NASA Tests ‘Impossible’ no-fuel Quantum Space Engine – and it Actually Works

[BADecker]

From the article at: http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.ca/2014/08/nasa-tests-impossible-no-fuel-quantum.html ...

"That nicely ruined NASA's classical models.  I no longer think that we are dealing with a Vacuum in space at all.  We have dark matter instead that will decay into more complex particles from time to time.  I am just beginning to query this core discovery so i do not yet wish to say more about this thruster except that producing a high powered thruster using dark matter now appears feasible."

[protokol]

From the article at: http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.ca/2014/08/nasa-tests-impossible-no-fuel-quantum.html ...

"That nicely ruined NASA's classical models.  I no longer think that we are dealing with a Vacuum in space at all.  We have dark matter instead that will decay into more complex particles from time to time.  I am just beginning to query this core discovery so i do not yet wish to say more about this thruster except that producing a high powered thruster using dark matter now appears feasible."

Interesting, so they claim to be harnessing energy from the quantum vacuum. It has been known (theorised) for a while now that vacuum isn't actually empty, and consists of sub-atomic particles/phenomena constantly popping in and out of existence. This definitely should be researched further.

The question is exactly how this is happening, and whether it could work on a large scale. The comment about photon torpedoes seems a bit silly though  

EDIT: Also I don't quite know where the author is getting "dark matter" from. Although I'm no expert in quantum/astrophysics, dark matter is not the same as vacuum energy, also not to be confused with dark energy:

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/120915a.html

[Lethn]

Not sure what this person knows what they're talking about, I've been doing my own research into this, he links some perfectly reasonable stuff but I believe what he is talking about is the EmDrive I recognise the actual machine he posted, it's that one that looks like it's made from copper or something.

http://emdrive.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive

How do I know this? I'm researching about all this stuff on my own and no I won't fucking tell you why there are a lot of misconceptions about this device but wikipedia is actually doing a good job of explaining things, it doesn't disobey the laws of physics like some people claim, it's using microwaves to power it along but honestly this looks like the classic rants of a blog poster.

[MrTeal]

From the article at: http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.ca/2014/08/nasa-tests-impossible-no-fuel-quantum.html ...

"That nicely ruined NASA's classical models.  I no longer think that we are dealing with a Vacuum in space at all.  We have dark matter instead that will decay into more complex particles from time to time.  I am just beginning to query this core discovery so i do not yet wish to say more about this thruster except that producing a high powered thruster using dark matter now appears feasible."

Interesting, so they claim to be harnessing energy from the quantum vacuum. It has been known (theorised) for a while now that vacuum isn't actually empty, and consists of sub-atomic particles/phenomena constantly popping in and out of existence. This definitely should be researched further.

The question is exactly how this is happening, and whether it could work on a large scale. The comment about photon torpedoes seems a bit silly though 

They aren't harnessing energy from a quantum vacuum. The energy source of this is electricity, similarly to an ion engine. Normally with a rocket or ion drive what you are doing is taking some of your mass, throwing it out the opposite direction you want to go as fast as possible, and using conservation of momentum to push you. The faster you can send out the reaction mass the more efficient your engine is at using the onboard fuel mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation). Ion drives are extremely efficient, normal chemical rockets not so much, but both of them have to use part of themselves and so even if you have unlimited power (say from a solar panel or long life nuclear reactor) you will still eventually run out of reaction mass to toss out the other end. What this drive claims to do is create thrust from electricity without using any reaction mass, which would be revolutionary.

[Lethn]

Exactly right, so far they've only got some low powered prototypes but that's how you start, then you just make the engines way more efficient to the point they can handle much more mass.

[BurtW]

I studied this a bit in college and yes it should be possible to create a particle stream from the background quantum flux with a strong enough and dense enough electrical field.  In fact, at that time I did a quick back of the envelope calculation on the required electrical field.  Don't remember the answer but if I get some time I may redo the calculations.  The particle stream thus produced could then be thrown out the back of a space ship in order to propel it forward.

I talked to my professors about it and they said, sure that should work.

However, due to the laws of physics, specifically the conservation of energy/mass/momentum, the amount of energy needed to do this is rather large and has to come from somewhere.  So I can see a way to convert say sunlight into mass/momentum and orbit around a star (the source of energy for the engine) but if you are out between the stars you are screwed unless you cary a source of energy with you (nuclear perhaps?).

I don't really know why this is all being hyped as something new.  I figured this out in the junior year in my EE degree in 1983 and as my professors said at that time "that is a well know theoretical engine design".

[Lethn]

This is where hydrogen fuel cells and cold fusion will come in handy, we just have to solve the problem of where to get lots of electricity now, the trick is getting something to work that doesn't revolve around strapping a radioactive bomb to your ship.

[BurtW]

This is where hydrogen fuel cells and cold fusion will come in handy, we just have to solve the problem of where to get lots of electricity now, the trick is getting something to work that doesn't revolve around strapping a radioactive bomb to your ship.

