The incredible shrinking force
Around 2000, a guy named Roger Shawyer claimed he could bounce microwaves inside a fancy-shaped can and get them to push the can forwards, without anything leaving the can.
This would violate conservation of momentum. It's like sitting inside a car and making it roll forwards by pushing on the steering wheel. Standard physics doesn't allow this. He didn't claim to be using anything other than standard physics.
So: ho hum, just another guy with a really bad idea. I get emails like this all the time.
But in 2001, his company got a £45,000 grant from the British government to study this idea. He built his machine and claimed that with 850 watts of power he could get a force of 0.016 newtons. That's a bit less than the force of gravity from a penny pushing down on your hand. It could easily be an experimental error.
Why would people want a machine that uses lots of power to create a pathetically feeble force? Because - here's the great piece of salesmanship - if it existed, you could use it to build a reactionless drive! If you had a spaceship with huge amounts of power to spare - like, say, a nuclear reactor - you could use this gizmo to push your spaceship forwards without anything spewing out the back end.
Again, this is about as plausible as powering a spaceship by having the crew push on it from the inside. But if you don't know physics, it sounds very exciting.
The story goes on. And on. And on. It won't die. In 2012, some Chinese physicists claimed they could get a force of 0.720 newtons from a power of 2,500 watts using some version of Shawyer's device.
And now NASA is studying it!
They're claiming to see a force one thousandth as big as the Chinese - probably because they are doing the experiment one thousand times more accurately. And still, some people are excited about this.
The new device comes with new improved mumbo-jumbo. Shawyer claimed that thanks to special relativity, classical electromagnetism can violate conservation of momentum. I took those courses in college, I know that's baloney. Now the NASA scientists say:
"Test results indicate that the RF resonant cavity thruster design, which is unique as an electric propulsion device, is producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon and therefore is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma."
This is baloney too - but now it's graduate-level baloney. "Quantum vacuum virtual plasma" is something you'd say if you failed a course in quantum field theory and then smoked too much weed. There's no such thing as "virtual plasma". If you want to report experimental results that seem to violate the known laws of physics, fine. But it doesn't help your credibility to make up goofy pseudo-explanations.
I expect that in 10 years the device will be using quantum gravity and producing even less force.
For an article written by a severely optimistic blogger, see:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive
For the NASA report see:
• David Brady, Harold White, Paul March, James Lawrence and Frank Davies, Anomalous thrust production from an RF test device measured on a low-thrust torsion pendulum, 50th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2014-4029. Free version available at http://rghost.net/57230791.
Unfortunately only the abstract is free in the official version.
#abstract
Around 2000, a guy named Roger Shawyer claimed he could bounce microwaves inside a fancy-shaped can and get them to push the can forwards, without anything leaving the can.
This would violate conservation of momentum. It's like sitting inside a car and making it roll forwards by pushing on the steering wheel. Standard physics doesn't allow this. He didn't claim to be using anything other than standard physics.
So: ho hum, just another guy with a really bad idea. I get emails like this all the time.
But in 2001, his company got a £45,000 grant from the British government to study this idea. He built his machine and claimed that with 850 watts of power he could get a force of 0.016 newtons. That's a bit less than the force of gravity from a penny pushing down on your hand. It could easily be an experimental error.
Why would people want a machine that uses lots of power to create a pathetically feeble force? Because - here's the great piece of salesmanship - if it existed, you could use it to build a reactionless drive! If you had a spaceship with huge amounts of power to spare - like, say, a nuclear reactor - you could use this gizmo to push your spaceship forwards without anything spewing out the back end.
Again, this is about as plausible as powering a spaceship by having the crew push on it from the inside. But if you don't know physics, it sounds very exciting.
The story goes on. And on. And on. It won't die. In 2012, some Chinese physicists claimed they could get a force of 0.720 newtons from a power of 2,500 watts using some version of Shawyer's device.
And now NASA is studying it!
They're claiming to see a force one thousandth as big as the Chinese - probably because they are doing the experiment one thousand times more accurately. And still, some people are excited about this.
The new device comes with new improved mumbo-jumbo. Shawyer claimed that thanks to special relativity, classical electromagnetism can violate conservation of momentum. I took those courses in college, I know that's baloney. Now the NASA scientists say:
"Test results indicate that the RF resonant cavity thruster design, which is unique as an electric propulsion device, is producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon and therefore is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma."
This is baloney too - but now it's graduate-level baloney. "Quantum vacuum virtual plasma" is something you'd say if you failed a course in quantum field theory and then smoked too much weed. There's no such thing as "virtual plasma". If you want to report experimental results that seem to violate the known laws of physics, fine. But it doesn't help your credibility to make up goofy pseudo-explanations.
I expect that in 10 years the device will be using quantum gravity and producing even less force.
For an article written by a severely optimistic blogger, see:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive
For the NASA report see:
• David Brady, Harold White, Paul March, James Lawrence and Frank Davies, Anomalous thrust production from an RF test device measured on a low-thrust torsion pendulum, 50th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2014-4029. Free version available at http://rghost.net/57230791.
Unfortunately only the abstract is free in the official version.
#abstract

View 63 previous comments
+Michael Pitman wrote: "Also, where (if) had it been published?"
The paper appears to be published here:
• David Brady, Harold White, Paul March, James Lawrence and Frank Davies, Anomalous thrust production from an RF test device measured on a low-thrust torsion pendulum, 50th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2014-4029.
Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be freely available anywhere. Eventually someone will liberate it.Aug 2, 2014
+John Baez, the Wikipedia article on quantum vacuum plasma thruster seems to add to the (my) confusion. Since it is undergoing rapid edits, I guess that is no surprise.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_vacuum_plasma_thruster
While it clearly refers to the device we are discussing here, it also says it does not violate conservation of momentum. Supposedly it generates plasma from particles arising from quantum vacuum fluctuations and accelerates that plasma, but is not a reactionless drive "because it expels the plasma and thus produces force on the spacecraft in the opposite direction."
This description is of course in conflict with other descriptions of the drive I've seen in the press…Aug 2, 2014
+Steve Esterly - since the physics described in that article is baloney, I am relieved that you find it confusing.Aug 2, 2014
I'm not sure why all the venom.
I commented Yesterday 9:28 AM on this post: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DavidFuchs/posts/EzFnEy6hcCe
The control was an RF load. NASA claims that there was an effect in both article and null article with respect to the control.
A difference between control, article and null article may indicate experimental errors or a lack of understanding of the phenomena. The first can be rectified, the second can be pursued by the suitably qualified.
If the experiment can be replicated and if no experimental errors were made then there is an effect. I mean, reality is demonstrable right? I'd think that a physicist would be happy for an opportunity to explore and explain a phenomena and encourage scientifically rigorous empirical experimentation to establish whether or not there is something worth pursuing.Aug 2, 2014
+Richard Healy - the "venom", as you put it, arises when people do incorrect calculations claiming classical electromagnetism violates conservation of momentum (Roger Shawyer) or make up fuzzy phrases like "the quantum vacuum virtual plasma" to "explain" anomalous results, without discussing the possibility of experimental error (the authors of the current paper).Aug 3, 2014
+Peter Zotov - thanks for announcing the existence of a free version of the paper at http://rghost.ru/57230791. I think everyone should read this and think a while. I'm going to close down comments since moderating them and deleting spam has become a full-time job.Aug 3, 2014
Commenting is disabled for this post.