This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
News

JSC's Strange Thruster Violates The Laws of Physics

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
August 3, 2014
Filed under ,

Don’t Get Too Excited About NASA’s New Miracle Engine, io9
“Earlier this week, Wired reported on an unusual engine designed and tested by researchers at NASA’s Johnson Space Center. Dubbed the “Cannae drive,” the propulsion system is similar to the so-called EmDrive, a “reactionless” engine proposed years ago by british engineer Roger Shawyer and popularized in a 2006 writeup in New Scientist. Both space drives are designed to convert electric power into thrust by bouncing microwaves around in a closed container, thereby eliminating the need for onboard propellant. The concept has beenroundly criticized for appearing to violate the law of conservation of momentum.”
NASA: New “impossible” engine works, could change space travel forever, Gizmodo
“Now, American scientist Guido Fetta and a team at NASA Eagleworks–the advanced propulsion skunkworks led by Dr Harold “Sonny” White at the Johnson Space Center–have published a new paper that demonstrates that a similar engine working on the same principles does indeed produce thrust. Their model, however, produces much less thrust–just 30 to 50 micronewtons. But it works, which is amazing on its own. They haven’t explained why their engine works, but it does work.”
Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum, NASA Technical Reports Server
“This paper describes the eight-day August 2013 test campaign designed to investigate and demonstrate viability of using classical magnetoplasmadynamics to obtain a propulsive momentum transfer via the quantum vacuum virtual plasma. This paper will not address the physics of the quantum vacuum plasma thruster, but instead will describe the test integration, test operations, and the results obtained from the test campaign.”
Nasa validates ‘impossible’ space drive, Wired UK
“Nasa is a major player in space science, so when a team from the agency this week presents evidence that “impossible” microwave thrusters seem to work, something strange is definitely going on. Either the results are completely wrong, or Nasa has confirmed a major breakthrough in space propulsion.”
Improbable Thruster Seems to Work by Violating Known Laws of Physics, PBS
“In the paper, NASA seemed reluctant to dive into the drive’s mysterious physics. They wrote nothing to suggest how, exactly, the force was produced. In fact, the mysterious drive actually worked even when they modified it in such a way it shouldn’t have produced any thrust, suggesting the mechanics of the system are hazily understood. The one exception was a reference, in the paper’s abstract, to a possible interaction with the “quantum vacuum virtual plasma.”
Keith’s note: JSC sure has some far out stuff under development. You’d think that they’d want to talk about it. But they don’t. You’d think that they’d feel some compulsion to tell taxpayers what their money is being spent on – especially if it is cool. Guess again.
Could it be that this thing does not actually work – and NASA is afraid to admit that it doesn’t work? This is a much more plausible explanation.
I asked some questions about all of this exotic propulsion stuff going on behind closed doors at JSC last year and got this semi-responsive reply back. The researcher behind all of this secret stuff is Harold G. White. According to people.nasa.gov here is how you contact him: email: [email protected] Phone: 281.482.0178. Every time this guy’s research pops up in the news JSC PAO hides under their desks.
“Interstellar”: A (Missed) Opportunity for NASA to be Relevant?, earlier post
Clarifying NASA’s Warp Drive Program, earlier post
NASA’s Super Secret Warp Drive Program, earlier post
Warp Drive Research at NASA JSC, earlier post
JSC’s Warp Drive: Fact or Fluff?, earlier post

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

74 responses to “JSC's Strange Thruster Violates The Laws of Physics”

  1. dahduh says:
    0
    0

    This result is almost certainly due to experimental error. 50uN is tiny and there could be any number of subtle effects that haven’t been accounted for, such as magnetic or electrostatic fields, tensile relaxation, temperature changes, etc.

    • Paul451 says:
      0
      0

      Throw in that they got a positive thrust from a device which was designed by the same inventors to not produce any thrust (as a “null” article). It screams “experimental error”.

    • hikingmike says:
      0
      0

      Oooooorrr they really do get that result, but there is still conservation of momentum, it’s just not understood. Or it’s really doing something different, quantum-something so it has a hope of explanation. I will stay tuned. Any possible propulsion advance is exciting stuff.

      • duheagle says:
        0
        0

        Any possible propulsion advance is exciting stuff.

        True. But the tiny “thrust” magnitudes suggest some minor interaction between a machine being fed electricity and the Earth’s magnetic field.

        • hikingmike says:
          0
          0

          Heh, could be. Don’t worry, I’m skeptical. That makes me wonder how much thrust a compass needle provides trying to get back to magnetic north. I have no comprehension what 30 micronewtons is. This effect really needs to be more understood obviously.

