Chinese building Anti Gravity Drive (Emdrive)

Hmmz.

Boils down to releasing microwaves inside a conical chamber with flattened ends.

1) Force generated on the larger end of the flattened conical tube is greater than on the smaller end.

2) Due to some very woolly logic which is not explained properly the force generated on the larger end by microwaves bouncing off it is not cancelled out due to everything involved being attached to itself but results in thrust.

3) This thrust is incredibly small and extremely hard to measure, only useful in space where gravity doesn't kick its ass but he's already speculating about hugely scaled up devices which would work on earth.


Proof has not been posted, Youtube videos, articles on the theory and news of investors who by the way have given funding on the basis that it gets a good looking at... is not proof that it works. He has funding to work on it.


I have an open mind to proven theories :)
 
dmpoole said:
:confused:
I really need an explanation for this one because as far as I know it holds the Universe together
Click to expand...

There are 4 fundamental forces.

The four known fundamental interactions are electromagnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction (also known as "strong" and "weak nuclear force") and gravitation.
Click to expand...

Gravity is the weakest of the four.

Gravitation is by far the weakest of the four interactions. Hence it is always ignored when doing particle physics. The weakness of gravity can easily be demonstrated by suspending a pin using a simple magnet (such as a refrigerator magnet). The magnet is able to hold the pin against the gravitational pull of the entire earth.
Click to expand...

Quotes stolen from wikipedia :p
 
dmpoole said:
:confused:
I really need an explanation for this one because as far as I know it holds the Universe together
Click to expand...

Well he's correct in saying that gravity is profoundly weak, though the rest of hist post is pretty meaningless.

If you compare gravity to the other three forces (electromagnetic, weak nuclear, and strong nuclear), then yes, it's very weak.
 
Hotwired said:
1) Force generated on the larger end of the flattened conical tube is greater than on the smaller end.

2) Due to some very woolly logic which is not explained properly the force generated on the larger end by microwaves bouncing off it is not cancelled out due to everything involved being attached to itself but results in thrust.

3) This thrust is incredibly small and extremely hard to measure, only useful in space where gravity doesn't kick its ass but he's already speculating about hugely scaled up devices which would work on earth.
Click to expand...

Basically, what he's saying is that the tapered walls of the waveguide cause the microwave photons to be approaching at a smaller angle from the normal when hitting the large end-wall than the smaller end-wall. The result of this is that they impart more impulse on the larger end of the cone than the small end.

This much is correct, but his bluff is that he's ignored the impulse in the direction of the smaller end that the photon imparts on the waveguide when it hits the tapered side-walls. It turns out that if you take this into account, the impulses all cancel each other out nicely, and the device goes nowhere (not that this is particularly surprising, given that we've fully understood Newtonian mechanics for quite a long time now).

So, essentially, he's cleverly concealed some aspects of the system's dynamics in order to get the answer he wants out of his calculations, and is relying on people's ignorance for his credibility. Unfortunately for him, someone with a PhD in relativistic electrodynamics (which is very relevant to this) came along and blew his arguments out of the water :)
 
Last edited:
Inquisitor said:
Basically, what he's saying is that the tapered walls of the waveguide cause the microwave photons to be approaching at a smaller angle from the normal when hitting the large end-wall than the smaller end-wall. The result of this is that they impart more impulse on the larger end of the cone than the small end.

This much is correct, but his bluff is that he's ignored the impulse in the direction of the smaller end that the photon imparts on the waveguide when it hits the tapered side-walls. It turns out that if you take this into account, the impulses all cancel each other out nicely, and the device goes nowhere (not that this is particularly surprising, given that we've fully understood Newtonian mechanics for quite a long time now).

So, essentially, he's cleverly concealed some aspects of the system's dynamics in order to get the answer he wants out of his calculations, and is relying on people's ignorance for his credibility. Unfortunately for him, someone with a PhD in relativistic electrodynamics (which is very relevant to this) came along and blew his arguments out of the water :)
Click to expand...

Have you thought that there might be some unexplained force in action that we can't measure that allows it to do what it claims?
 
Teki187 said:
Have you thought that there might be some unexplained force in action that we can't measure that allows it to do what it claims?
Click to expand...
What, like magic? A magic, undetectable force. A force that is created using the same type of magic I use to make myself invisible, when no one is watching?
 
Teki187 said:
Have you thought that there might be some unexplained force in action that we can't measure that allows it to do what it claims?
Click to expand...