To see the problems you run into let's take your example of the "cold fusion reactor".  If it worked how would it work?  Well by converting mass to energy - are you with me so far?

Now we take that energy that was created by converting some of the mass of our ship and use this method to convert the energy back to matter so we can throw it off the ship.

It would have been better to just throw the original matter off the ship in the first place.

Do you see what I am saying?

[protokol]

From the article at: http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.ca/2014/08/nasa-tests-impossible-no-fuel-quantum.html ...

"That nicely ruined NASA's classical models.  I no longer think that we are dealing with a Vacuum in space at all.  We have dark matter instead that will decay into more complex particles from time to time.  I am just beginning to query this core discovery so i do not yet wish to say more about this thruster except that producing a high powered thruster using dark matter now appears feasible."

Interesting, so they claim to be harnessing energy from the quantum vacuum. It has been known (theorised) for a while now that vacuum isn't actually empty, and consists of sub-atomic particles/phenomena constantly popping in and out of existence. This definitely should be researched further.

The question is exactly how this is happening, and whether it could work on a large scale. The comment about photon torpedoes seems a bit silly though 

They aren't harnessing energy from a quantum vacuum. The energy source of this is electricity, similarly to an ion engine. Normally with a rocket or ion drive what you are doing is taking some of your mass, throwing it out the opposite direction you want to go as fast as possible, and using conservation of momentum to push you. The faster you can send out the reaction mass the more efficient your engine is at using the onboard fuel mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation). Ion drives are extremely efficient, normal chemical rockets not so much, but both of them have to use part of themselves and so even if you have unlimited power (say from a solar panel or long life nuclear reactor) you will still eventually run out of reaction mass to toss out the other end. What this drive claims to do is create thrust from electricity without using any reaction mass, which would be revolutionary.

Gotcha, thanks for the explanation.

[BurtW]

Here is an outline of the calculation:

Assume you want to create electron/positron pairs from the flux.
You calculate the mass of the electron + the mass of the positron.
Now the amount of time/distance an electron/positron pair can wink into and exist before it has to wink out again is given by the uncertainty principle formula.

From this time/distance we can calculate the minimum and average electric field between the pair during the time they exist.

So if we create an electric field over the vacuum greater than that then we can "rip them appart" during the very short time that they wink in.

As we rip apart these pairs we can create two particle streams:  one stream of electrons the other stream of positrons.  Then, all that is needed is to accelerate the two streams using more electric fields and then toss the two streams out the back of the ship.

As I have said before this process takes energy that has to come from somewhere.

[BADecker]

I studied this a bit in college and yes it should be possible to create a particle stream from the background quantum flux with a strong enough and dense enough electrical field.  In fact, at that time I did a quick back of the envelope calculation on the required electrical field.  Don't remember the answer but if I get some time I may redo the calculations.  The particle stream thus produced could then be thrown out the back of a space ship in order to propel it forward.

I talked to my professors about it and they said, sure that should work.

However, due to the laws of physics, specifically the conservation of energy/mass/momentum, the amount of energy needed to do this is rather large and has to come from somewhere.  So I can see a way to convert say sunlight into mass/momentum and orbit around a star (the source of energy for the engine) but if you are out between the stars you are screwed unless you cary a source of energy with you (nuclear perhaps?).

I don't really know why this is all being hyped as something new.  I figured this out in the junior year in my EE degree in 1983 and as my professors said at that time "that is a well know theoretical engine design".

Think of a car engine with a series of 10 or 12 turbochargers (off one manifold). Series means that all of the exhaust passes through all of the turbochargers. Then, imagine what it would be like trying to run the whole car off the energy output of the last turbocharger alone - not even the engine. That is more or less exactly the kind of engine an Otto Cycle engine is.

A dam-reservoir-water-turbine-generator-transformer is a couple steps up the chain - a turbocharger or two closer to the engine - than a regular automobile engine. The Emdrive is a few steps closer to pure conversion  of "empty space backdrop" directly to force than the dam water turbine.

We might never be able to achieve direct empty space to force conversion while remaining in control. But if we get to, say, the third turbocharger from this "space to force engine," we will be at a place where the emptier the space, the more "free fuel" we will have. We won't need to carry any. In fact, the more mass we carry, the more space will be affected around us so that we can't draw as much force from space itself.

[BurtW]

We might never be able to achieve direct empty space to force conversion while remaining in control. But if we get to, say, the third turbocharger from this "space to force engine," we will be at a place where the emptier the space, the more "free fuel" we will have. We won't need to carry any. In fact, the more mass we carry, the more space will be affected around us so that we can't draw as much force from space itself.

Nope.  Converting "empty space" to force (momentum) requires energy.  So, you are wrong.

[BADecker]

We might never be able to achieve direct empty space to force conversion while remaining in control. But if we get to, say, the third turbocharger from this "space to force engine," we will be at a place where the emptier the space, the more "free fuel" we will have. We won't need to carry any. In fact, the more mass we carry, the more space will be affected around us so that we can't draw as much force from space itself.

Nope.  Converting "empty space" to force (momentum) requires energy.  So, you are wrong.