    • J C says:
      0
      0

      It did mention that they also tried just a resistive load, which gave no result. That would seem to rule out some possibilities for error, particularly in the setup, etc. However, it still doesn’t explain why the null article also produced a thrust.

      As I saw explained elsewhere, this is a conference paper, not an article for peer review. They are not saying they have “proven” anything, contrary what some media are reporting. In essence they are presenting a paper that says, “We’re not sure what we’re seeing, but we’re seeing something. Anybody else want to help us figure this out?”

      • Zavod says:
        0
        0

        In effect they did create a resistive load with the null device that had the same input power and that power was dissipated in the system, but it too produced the torque. Something is wrong.

    • Zavod says:
      0
      0

      Since is was not tested in a vacuum, it is possible that a current of air rising about the apparatus was produced from the natural convective air currents passing over the device that might have been unsymmetrical and thus produced a torque.

  2. Andrew Goetsch says:
    0
    0

    Micron Newtons? A butterfly farting or tiny misalignment of the test gear could generate that much thrust. There’s a lot of work and double checking before it can be taken seriously.

    • voronwae says:
      0
      0

      They’ve done a year of review. The next battery of experiments will begin this month or next. Presumably they would check Shawyer’s drive instead of Cannae’s, but maybe they’re saving that for next year.

  3. Neowolf says:
    0
    0

    It should be pointed out that such an effect, if real, violates conservation of energy. They have in effect claimed to have built a perpetual motion machine of the first kind.

    • the guy with the cat says:
      0
      0

      Don’t they put energy into the system to produce the microwaves?

      PS: not a physicist.

      • Neowolf says:
        0
        0

        If this putative thruster imparts an impulse to a vehicle, the change in kinetic energy of that vehicle will depend on the reference frame. In some reference frame, it will exceed the energy input. In other reference frames, energy will disappear. Energy is no longer a conserved quantity.

        In real physics, when you change reference frames the partition of energy between various bodies may change, but energy is always conserved.

    • voronwae says:
      0
      0

      “Conservation of energy” sure does mean something different to you than it does to me. They got less energy out than they put in. I think “conservation of momentum” might be the phrase you’re looking for.

      They’re also the fifth group to find something (Shawyer, Cannae, Northwestern Polytechnic, CONICET, Eagleworks), which would suggest that if an error is being made somewhere, it’s a subtle one.

      • richard_schumacher says:
        0
        0

        Conservation of momentum and conservation of energy are the same thing, only in different reference frames. Violating one violates the other.

  4. Moorbo says:
    0
    0

    The test took place in a vacuum chamber at ambient pressure. The very low thrust level could be accounted for in several ways due to interaction with the gases present in the chamber.

  5. Rui Sousa says:
    0
    0

    Hehe, while USA scientists are carefully avoiding negative peer reviews, Chinese ones developing this EMdrive with no such frills will land colonists by the thousand on the Moon and Mars and maybe will develop undetectable ICBMs just for fun.

    • Bennett In Vermont says:
      0
      0

      ICBMs powered by a micronewton thrust engine?

      Dream on, comrade.

    • duheagle says:
      0
      0

      Powered by cold fusion reactors no doubt.

      Hey, I hope there’s something to this. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I’ll await developments.

  6. Todd Austin says:
    0
    0

    This is now the third group building these things and getting positive results. The original British researcher was able to get 720mN from his setup, well outside any sources of possible error. I would not be so fast to dismiss these results.

    • Paul451 says:
      0
      0

      However, the NASA experiment got 30-50 micro-Newtons.

      The more careful the experiment, the smaller the result… hmmm…

      • Todd Austin says:
        0
        0

        I don’t think that’s the case. The NASA experiment use a somewhat different approach from the one that’s been in development in the UK for a decade. It may be more reasonable to say that the local version was not as refined.

      • Teodor Jovanovski says:
        0
        0

        NASA used another device.
        Cannae, not Emdrive

    • Denniswingo says:
      0
      0

      If someone got that amount of thrust, then it would be truly remarkable.

  7. TheBrett says:
    0
    0

    Is Harold White the same guy at NASA who is getting grant money to do “research” into Warp Drive?

    I’m going to wait for more independent duplication on this one. There might be something else going on, especially when the produced thrust is so small.

  8. Oscar_Femur says:
    0
    0

    This could have even more applications than the Dean Drive did.

  9. Chris Clardy says:
    0
    0

    Would it not be amazing if Georg Ohm, Tesla and Marconi gave us the ticket to the stars and we traded it in for plasma tv.

    • JadedObs says:
      0
      0

      Oh, I don’t know – plasma tv is pretty cool!

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        LEDs have mostly replaced plasma and LCDs, but they are pretty cool.