LOL

Yeah, that's well open minded that. You might first want to measure the actual thing working though.

Why is it always the same people suckered into this kind of thing?
 
Teki187 said:
Have you thought that there might be some unexplained force in action that we can't measure that allows it to do what it claims?
Click to expand...

No, because a) he hasn't mentioned any such force in his explanation and b) I haven't seen any credible evidence that what he has claimed is anything other than fraud.

Your original post quotes him saying that conservation of momentum is not violated. If this is the case, then there must be something carrying momentum away from the engine in the direction opposite to its motion. He does not explain what this is or even make reference to it. His own arguments aren't even self-consistent.
 
Last edited:
So I watched the video, and I didn't see any hot naked anti-grav action. Where was it?

All I saw was a piece of junk rotating on a fixed mechanical axis.
 
The other problem I have with that video is that there is no way it would remain perfectly horizontal with one point of thrust.

Or does this video show multiple devices?
 
Radiation said:
I always find it annoying how science disregards anything that goes against their collective view, if something works then it works, its up to them to explain how the effect works not deny it without looking, [..]
Click to expand...

We have:

i) A device which has not been demonstrated to work.

ii) Theoretical underpinning for it which is wrong.

iii) Claims which contravene fundamental laws of physics.

It's possible that the device works as stated, but rather unlikely. When faced with such extraordinary claims, the onus is on the person making those claims to provide extraordinary evidence for them. Or at least an explanation that works.

Einstein's main work was originally ridiculed. A hundred scientists published a paper against it. It didn't matter how many people said he was wrong because he could support his extraordinary claims.
 
Angilion said:
iii) Claims which contravene fundamental laws of physics.

Einstein's main work was originally ridiculed. A hundred scientists published a paper against it. It didn't matter how many people said he was wrong because he could support his extraordinary claims.
Click to expand...

Did anybody see this the other night?

SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENTARY: Horizon
On: BBC 2 Midlands (102)
Date: Tuesday 3rd November 2009 (Already shown)
Who's Afraid of a Big Black Hole?.

Basically Einsteins theory and what is know about science breaks down in the singularity of every Black Hole (I think I got that right).
I'm also pretty sure that Science has been proved wrong many times.
I'm not sticking up for Teki's OP because I know zero about science but watching that documentary showed that science facts break down at certain points.
 
dmpoole said:
I'm also pretty sure that Science has been proved wrong many times.
Click to expand...

That's the very nature of science. If it were infallible and 100% correct then there'd be no need for continued scientific investigation. This case, however, is almost certainly just fraud.

dmpoole said:
I'm not sticking up for Teki's OP because I know zero about science but watching that documentary showed that science facts break down at certain points.
Click to expand...

Every scientist knows that, but it has no relevance to this debate.
 
Sounds like several other devices that have failed to deliver. Remember the free energy device from a year or two ago. That had some technical details, films and even said they were going to do a news conference. More rubbish till we see it replicated in other labs.
 
dmpoole said:
Basically Einsteins theory and what is know about science breaks down in the singularity of every Black Hole (I think I got that right).
I'm also pretty sure that Science has been proved wrong many times.
I'm not sticking up for Teki's OP because I know zero about science but watching that documentary showed that science facts break down at certain points.
Click to expand...
The "breakdown" of physics at the singularity of a black hole is because there is a mathematical singularity at that point. If you like, the solution to Einstein's equations for a point mass contain terms of the form:

1/r

where r is the distance from the point mass. This term is mathematically bad at r=0 (1/0 is completely meaningless), i.e. at the centre of the black hole. Resolving this kind of issue is a deep problem in quantum gravity, and has absolutely nothing to do with the type of physics being discussed here (although I realise you were using it as an example of the current limitations of physics).

What Teki187 seems to now be suggesting, is that there is some magical force that has appeared in this man's experiment, which has never been observed, before or after. And yet there is nothing extraordinary about the apparatus, there is nothing novel about his experimental setup.

If I told you I managed to make my car levitate 10ft in the air by playing a Wings album and turning the air conditioning up really high, would you believe it? Given that my explanation was "maybe there's just some force that we've never detected before, that only makes itself apparent in this particular setup involving cold air and bad music"? Or would you think... bullocks (excuse my poor spelling).
 
Also, for the record, the physics he uses in that paper is undergrad level at most; most of it could be understood by an A-level physics student. The "paper" also looks nothing like a real scientific paper. Real papers aren't done in Microsoft Word with minimal attention to formatting and diagrammatic presentation, for a start
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom