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

[BurtW]

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?

Your mad because his straw man exposed yours?  Let's get back to yours:

Please explain how a theoretical engine design that has been cussed and discussed for the last few decades "is a revolutionary idea, but not in the way people think" because I do not see how your discussion of the hadron collider and the morons etc. has anything to do with the discussion at hand.

[Lethn]

It's a way of propelling a spaceship through space without the need for fuel like other traditional methods and the point is that you're completely missing people are making up any old bullshit about it instead of looking at the actual explanations of the inventor who discovered it. Consider it the same as electric car engines where you only have one moving part, it's the same sort of principle except it's been applied to space instead so that will mean less maintenance is required as well.

If you read my link as well, it's also not a theory, it's actually been tested, it's just on such a small scale people choose to dismiss it as you have.

[BurtW]

It's a way of propelling a spaceship through space without the need for fuel like other traditional methods and the point is that you're completely missing people are making up any old bullshit about it instead of looking at the actual explanations of the inventor who discovered it. Consider it the same as electric car engines where you only have one moving part, it's the same sort of principle except it's been applied to space instead so that will mean less maintenance is required as well.

If you read my link as well, it's also not a theory, it's actually been tested, it's just on such a small scale people choose to dismiss it as you have.

I did read it.  And I don't dismiss it.

Your electric car analogy seems appropriate.

Electric cars have batteries that store energy.  The device in the articles also requires energy:  "The device (engine) requires an electrical power source to produce its reflecting internal microwaves but does not have any moving parts or require any reaction mass as fuel"

So, just like I said before, several times:  energy is being converted into motion.  But you still need an energy source.

Maybe you and I are in violent agreement here as opposed to some of the others in this thread that are claiming there is a new engine that gives you motion without input energy.

[DomoMan]

Oh well, I wish i paid more attention in physics class. Will we able to travel to other planets then?

[BurtW]

Oh well, I wish i paid more attention in physics class. Will we able to travel to other planets then?

And astronomy class

Travel to the nearby planets is totally possible in fact we have already sent and landed unmanned spacecraft there already.  Mars is totally within the reach of present day technology.  Very expensive but totally possible.

[Lethn]

It's a way of propelling a spaceship through space without the need for fuel like other traditional methods and the point is that you're completely missing people are making up any old bullshit about it instead of looking at the actual explanations of the inventor who discovered it. Consider it the same as electric car engines where you only have one moving part, it's the same sort of principle except it's been applied to space instead so that will mean less maintenance is required as well.

If you read my link as well, it's also not a theory, it's actually been tested, it's just on such a small scale people choose to dismiss it as you have.

I did read it.  And I don't dismiss it.

Your electric car analogy seems appropriate.

Electric cars have batteries that store energy.  The device in the articles also requires energy:  "The device (engine) requires an electrical power source to produce its reflecting internal microwaves but does not have any moving parts or require any reaction mass as fuel"

So, just like I said before, several times:  energy is being converted into motion.  But you still need an energy source.

Maybe you and I are in violent agreement here as opposed to some of the others in this thread that are claiming there is a new engine that gives you motion without input energy.

It does require energy to operate, that's the whole point of it generating microwaves, it's just a matter of finding a lasting power supply for it, the problem is there are morons as I've said who are confusing the issue and completely misunderstanding what It actually does. So yes, it's not frictionless and doesn't operate via dark matter or quantum physics, but in theory it should be a lot more efficient than those stupid oversized rocket fuel engines we have now, it will be a long way off before it becomes viable for proper space flight especially with the lack of funding it has but it's something very promising.

I'm still wrapping my head around the idea and researching it, but it's certainly not impossible and it doesn't break the laws of physics etc. as some stupid idiots are trying to claim, hell we might even see much smaller spaceship designs because of this thing because of how tiny it is compared to the stuff NASA creates, even if it turns out it can't be used for deep space exploration it could still be used for land based vehicles because of how it generates thrust.

[BurtW]

Now that we are back on the same page, we agree that engines that convert energy to motion will get better and more clever, microwaves, quantum foam, etc.  They will all use input energy to create motion.  The real long term issue is not the engines themselves, it is the power source.

The first issue is that we need to store a lot of energy in as little mass as possible.  This is called the energy density.  Check out this table:

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

A few highlights with respect to future space craft (numbers in MJ/kg):

Code:

Arbitrary Antimatter               ≈89,876,000,000
Deuterium-tritium fusion               576,000,000
Hydrogen + Oxygen                            13.43
Nitroglycerin                                 6.38
battery, Lithium ion nanowire                 2.54
battery, Hydrogen closed cycle H fuel cell    1.62

This all assumes you are already off the planet because getting off the planet has a further issue, namely the power density issue.  

Also note with respect to current electric cars and their energy density issue:

Code:

Current Lithium-ion batteriies   0.36–0.875
Gasoline                         ~46

This is the area where we could really use some breakthroughs.

[Foxpup]

It's not specifically the energy density that counts, but the thrust-to-mass ratio of the whole package. Based on NASA's test, the device alone (not even counting the power supply) has a thrust-to-mass ratio about 100 times worse than a solar sail, which puts it squarely in the "who cares?" category as far as practical applications go.

[MrTeal]

It's not specifically the energy density that counts, but the thrust-to-mass ratio of the whole package. Based on NASA's test, the device alone (not even counting the power supply) has a thrust-to-mass ratio about 100 times worse than a solar sail, which puts it squarely in the "who cares?" category as far as practical applications go.

Thrust to mass ratio for the sail is measured at what distance from the sun? It falls off with R^2.

[Foxpup]

It's not specifically the energy density that counts, but the thrust-to-mass ratio of the whole package. Based on NASA's test, the device alone (not even counting the power supply) has a thrust-to-mass ratio about 100 times worse than a solar sail, which puts it squarely in the "who cares?" category as far as practical applications go.

Thrust to mass ratio for the sail is measured at what distance from the sun? It falls off with R^2.

That's at 1 AU, and further assumes current sail materials. Solar sails could theoretically be made at least 10 times lighter, which would even allow them to compete with ion drives (assuming ion drives aren't also improved in the meantime).