        • hikingmike says:
          0
          0

          LED is just the backlighting method of the LCD in most common applications like TVs and computer monitors (except dynamic billboards and scoreboards which are actually LED displays, even some newer smartphones too like Samsung’s AMOLED). For LCDs, LED backlighting replaced CCFL (fluorescent) backlighting in many cases. But aaaaanyway… go Tesla.

  10. intdydx says:
    0
    0

    I agree, it’s pretty embarrassing for the rest of us. I’m very surprised that JSC management is okay with this.

  11. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    Someone smarter may tell me, but I see no reason why we are violating rules of physics or conservation of energy, Each and every one of us, at this moment, are forcing electrons to do our bidding, you couldn’t post here without them. We all know that electrons have force, anyone who has tried to force too many of these worker bees through too small of a conductor knows the result(see Ohms Law) I see no reason why someone smart could not direct this electromotive force directionally.

  12. richard_schumacher says:
    0
    0

    As Richard Feynman said more than once: “No, I will not examine your experiment which appears to violate relativity; you will find the mistakes in your experiment faster than I can”. Of course this assumes that the experimenter *wants* to find the mistakes.

    • michelle says:
      0
      0

      LOL…. you could almost imagine an Einstein critic saying No, I will not examine your experiment which appears to violate Newtonian mechanics ; you will find the mistakes in your experiment faster than I can, I will wait for the verdict on this one but I see no problem with further research

      • richard_schumacher says:
        0
        0

        Einsteinian relativity encompasses Newtonian mechanics and enlarges its scope to large energies; it does not violate Newtonian mechanics.

        • michelle says:
          0
          0

          I never said it violated newtonian mechanics, but if someone read a few paragraphs about it without diving into the research they certainly could draw that conclusion. Relativity must incorporate newton as a special case, and any warp drive is doing to have to explain how it works into relativity. But this doesn’t even violate any of these, it might not even violate conservation of energy. But the results are an anomaly and nasa has jumped to conclusions before , so I can understand caution on something that if proven is going to be very disruptive.

    • Gaaaare says:
      0
      0

      Thanks for the perfect quote for this situation. If NASA funds end up supporting theories that violate fundamental laws of the universe, like conservation of momentum, it indicates that there are some serious holes in their review processes. This certainly does not meet NASA’s criteria for TRL 1 (“Peer reviewed publication of research underlying the proposed concept/application.”). The longer this drags on, the more embarrassing it gets.

      • Michael Reynolds says:
        0
        0

        These are only assumed laws based on our limited ability/tools to observe and interact with the universe. Based on some of the responses I have seen on this comments section people seem to think that we have already reached some zenith of understanding of our universe. The mere fact that there are inconsistencies between our two paths to best understanding the universe (quantum physics and Newtonian) should be enough that people shouldn’t be so skeptical of such devices that possibly break the “laws” of the universe. These laws are only a representation of our human perspective and as such capabilities, as with anything developed by humans there will be errors.

        I actually find it amusing that some of the most intelligent physicist working on string theory (and other theories besides this) at my university are much more open to the idea that this device is possible in comparison to the slough of engineers and traditional physicist that call this (or anything for that matter) as impossible. Outside of proving basic math principals as false nothing is impossible, just improbable.

        • Anonymous says:
          0
          0

          The scientific response is to be skeptical until the results are confirmed by these researchers and repeated by other researchers.

          • Michael Reynolds says:
            0
            0

            I never said that the scientific response is not to be skeptical, but many supposedly smart people are jumping right from skeptical to impossible. Going forward through the scientific process requires an open mind, not a closed one that is biased towards traditional lines of thought…or money. If this device or something comparable to it turns out to function as stated, it could alter our view on everything and poke some holes in some very powerful individuals pockets.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            That’s a big “if.” We’re a long way from that point.

  13. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    First, the data could easily be in error. Second, the dynamic Casimir effect is indeed capable of producing force. However that force is well understood and is no greater than the force that would be produced by the same energy if applied to emit a stream of photons.

    • Chris Clardy says:
      0
      0

      Heck yes the data could be in error, but you’re still excited, aren’t you?

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        No, I am not excited, because White provides absolutely no evidence that the device he proposes can produce more thrust than would result from putting the same energy into a stream of photons. There is nothing wrong with proposing new ideas in physics, but you have to show you understand the current ideas before you claim you can supercede them.

  14. voronwae says:
    0
    0

    They’re the fifth group to get positive results, and “quantum vacuum virtual plasma” is the best explanation anybody’s ever come up with.

  15. Luis Vázquez says:
    0
    0

    I think the phone number for Mr. White is wrong. JSC has no 482 phone exchange.

