XPost: rec.arts.sf.misc   
   From: chakatfirepaw@gmail.com   
      
   On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 09:31:54 +1200, Your Name wrote:   
      
   > In article , Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw   
   >  wrote:   
   >> On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:01:39 +1200, Your Name wrote:   
   >> >   
   >> > If this is indeed working, then so much the brainless imbeciles who   
   >> > claim human beings already know everything and they're moronic belief   
   >> > that anything which doesn't stick to what we already know doesn't   
   >> > classify as "science fiction".   
   >> >   
   >> > Even if it doesn't work as a propulsion system, there's still   
   >> > something happening that scientists don't yet understand.   
   >>   
   >> Magnetic fields are quite well understood, (that's the likely cause of   
   >> the tiny amount of thrust seen in this test).   
   >   
   > It's not a "tiny amount of thrust". It's reportedly better than the   
   > standard rockets NASA, etc. currently use, although I don't think it's   
   > any use for actually launching rockets off the surface, only for actual   
   > travel in space.   
      
   The _thrust_ is tiny.  The test device generates a whole 20uN, enough for   
   a whopping 0.000002G acceleration of a single kilogram.   
      
   Why such a drive would be so good, (if it worked), is that non-reaction   
   drives only need a mass ratio of 1 and effectively have infinite   
   propellant.  "Hummingbird power" is fine if you can run your drive for   
   months on end and don't need to haul along propellant tanks an order of   
   magnitude heaver than the rest of your craft put together.   
      
   Remember, real space drives have _2_ performance factors.  The first is   
   thrust, this is how fast it can change velocities.  The second is   
   specific impulse, this determines how much it can change velocities.   
      
   >> The simple fact that _it keeps working even when intentionally broken_   
   >> should be a clue that there is an unaccounted for effect at play, (just   
   >> like the earlier claim of the EM Drive working actually being a thermal   
   >> effect).   
   >   
   > Nowhere in what I posted did it say anything about "working when   
   > broken". In fact it specifically said it will work continuously (without   
   > needing to carry fuel) *unless* something is broken.   
      
   IOW:  You read a piece of credulous garbage by a reporter who probably   
   doesn't understand the first thing about the topic at hand and didn't   
   bother to look up any actual details.   
      
   Remember this isn't exactly a new bit of garbage.  It has gone through   
   many of the standard tests for a device that supposedly does something,   
   which include seeing what happens when you turn it off or disable it,   
   (e.g. make it so the microwaves never enter the chamber in the first   
   place), and turn it on.   
      
   >> Also, the article you quote makes the usual error of confusing "a tiny   
   >> lab at NASA that spends spare time looking into things that almost   
   >> certainly don't work," for NASA as a whole.   
   >   
   > It was a professor at a German university who was running the tests that   
   > showed it produced thrust in some unknown / "impossible" way. NASA was   
   > running their own tests.   
      
   The "NASA" testing was the guys at Eagleworks, which is the "spare time   
   looking into things that almost certainly don't work," I referred to.   
      
      
   At _best_, what they have here is a highly power-inefficient photon   
   drive.  Note, photon drives are reaction drives and don't get the whole   
   "infinite propellant with a mass ratio of 1," thing.   
      
   --   
   Chakat Firepaw - Inventor and Scientist (mad)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)