hot!
PCS 2.0.3


DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together

 

Offline watsisname

Re: NASA EM drive paper peer reviewed & published
A direct photon drive doesn't even beat the rocket equation because at the power-to-thrust ratio involved you have to take E=mc^2 into account and it behaves exactly as you'd expect for a completely classical rocket with an exhaust velocity of c.

A massive particle with a velocity of c has infinite energy and momentum and would provide infinite thrust.  So if by 'exactly', you mean 'infinitely different'.  :)
In my world of sleepers, everything will be erased.
I'll be your religion, your only endless ideal.
Slowly we crawl in the dark.
Swallowed by the seductive night.

 

Offline Herra Tohtori

  • The Academic
  • 211
  • Bad command or file name
Re: NASA EM drive paper peer reviewed & published
A massive particle with a velocity of c has infinite energy and momentum and would provide infinite thrust.  So if by 'exactly', you mean 'infinitely different'.  :)

If you take into account the correct physics (relativity) then yes...

But through an ironic quirk of physics, you actually get a correct result by using the photon stream's relativistic mass (which is m = E/c^2 = hf/c^2), and using the Newtonian rocket equation with velocity v=c, and you happen to get the correct result for the impulse. But it's a classic case of the physics used being wrong despite producing the correct result...

So as an object expends energy and converts some of it into photons, technically the object should be losing mass at the same rate it produces photons. Which is exactly how a classical rocket functions.

But the big thing is that prior to the EM-drive, photon-rocket was actually the most efficient thing in terms of specific impulse. Since we've been dealing with Newtons per kilowatt (thrust/energy ratio), let's use the convenient figure of 1 kW to start from...

P = 1 kW

P = E/t

E = Pt = 1,000 W * 1 s = 1,000 J

m = E/c²

m = 1,000 J / c² = 1.113e-14 kg

dm/ds = 1.113e-14 kg/s


Now, in terms of mass flow (energy consumption) both a 1 kW photon rocket and a 1 kW spoopy skellington drive would be equal, efficiency coefficients aside, so we can use that to calculate the ISP for both.


Isp = Fthrust / ( g * dm/dt )

where

g = 9.80665 m/s²

and

dm/dt = 1.113e-14 kg/s



Photon rocket produces 3.34 µF/kW, while the spoopy skellington drive allegedly produces 1.2 mN/kW, so substituting these into the equations gives us:


Photon Rocket Isp = 30,560,711 seconds

Spoopy Skellington Drive ISP = 10,994,244,900 seconds

...which is a lot of Isp, but that should already be obvious. Basically, both of these would make the rocket equation more or less irrelevant at least for short range (interplanetary) space travel, the problem really is the low amount of thrust. With photons, it's what it is. With the EM-drive, if it actually works (and this if can't be emphasized enough), there is some hope of optimizing and improving the design to produce higher thrust/power yield.


In fact, the obvious application as propulsion system is actually the least fascinating thing about this drive system - again, assuming it actually does work and there's no silly error somewhere that keeps being repeated - building up a system and sending it to space is really the only way to find out for sure.


But no, the most interesting things about it is that if it works, it is in apparent violation of the conservation of momentum, while a "photon-rocket" conserves its 4-momentum, the spoopy skellington drive apparently doesn't, and the explanations to this apparent exception to one of the most fundamental laws of physics known to us would all be more or less groundbreaking.

Starting from the most unlikely one that conservation of momentum has non-quantum scale "exceptions" that don't end up zeroing each other out, to the less controversial yet still rather incredible suggestion that the spoopy skellington drive is actually manipulating some sort of medium and using it as a propellant, even though we can't seem to be able to observe any such medium there. Whether we would then choose to call that medium "quantum vacuum", dark matter, aether, Immaterium, or any other moniker doesn't really matter - it would be a pretty fundamental change to how we've always perceived vacuum.



Damn, I really hope they get this thing into space to be tested as soon as possible. Having real life impulse drives would be so cool... Wouldn't exactly help in getting out of the atmosphere, but damn if they wouldn't make it relatively simple to do everything else, starting from orbit keeping to interplanetary transfers.


EDIT: added some Isp calculations.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2016, 02:51:05 am by Herra Tohtori »
There are three things that last forever: Abort, Retry, Fail - and the greatest of these is Fail.

 

Offline Dragon

  • Citation needed
  • 212
  • The sky is the limit.
Re: NASA EM drive paper peer reviewed & published
There's also the possibility that it's messing with spacetime itself. One thing people have forgotten about at this point is that when put into the White Interferometer (also known as Warp Field Interferometer), it produced a signal which was consistent with what they'd expect for a warp bubble. Another oft-forgotten thing is that Alcubierre drive only needs exotic matter to go superluminal. While I've given up on trying to understand applied mathematics physics at that level, "sublight Alcubierre drive", or at least something related, seems like a very possible explanation (or the least impossible, at any rate :)).

 
Re: NASA EM drive paper peer reviewed & published
A direct photon drive doesn't even beat the rocket equation because at the power-to-thrust ratio involved you have to take E=mc^2 into account and it behaves exactly as you'd expect for a completely classical rocket with an exhaust velocity of c.

A massive particle with a velocity of c has infinite energy and momentum and would provide infinite thrust.  So if by 'exactly', you mean 'infinitely different'.  :)

by classical i meant 'newtonian' and i realised 10 minutes after making that post that someone was going to reply on the basis that i don't understand basic physics
The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell.

 

Offline Bobboau

  • Just a MODern kinda guy
    Just MODerately cool
    And MODest too
  • 213
Re: NASA EM drive paper peer reviewed & published
I heard that this might be related to Mach Effects. basically inducing mass fluctuation in atoms, making them heavier when they are moving backwards and lighter when moving forwards.I lack the understanding to properly vett this however.
Bobboau, bringing you products that work... in theory
learn to use PCS
creator of the ProXimus Procedural Texture and Effect Generator
My latest build of PCS2, get it while it's hot!
PCS 2.0.3


DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together

 
Re: NASA EM drive paper peer reviewed & published
I heard that this might be related to Mach Effects. basically inducing mass fluctuation in atoms, making them heavier when they are moving backwards and lighter when moving forwards.I lack the understanding to properly vett this however.

So would you say it could be described as some sort of mass effect?

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: NASA EM drive paper peer reviewed & published
Is this the best place to smugly imply that there was never any hope of this thing working, or am I missing a more current thread

 
Re: NASA EM drive paper peer reviewed & published
Is this the best place to smugly imply that there was never any hope of this thing working, or am I missing a more current thread

This one seems more recent:
https://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=94767.0

 
Re: NASA EM drive paper peer reviewed & published
Besides, it's been busted for months, necroing a thread just to smugly dick with people about it would be kinda lame.

 

Offline DefCynodont119

  • 210
  • Ascended GTSC-Faustus Artist
    • Steam
Re: NASA EM drive paper peer reviewed & published
It was always pretty sketchy, I always thought it doing was something weird with the tiny amount of air/matter around it.
Our best artificial vacuums are denser then most nebulae. Heck, I think the tippy-top-most layer of our atmosphere has them beat.


Regardless, and with all do respect, I think the Brilliant-writer, Mod-author, and Highly respected HLP-er: General Battuta should not waste his time trolling the, like- two or three board members that got over hyped months ago for what was a remote possibility.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2019, 02:56:53 am by DefCynodont119 »
My gift from Freespace to Cities Skylines:  http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=639891299