  16. Lawrence Wild says:
    0
    0

    Anyone want to bet that the apparent thrust was caused by heating of ambient external air in front of the device and that the effect disappears once they pump the chamber down to a hard vacuum? That’s where my money is. Note that this thought isn’t original to me, it’s been the common guess for several critics of the device. As one put it “At best he’s created an expensive fan”.

    • richard_schumacher says:
      0
      0

      I’d bet a dollar that’s what they have. At the very most they’re re-discovered the photon drive, which someone does every dozen years or so.

    • SJG_2010 says:
      0
      0

      Or maybe if they try it in the other hemisphere the resultant vector will be in the opposite direction?

  17. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    All this just screams, “We need more conclusive test results and better tests.”

  18. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    The link appears to be only an abstract. Is there an actual paper?

  19. Denniswingo says:
    0
    0

    Show me the data!

  20. SpaceMunkie says:
    0
    0

    I have a feeling that JSC and most of NASA is keeping its distance from this for the same reason they kept their distance from Fleischman, Pons and cold fusion.

  21. kapzen says:
    0
    0

    Maybe scaling the experiment up could make errors become more apparent (or prove the results)?

  22. Squib says:
    0
    0

    Thank you ics1956.

  23. richard_schumacher says:
    0
    0

    Oops. This is why I’m an engineer and not a physicist. Thanks for the correction.

  24. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    The wikipedia articl on EMDrive provides a link to Shawyer’s paper,
    http://www.newscientist.com
    “If the movement is small compared to the distance between the plates there will be negligible effect on reflected powers or forces. In a similar manner, small movement of the transmitter will have negligible effect.”

    I do not understand this. Surely the radiation pressure determined by the relative velocity of the source and reflector, which determine the frequency of the reflected waves. Why would the distance between the source and reflector affect the frequency shift? I also am puzzled by Sahwyer’s statement that radiation pressure is proportional to group velocity rather than phase velocity. Group velocity is a measure of the propagation of modulation, not photons. Group velocity can exceed c or actually become negative in certain media. Does radiation pressure become radiation suction?

  25. Synthguy says:
    0
    0

    Whether this concept actually works or not, its still vital to keep trying with novel propulsion concepts, and not dismiss them out of hand. Rockets will only take us so far in the Universe, and do it slowly. Something better is needed, not only to get into Space, but also get around Space. The faster we can go, the easier we can exploit Space for resources, and ultimately colonise other worlds. That should be the goal not just of NASA but all space-faring nations. Just imagine if as a result of a technological breakthrough, there is revolutionary disruptive change in human spaceflight, such that we can look at going to Mars in weeks rather than months, or getting to the Moon in hours. We have to go faster, and we have to travel in a more cost-effective manner.
    Obviously we can’t throw money away on scientifically unworkable ideas, but nor should we make the mistake of not funding research efforts simply because they are too ‘far out’. If we continue to plod slowly along, recycling 1960s concepts and technologies (SLS, Orion) rather than doing something truly revolutionary, we’ll be getting nowhere very slowly.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      I agree. We need new technology. For a brief time, when it appeared Constellation would actually be cancelled, there was a plan for a new major effort in space technology. Then reality settled in, and it all went out the window.

  26. John Gardi says:
    0
    0

    Folks:

    Enough discussion already!

    Test the damn thing in orbit and see if it can at least maintain a spacecraft’s orbit (or at least slow the orbit’s decay).

    Or even better: Put an RTG (nuclear thermal generator) on an EmDrive and launch it into deep space. Aim the thing towards Alpha Centaur and see how fast it’ll go after 30 years!

    Extensive reading tells me that the conservation of energy can be accounted for, it’s the conservation of momentum that’s the real issue here.

    tinker

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      You really can’t get that deep into a project without evidence that it at least has a reasonable chance to work. Physics is not simply making observations. it’s making observations which support or refute properly constructed theories.

    • Squib says:
      0
      0

      Well it’s a good thing you don’t control the purse strings at nasa… Or do you?

  27. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    A sensible discussion of the issue here by Paul Gilster, who writes one of the best sites on deep space:

    http://www.centauri-dreams….

  28. Michael Bruce Schaub says:
    0
    0

    The engine would not violate any law of physics if it is using energy (microwave) to actualize virtual particles which are then accelerated. See Hawking radiation for another example of this phenomenon.

  29. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    Besides the “quantum vacuum virtual plasma” that no physicist has ever heard of, there is this:

    http://xkcd.com/1404/

  30. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    Some discussion that may shed light on the possible errors in Shawyer’s theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

  31. Teodor Jovanovski says:
    0
    0

    Lol, why being mad?
    We discovered something that can show us the universe, and you do what? Argue that’s it’s wrong?
    Gosh, we’ll be stuck with chemical drives and shit till the end of the world