EM Drive Passed Peer Review

>putting something into orbit with 1.2 mN of thrust per kW

laughable

Wow something here seems familiar.

>It being real isn't based on it being to lift anything into space.
Well yes, but that's trivial since it can't lift anything into space. That's not what a thruster does.

>I'm not. I've been cautiously optimistic from the start, with zealot-like arguments when people decried it just because they were idiots for disregarding experiments suggesting new science when the best thing about science is experiments that disprove shit and force people to rethink it.
The experiments haven't proven anything though. The experimental results are barely distinguishable from noise and such extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A real test of its thruster capability is not difficult to achieve and would conclusively prove or disprove it.

>Shawyer's theory was disproved awhile back so the theoretical maximum thrust/energy is entirely unknown
I'm not talking about it's maximum efficiency, I'm talking about the experimental observations:

emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results

All of he experiments that have found thrust have found it to be several multiples of a photon rocket. So which is it? Do these experiments show conservation of energy is false? Or are the experiments false? If the former, where is the free energy?

If you actually care about results over theory, then wait for actual, tangible results. Until then, memedrive is bullshit.

Image was the first one from Google for "EMDrive."

Why would you ever use it for that?

> Well yes, but that's trivial since it can't lift anything into space. That's not what a thruster does.
Um, no. There are shitloads of thrusters that don't have the thrust to lift anything into space that are used extensively in space - pretty much all of them fall in this category, yet the EM Drive will be the first that is reactionless.
> The experiments haven't proven anything though. The experimental results are barely distinguishable from noise and such extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A real test of its thruster capability is not difficult to achieve and would conclusively prove or disprove it.
This is wrong - in fact the very topic ITT is that this point is wrong.
>All of he experiments that have found thrust have found it to be several multiples of a photon rocket. So which is it? Do these experiments show conservation of energy is false? Or are the experiments false? If the former, where is the free energy?
Even if it were the equivalent of a laser pointer sitting in space in terms of thrust, that would be fucking enormous in itself. The point here is it is reactionless, it has proven to be reactionless by all known laws of physics and work with a signal exceeding the noise by a great enough degree to be certain of that for all intents and purposes. This means new physics - something we haven't actually had since the last round that gave us computers or the one before that that gave us nukes. There is no way to overstate just how huge this is.

Peer review makes it science, just because it's science doesn't mean it's true.

>Um, no. There are shitloads of thrusters that don't have the thrust to lift anything into space that are used extensively in space - pretty much all of them fall in this category, yet the EM Drive will be the first that is reactionless.
Are you unable to read English? I said that thrusters don't lift things into space.

>This is wrong - in fact the very topic ITT is that this point is wrong.
How is it wrong? Where is the extraordinary evidence?

>Even if it were the equivalent of a laser pointer sitting in space in terms of thrust, that would be fucking enormous in itself.
Again, moron, can you not read? A laser pointer cannot achieve such thrusts. A photon rocket's maximum efficiency is the maximum efficiency of a propellantless drive without violating conservation of energy. And no, this does not assume that there is constant acceleration with constant energy input, this is a relativistic limit. So either we have a violation of conservation and free energy, or the drive is less efficient than a photon rocket and useless. The fact that all the experiments purporting to show the emdrive producing thrust also imply violation of conservation, and yet no one is producing free energy, is very good reason to believe that such experiments are fatally flawed.

Please don't post if you don't understand what you're talking about. Please don't post if you don't understand what the person you are replying to is saying. No one is fooled when you pretend.

Peer review by aeronautical engineers with no experience in the physics being invoked does not make it science.

Sure it does, but just because it's science doesn't mean it's fact

It's not science, it's clickbait.

>anti-science

Every single experiment since the dawn of experimentation has affirmed conservation of momentum and energy. This one small blip appears, a small blip that almost certainly is some confounding variable (either ablation or eddy currents) and it's the people who express caution that are "anti-science". Fuck I hate brainlets.

>user, A. It's Not Science, It's Clickbait. Veeky Forums.org/sci/, 2016

...

Anyone have a schematic or something?

>Are you unable to read English? I said that thrusters don't lift things into space.
And then? Perhaps re-read what you are responding to?
> How is it wrong? Where is the extraordinary evidence?
In the papers you refuse to read before commenting on.
> Again, moron, can you not read? A laser pointer cannot achieve such thrusts. A photon rocket's maximum efficiency is the maximum efficiency of a propellantless drive without violating conservation of energy.
A photon rocket isn't propellantless, dipshit. It emits photons are propellant. The EM Drive is actually reactionless. There is no relating the two, which is what makes it so exciting. Though the fact you believe a photon rocket would be propellantless is enough to discount you as a moron speaking outside their realm in itself.