Except that the thing that we call empty space is exactly the opposite of empty.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg8456692#msg8456692

We might need a little energy to get our engine started. But all it might take is some kind of a quantum physics "trick."

A turning car alternator, once it has an initial burst of electrical energy, continues to make way more electrical energy than it needs to cause itself to make even more electrical energy, as long as the mechanical energy is provided by the car engine. The thing we call empty space really has energy virtually unlimited.

[Foxpup]

I've never understood what the big deal is with this drive. It does require energy, and nobody sensible is claiming it is reactionless. Sure, using the quantum vacuum as remass is pretty neat, but it's no means a revolutionary idea.

[BurtW]

We might never be able to achieve direct empty space to force conversion while remaining in control. But if we get to, say, the third turbocharger from this "space to force engine," we will be at a place where the emptier the space, the more "free fuel" we will have. We won't need to carry any. In fact, the more mass we carry, the more space will be affected around us so that we can't draw as much force from space itself.

Nope.  Converting "empty space" to force (momentum) requires energy.  So, you are wrong.

Except that the thing that we call empty space is exactly the opposite of empty.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg8456692#msg8456692

We might need a little energy to get our engine started. But all it might take is some kind of a quantum physics "trick."

A turning car alternator, once it has an initial burst of electrical energy, continues to make way more electrical energy than it needs to cause itself to make even more electrical energy, as long as the mechanical energy is provided by the car engine. The thing we call empty space really has energy virtually unlimited.

Again, you could not be more wrong.

[MrTeal]

We might never be able to achieve direct empty space to force conversion while remaining in control. But if we get to, say, the third turbocharger from this "space to force engine," we will be at a place where the emptier the space, the more "free fuel" we will have. We won't need to carry any. In fact, the more mass we carry, the more space will be affected around us so that we can't draw as much force from space itself.

Nope.  Converting "empty space" to force (momentum) requires energy.  So, you are wrong.

Except that the thing that we call empty space is exactly the opposite of empty.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg8456692#msg8456692

We might need a little energy to get our engine started. But all it might take is some kind of a quantum physics "trick."

A turning car alternator, once it has an initial burst of electrical energy, continues to make way more electrical energy than it needs to cause itself to make even more electrical energy, as long as the mechanical energy is provided by the car engine. The thing we call empty space really has energy virtually unlimited.

Again, you could not be more wrong.

Burt, I think it's time to concede this argument and walk away. Proponents of extra-awesome physics generally will defend their position to the death, regardless of rational opposing viewpoints or a complete lack of non-hokey empirical evidence.

[Lethn]

I've never understood what the big deal is with this drive. It does require energy, and nobody sensible is claiming it is reactionless. Sure, using the quantum vacuum as remass is pretty neat, but it's no means a revolutionary idea.

It is a revolutionary idea, but not in the way people think, as for other people, don't you remember the hadron collider? There were some morons who thought they knew better claiming the thing was going to generate a black hole and of course the religious people out there were doing everything they could to harass the people working on it because it meant scientists were getting closer and closer to proving them wrong.

[nakazznicek]

I've never understood what the big deal is with this drive. It does require energy, and nobody sensible is claiming it is reactionless. Sure, using the quantum vacuum as remass is pretty neat, but it's no means a revolutionary idea.

It is a revolutionary idea, but not in the way people think, as for other people, don't you remember the hadron collider? There were some morons who thought they knew better claiming the thing was going to generate a black hole and of course the religious people out there were doing everything they could to harass the people working on it because it meant scientists were getting closer and closer to proving them wrong.

So they changed their minds and started to claim that LHC and other things support idea of God? Seems legit to me actually.

[Lethn]

I've never understood what the big deal is with this drive. It does require energy, and nobody sensible is claiming it is reactionless. Sure, using the quantum vacuum as remass is pretty neat, but it's no means a revolutionary idea.

It is a revolutionary idea, but not in the way people think, as for other people, don't you remember the hadron collider? There were some morons who thought they knew better claiming the thing was going to generate a black hole and of course the religious people out there were doing everything they could to harass the people working on it because it meant scientists were getting closer and closer to proving them wrong.

So they changed their minds and started to claim that LHC and other things support idea of God? Seems legit to me actually.

..... How the fuck did you come to that conclusion from my post?

[Lauda]

I've never understood what the big deal is with this drive. It does require energy, and nobody sensible is claiming it is reactionless. Sure, using the quantum vacuum as remass is pretty neat, but it's no means a revolutionary idea.

It is a revolutionary idea, but not in the way people think, as for other people, don't you remember the hadron collider? There were some morons who thought they knew better claiming the thing was going to generate a black hole and of course the religious people out there were doing everything they could to harass the people working on it because it meant scientists were getting closer and closer to proving them wrong.

Ah I remember this, it was quite long ago (my memory does not usually hold useless information for a longer amount of time).
The idea was nonsense, and it was all over the media.
The engine is actually quite cool, Quantum physics is the future. But humanity as it is knows pretty much nothing yet.