Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Register Log in
  • Congratulations waross on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

ex NASA bloke claims to have developed 1g thruster that doesn't use propellant

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sigh, or maybe there was a measurement error ………
 
The main contribution of these designs is in developing better measurement protocols to eliminate stray contributions.
 
I like this part

“We can see some of these things sit on a scale for days, and if they still have charge in them, they are still producing thrust,” he told Ventura. “It’s very hard to reconcile, from a scientific point of view because it does seem to violate a lot of energy laws that we have.”
Click to expand...

Sounds like a serious measurement setup error

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
 
Maybe something along the lines of ... I've never been shown to be a fool when I haven't opened my mouth ?

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.
 
These designs significantly advance measurement protocols, crucial for eliminating stray contributions and enhancing accuracy
 
Reminds me 'that-line' from a Dire Straits song 'MTV'...

"...money for nothin', the chicks for free..."

Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation, Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", HBA forum]
o Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand everything." -Anton Chekhov
 
BTW... the claim of '1G thrust' without a clear definition of 'G'... is 'gobbeledy-gook'. Grrrrrrrrr

Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation, Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", HBA forum]
o Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand everything." -Anton Chekhov
 
I ran into some former rocket engine colleagues some time ago (10 years? Maybe more...)

Both retired. They were sitting in a coffee shop farting around with a hand-wound solenoid. They said they had a government grant to research reactionless drives (e.g. M-drive type devices). Asked a coupled of quick questions, one of which involved conservation laws and I go no cogent reply.

Finished my coffee and went about my day, thinking about the amount of government waste in the USA...then thought, "well, it keeps certain people occupied and out of serious trouble, so no harm done?". And heck, if they do find a loophole in the laws of physics, that'd be great. Just unlikely as all get out.
 
I did not dig all the way into the patent but I was curious and took a look around, it sure looks like they are just talking about the attractive force between two charged plates of a capacitor where one plate has a larger surface area within the same footprint due to additional surface features. Not clear how they think this results in a net force. They don't provide any detail on the test fixture except for a picture from a slide in the article.

1_vwwjv1.png
 
Well...yeah. Apparently the charged plates are not symmetric, and the charge/field oscillates at microwave frequencies, and the spin-assymetry of electrons get some arm-waving, and viola, net thrust.
 
emdrive's working principle was similar, but it relied on momentum transfer between the reflected waves and the container, a truncated cone. It is intuitively obvious that the pressure on the small disc gives less force than the pressure on the large disc, so you get a net thrust. Of course if this worked we wouldn't bother with engine and propellers on ships, just use cones on their side underneath the ship.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
 
WKTaylor said:
BTW... the claim of '1G thrust' without a clear definition of 'G'... is 'gobbeledy-gook'. Grrrrrrrrr
Click to expand...

1G thrust implies a quantity of thrust equal to the weight of the motor itself.

Communicating thrust levels in G makes a lot of sense in the world of space thruster development; saying a thruster can produce 100N or whatever doesn't tell you how potentially useful the technology is, at all, unless you know the size of the apparatus. 100N does you no good from a motor that weighs 100,000,000N.
 
The question is, does the weight of the motor include the power supply?
 
Wouldn't the specific impulse [Isp] be a better measure than 'G'?

I get the impression that this thruster only operates in a fluid medium's such as air or water... not the hard vacuum of space.

Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation, Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", HBA forum]
o Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand everything." -Anton Chekhov
 
saying a thruster can produce 100N or whatever doesn't tell you how potentially useful the technology
Click to expand...

Agree to disagree; given, say 100N thrust, I can figure out how many actual g's I can get with the specific mass of the spacecraft with the thruster installed. Given 1g thrust, I have no idea what that means when the thruster is installed on a spacecraft.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
 
Right, but they aren't designing spacecraft - they're conducting very experimental thruster research

horses for courses
 
they're conducting very experimental thruster research
Click to expand...

True enough, but even terrestrial thrusters have to thrust SOMETHING, so the fact, or non-fact, that the thruster can propel itself, is interesting, but irrelevant to any practical application. Knowing the actual force it can produce allows everyone to clearly evaluate whether they are months, years, or decades, from a practical application.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
 
100N thrust out of 1 metric ton of thruster?

One needs to know (for a start) thrust, weight of engine, rate of reaction mass ejection, power consumption of engine, possibly power consumption of engine. Some can be parameterized into measures such as impulse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mfgenggear
  • Locked
  • Question
This was amazing that it could be d
Replies
4
Views
961
WKTaylor
WKTaylor
EdwardNigma
  • Locked
  • Question
How can I self-learn finite element analysis in a group that does minimal FEM work? 6
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
Sparweb
Sparweb
EdwardNigma
  • Locked
  • Question
When should I use principal stresses instead of von Mises stresses and vice versa? 2
Replies
12
Views
2K
rb1957
rb1957
oriolbetriu
  • Question
Learning how to calculate secondary moment using Bruhn's
Replies
7
Views
4K
rb1957
rb1957
Feynman81
  • Locked
  • Question
To close tolerance, or to not close tolerance, that is the question..... 1
2
Replies
28
Views
596
verymadmac
verymadmac

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top Bottom