>Every single experiment since the dawn of experimentation has affirmed conservation of momentum and energy.
Science doesn't operate on the concept of precedent, it is the rationalization of experimental results. What we have here is an experiment that conflicts with the existing rationalization which has been independently verified from every angle and reproduced in multiple labs - that means the existing rationalization is wrong.

You don't need one - it's a truncated cone with a magnetron attached to the side. Elegant in it's simplicity like that.

why in the world did it take so long to discover?

it's like the civ tech tree, we just teched up something else like irrigation instead of teching memedrive.

Because the forces it generates are small and nobody thought to look for them. The same could be said of the electromagnet (some extruded wire, two types of metal and a lemon could have made it, but nobody thought that would yield such immense technological power.) The magnetron produces huge amounts of microwave radiation from a very simple thing (a largely symmetrical flower-pedal-shaped hollow space with an electrode in the middle and no air inside which happens to be just the right physical size for the task) but without the theory to get there nobody would have done so. Hell, using the microwave for food only happened because some dumb cunt forgot where he put his popcorn while pulling a night shift at a radar facility. All of chemistry stems directly from alchemy (and if you drop the religious overtones from alchemy they were practically identical until the 60's.)

Taking a conservative estimate, 99.9999% of science is misconception and happenstance everyone involved is absolutely certain of.

So wouldn't this mean it's propelling against the background magnetic field?

The forces involved are the wrong order of magnitude based on existing theory (plus they don't change when the devices are different distances from a metal wall.)

god damnit it's growing

Also, it sounds much simpler to build than it is. Just sticking a magnetron on the side of an aluminum foil cone would be too noisy to detect anything, machining is relatively expensive (from the standpoint of "let's try every random shape we can think of to see what it does then do things to it - where "random shape" could be anything made of any material and "do things to it" could mean "shock it" "fill it with microwaves" "sing to it" "jerk off on it") - the number of things that fit that mentality are practically infinite.

Another interesting example (one I've personally tested) of conspiracy theory tech (not claiming it does what the inventory claims, just that it is very odd) is the Rodin coil - which generates a rotating magnetic field perpendicular to the only symmetrical axis on the thing. It only does it when you follow the really specific "Rodin coil" winding scheme and it's nothing more than a donut shaped winding of copper wire with just the right spacing - but if not for some pot smoking hippy playing with patterns of numbers it never would have been discovered (regardless of the fact it isn't what he thinks it is.)

>menedrive's revenge

...

Very interesting. Maybe instead of wasting so many cycles on poopooing the observation more researchers will actually put some thought into how this could be possible. Hopefully we'll get some new physics out of it, because physics is ridiculously broken today.

>forgot where he put his popcorn
actually he melted a chocolate bar..

>info comes from "in a now-deleted comment"
>on a forum

This is like getting your news in youtube comments.

Nothing was deleted faggot.

>which generates a rotating magnetic field perpendicular to the only symmetrical axis on the thing.

That's just because the Rodin coil is actually *two* coils, which are separately powered. It is extremely easy to produce a rotating magnetic field this way; here's a patent from 1888 detailing a motor which does the same thing (although it uses four coils instead of two.) electropub.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/rotating-magnetic-field-using-4-coils-wrapped-around-a-ferrite-toroid1.pdf

Every other "unusual" property of the Rodin coil is just a generic property of a toroidal coil; see also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toroidal_inductors_and_transformers.

Stop it

I feel the correct point of view here is assuming that it works and wondering how that could be so while waiting for a final word either way, of course this is reasonable and as such my comment will probably be ignored.

I suppose, though it works when you have the windings wired in parallel as well, so it's a bit strange regardless.

>>Well yes, but that's trivial since it can't lift anything into space. That's not what a thruster does.
>Um, no. There are shitloads of thrusters that don't have the thrust to lift anything into space that are used extensively in space - pretty much all of them fall in this category, yet the EM Drive will be the first that is reactionless.
Again, moron, how does this respond to what you're replying to? Let me break it down for you since you are too retarded to red:

Me: Thrusters don't lift things into space. Thrusters serve a different purpose.
You: Many thrusters don't lift things into space [sic: none of them do]. The EM Drive is the first reactionless thruster [sic: the memedrive is neither reactionless nor a thruster]

Now explain how you contradicted anything I said or fuck off.

>In the papers you refuse to read before commenting on.
I have read every single paper that claims thrust from the memedrive. You obviously have not since you can't even point to one, let alone one that has conclusive proof of thruster capability.

>A photon rocket isn't propellantless, dipshit. It emits photons are propellant.
Photons don't count as propellant since they are not mass. Again, stop pretending to know anything about what you're talking about, you meme loving moron.

>The EM Drive is actually reactionless. There is no relating the two, which is what makes it so exciting.
And again you completely fail to respond to the point. I am not "relating" the memedrive to phton rockets, I am simply stating the fact that ANY hypothetical propellant-less drive which has a thrust to power ratio greater than a photon rocket is also a free energy device, because its kinetic energy must exceed its input energy at some point BY DEFINITION of it having such a thrust to power ratio. So there are two choices:

1. It does not have the thrust to power ratio all of the experiments which you laud as extraordinary evidence claim it to have

2. It can be used as a free energy device, which begs the question: why is no one making free energy?

Pick no more and no less than one you insufferable retard.

>Again, moron, how does this respond to what you're replying to? Let me break it down for you since you are too retarded to red:
Nah, I'm done. You can reread everything and keep doing so until it makes sense or you can go fuck yourself. I'm not going to read all that autistic insult-laden garbage to hear how you want me to believe you haven't failed at basic reading comprehension.

>I'm not going to read it!
>I refuse to!
Don't have a tantrum illiteracy can be corrected at any age.

>Pick no more and no less than one you insufferable retard.
I'll take the one where we know our understanding of physics is wrong because you can't reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity, you can't extrapolate anything prior to the big bang (inb4 that was the start of time) and frankly just because the people representing the "we have discovered everything and think anything new isn't possible in spite of a lack of a basic understanding of even known physics" side of things are abominable cunts like you.

To reiterate from a previous post:
>go fuck yourself

You haven't won, you're just too autistic to converse with. Remember that and have a nice life shit for brains, don't forget to ask for tendies before the crippling depression kicks in.

>Science hasn't figured out everything
>Therefore I don't have to explain shit
You sound like a creationist

If you can't respond to simple questions, then you don't deserve to be part of the debate. Look how the last five fucking posts responding to me have not one substantive point in them. You are just trying to distract people from your obvious lack of knowledge and ability to reasonably defend your position.

Let's try this again:

1. Experiments which claim to register thrust from the memedrive report a thrust to power ratio several times greater than that of a photon rocket. Yes or no? Explain your answer.

2. Propellantless drives which have thrust to power ratios greater than a photon rocket eventually reach a speed at which kinetic energy overtakes input energy. Yes or no? Explain your answer

3. If kinetic energy exceeds input energy than free energy is created. Yes or no? Explain your answer.

>You haven't won
You haven't given anyone a reason to believe that. Desperation is ugly.

Meh, retards like this are part of the landscape. They even serve a function. Meanwhile the real scientists are watching with interest. Not convinced by any means, but interested.

Did someone say FREE energy?

>Meh, retards like this are part of the landscape. They even serve a function. Meanwhile the real scientists are watching with interest. Not convinced by any means, but interested.
/thread

It's not meant for that; thrust is far too shit

It's closer to an ion engine in use

This thing NEEDS to be legit for some good old fashioned nerd schadenfreude

If it works it works. If it does not work then it does not work. If conservation laws get raped then that's just the way things are.

Yeah fundamental laws can be easily discard Ecks dee

Great. Another crackpot device taking away funds from real science by drawing attention with bombastic promises.
These things should be banned.

If it works then it works.

>real science
Real science is based on evidence is it not? So far the evidence indicates that this device is not a waste of time.

It useless unless there is a theory to go along with it.

If you have to use electricity to power it then that means it isn't a free energy device, dumbo.

Many things are put to use long before any theory exist to explain them. Physicist can cry all they like but when evidence is tossed aside to preserve dogma then the last thing they are doing is science.

You are all fools who can't accept reality.

>However, Shawyer claims that following fundamental physics involving the theory of special relativity, the EmDrive does in fact preserve the law of conservation of momentum and energy.
Why does he say this? How does he explain it?

Reminder that you could attach the EM drive to something in space, see it work, watch it in practice, full 100% visual and scientific observational evidence, and there would still be cucks on Veeky Forums and the scientific community saying "B-BUT IT WILL NEVER WORK BECAUSE MUH PHYSICS SAYS SO".

When the fuck did we enter an era where the human comprehension of the laws of physics actually DICTATES the laws of physics? Because I think I missed that cross over point. It really astounds me that we can have experimental evidence of something working, and people will STILL be saying "NO IT CAN'T WORK" - not merely healthy skepticism (possible experiment error) or having a "wait and see" attitude, but actual nay saying. The theory of special relativity is only as old as the great grandparents of some of the people ITT, and here we are trying to say what should and shouldn't work in the universe because OUR laws say so. Ridiculous.

Electric energy plus some apparatus creates some thrust.

I'm not seeing a problem here.

I'm sure it has a physical reaction to the energy you put into it other than thrust.

Philosophy merged with science.

Top kek

What's so magical about the process of peer review that makes bullshit real?

If we haven't figured it out yet, how can we explain it?

>These things should be banned.
Try to be a little less obvious.

>What's so magical about the process of peer review that makes bullshit real?
A bunch of experts in the field being entirely unable to say it's bullshit with ground to stand on. At this point the only people calling it bullshit are idiots on the internet who haven't heard it's real from their favorite pop-sci figurehead yet.

>Passed Peer Review

Bullshit. There's no paper. There's no evidence anything was ever posted since the post about the rumor was deleted. This isn't news. This is blog shit about popsci rumors.

>What now, anti-science pessimist-fags?

>authored by "Harold White, Paul March, Lawrence, Vera, Sylvester, Brady and Bailey".

Lawrence, Vera, Sylvester, Brady and Bailey are Dr. Rodal's beautiful pug children.

It's not as bad as ID'ing the authors with their reddit handles, but it's pretty fucking close.

>Reminder that you could attach the EM drive to something in space, see it work, watch it in practice, full 100% visual and scientific observational evidence, and there would still be cucks on Veeky Forums and the scientific community saying "B-BUT IT WILL NEVER WORK BECAUSE MUH PHYSICS SAYS SO".

I would feel pretty confident in saying that because the basic operating mechanism makes no fucking sense.

gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html

are you fucking stupid? do you not know how science works?

science is meant to model the world.

the world isn't supposed to adhere to scientific models.

we found a natural phenomenon. we must now make a theory that explains it. welcome to science you newfag piece of shit.

/thread

LOL you are fucking retarded.

the vast majority of our physical laws are empirical and we still have zero clue about their root cause.

>we found a natural phenomenon
No we didn't. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

there have been multiple tests. MULTIPLE. all of which confirm the results of the expirements to be outside the error threshold.

Yeah, but when the chinese tested it with its own internal power supply theg measured no thrust. This 'thrust' is simply thermal expansion of the power wires.

>Talk about EM propulsion for years with my friends.
>We arrogantly do some experiments in our garage, find out it works, try to show other people but nobody cares.
>No denial of our discovery - even professional wireless contractors ignore us rather than mock us.
>Arrogantly sit the drive in my garage, and leave it in NW.
>Smugly know I'm right for years.
>Literally masturbate to the fact that I know things others can't even imagine, and have a more accurate worldview than 99%+ of the population.
>Do drugs, learn quantum mechanics and biology.
>Find out about stem cells, predict bioprinting.
>Have sudden, shocking realization in 2015 that I'm going to be an immortal star traveller, literally have a psychosis.
>Brag about it on Veeky Forums, knowing more humiliation is in store for pessimists.

Everyone will remember you guys as miserable, lazy quiters who would rather die than work towards immotality and space travel.

Multiple tests with wildly different result including many that registered no thrust at all. The ones that did are barely above the noise threshold. The only way to show its real at this point would be showing it actually working as a thruster.

I'm not asking you to explain anything about *how* the emdrive works. The emdrive could be a black box and my point would still stand. I'm asking you to explain why we don't have free energy when that is a direct implication of what it is claimed to *do*. If the emdrive has the thrust to power ratio that it is claimed to have, then its kinetic energy can exceed its input energy. This is true regardless of how it works, as long as it works. Understand?

The problem is not that it creates some thrust, the problem is that it creates too much thrust, more kinetic energy than what you input into it.

You utter moron. Free energy does not mean no input energy, it means the output is more than the input. Fuck off if you can't even comprehend elementary concepts.

Only if your definition of evidence is extremely generous.

>what is conservation of momentum

What happens if I swap my car engine with that water-only engine and put this memedrive on the back? Will I become Back to the Future?

If they disagree with repeatable experiments, sure. The fundamental laws are based on observation.

>repeatable
kek

If the results aren't repeatable, then THAT is your problem, not that they're contradicting previous results.

>I, like the drive, am unmoved.
Isn't that how the drive works.

hackaday.io/project/10166-flying-an-emdrive

Disregard Chinese experiments and it's all good.

There could be two reasons for this:
1) The Chinese are fucking incompetent and don't know how to science.
2) The Chinese did see thrust, but everyone else to think there was no thrust so they would get the tech first.

Either way, just do what most scientists do: Ignore the Chinese.

Ignorant Faggot here, can somebody explain to me (in a simple way) how this memedrive violates the conservation of energy law ?

Look at dem mental gymnastics - I bet you can get skullfucked from any angle.