‘Impossible’ Drive Designer’s Dream: Flying Cars, Stealth Missiles

"The Emdrive is an ‘impossible’ drive that
generates thrust from a closed system.
To critics it’s a flat-out junk science, not
even worth thinking about. But its inventor,
Roger Shawyer, has doggedly continued
his work, and, as Danger Room reported
last year, Chinese scientists claimed to
have validated his math and were building
their own version."

See:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009...alth-missiles/

On Oct 29, 12:34*pm, wrote:
"The Emdrive is an ‘impossible’ drive that
generates thrust from a closed system.
To critics it’s a flat-out junk science, not
even worth *thinking about. But its inventor,
Roger Shawyer, has doggedly continued
his work, and, as Danger Room reported
last year, Chinese scientists claimed to
have validated his math and were building
their own version."

See:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009...e-designers-dr...

Another "Cold Fusion"?

On Oct 29, 9:40*am, Jack Linthicum
wrote:
On Oct 29, 12:34*pm, wrote:

"The Emdrive is an ‘impossible’ drive that
generates thrust from a closed system.
To critics it’s a flat-out junk science, not
even worth *thinking about. But its inventor,
Roger Shawyer, has doggedly continued
his work, and, as Danger Room reported
last year, Chinese scientists claimed to
have validated his math and were building
their own version."

See:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009...e-designers-dr...

Another "Cold Fusion"?

Could be.

Either the Chinese are going to waste some
money on this, or they're going to get ahead
of us on something big.

I'll assume it's "waste some money" until I see
evidence otherwise.

Jack Linthicum wrote:
On Oct 29, 12:34 pm, wrote:
"The Emdrive is an ‘impossible’ drive that
generates thrust from a closed system.
To critics it’s a flat-out junk science, not
even worth thinking about. But its inventor,
Roger Shawyer, has doggedly continued
his work, and, as Danger Room reported
last year, Chinese scientists claimed to
have validated his math and were building
their own version."

See:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009...e-designers-dr...

Another "Cold Fusion"?

Maybe someone should introduce him to Moller.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Oct 29, 12:34*pm, wrote:
"The Emdrive is an ‘impossible’ drive that
generates thrust from a closed system.
To critics it’s a flat-out junk science, not
even worth *thinking about. But its inventor,
Roger Shawyer, has doggedly continued
his work, and, as Danger Room reported
last year, Chinese scientists claimed to
have validated his math and were building
their own version."

See:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009...e-designers-dr...

It's been around for a while

http://www.newscientist.com/data/ima...wyertheory.pdf

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hy...mdrive-to.html

On Oct 29, 1:39*pm, Jack Linthicum
wrote:
On Oct 29, 12:34*pm, wrote:

"The Emdrive is an ‘impossible’ drive that
generates thrust from a closed system.
To critics it’s a flat-out junk science, not
even worth *thinking about. But its inventor,
Roger Shawyer, has doggedly continued
his work, and, as Danger Room reported
last year, Chinese scientists claimed to
have validated his math and were building
their own version."

See:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009...e-designers-dr...

It's been around for a while

http://www.newscientist.com/data/ima...wyertheory.pdf

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hy...eo-controversi...

"Cold Fusion" at least made sense.

On Oct 29, 1:51*pm, Frogwatch wrote:
On Oct 29, 1:39*pm, Jack Linthicum
wrote:



On Oct 29, 12:34*pm, wrote:

"The Emdrive is an ‘impossible’ drive that
generates thrust from a closed system.
To critics it’s a flat-out junk science, not
even worth *thinking about. But its inventor,
Roger Shawyer, has doggedly continued
his work, and, as Danger Room reported
last year, Chinese scientists claimed to
have validated his math and were building
their own version."

See:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009...e-designers-dr....

It's been around for a while

http://www.newscientist.com/data/ima...wyertheory.pdf

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hy...eo-controversi...

"Cold Fusion" at least made sense.

and rockets make sense? "There's nothing to push against in space"
Famous quote.

On Oct 29, 1:39*pm, Jack Linthicum
wrote:
On Oct 29, 12:34*pm, wrote:

"The Emdrive is an ‘impossible’ drive that
generates thrust from a closed system.
To critics it’s a flat-out junk science, not
even worth *thinking about. But its inventor,
Roger Shawyer, has doggedly continued
his work, and, as Danger Room reported
last year, Chinese scientists claimed to
have validated his math and were building
their own version."

See:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009...e-designers-dr...

It's been around for a while

http://www.newscientist.com/data/ima...wyertheory.pdf

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hy...eo-controversi...

His equation #1 is

F = q(E + vB) but he references the Q of the cavity in the sentence
above this. However, q and Q are not the same thing as he implies
they are. Q is a number while q is charge. Next, he uses the group
velocity of the microwave in equation #1 for v…………NO, this is WRONG..
v in this equation is the velocity of a charge not of a chargeless
photon. Perhaps he is implying that because the wave is moving that
its velocity should apply to the B field of the wave, NO(not quite
certain of this). Even if it were true, the field reverses itself at
several GHz so the force would only cause the rocket to wiggle back
and forth with time averaged force of zero..

On Oct 29, 1:03*pm, Frogwatch wrote:
On Oct 29, 1:39*pm, Jack Linthicum
wrote:



On Oct 29, 12:34*pm, wrote:

"The Emdrive is an ‘impossible’ drive that
generates thrust from a closed system.
To critics it’s a flat-out junk science, not
even worth *thinking about. But its inventor,
Roger Shawyer, has doggedly continued
his work, and, as Danger Room reported
last year, Chinese scientists claimed to
have validated his math and were building
their own version."

See:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009...e-designers-dr....

It's been around for a while

http://www.newscientist.com/data/ima...wyertheory.pdf

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hy...eo-controversi...

His equation #1 is

F = q(E + vB) but he references the Q of the cavity in the sentence
above this. *However, q and Q are not the same thing as he implies
they are. *Q is a number while q is charge. *Next, he uses the group
velocity of the microwave in equation #1 for v…………NO, this is WRONG.
v in this equation is the velocity of a charge not of a chargeless
photon. *Perhaps he is implying that because the wave is moving that
its velocity should apply to the B field of the wave, NO(not quite
certain of this). *Even if it were true, the field reverses itself at
several GHz so the force would only cause the rocket to wiggle back
and forth with time averaged force of zero..

Ever read a description for AC current? "The current changes
direction X times per second"...right....ok, so how the hell does it
ever go anywhere...

::: "The Emdrive is an impossible drive that generates thrust from a
::: closed system. [...]
::: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009...e-designers-dr...

:: Another "Cold Fusion"?

: Strobe
: More likely another "Dean drive".

In the case of the Dean Drive, iirc, there was at least agreement
on exactly where the various conservation laws were broken, and the
math of it was fairly straightforward, as such things go, both sides
agreeing on what was what. Disagreement on whether the physics followed
the math, but not on the math itself.

Here, the one set of folks are saying "you're not doing your
math right, the equations don't allow that", and the other is saying
"oh yes they do".

So, IMO, it's considerably worse than either cold fusion, or Dean drive.
I mean, there's deep math showing that time-displacement-invariance and
space-displacement invariance of the basic equations which the physical
system is described by, ensure the conservation laws will hold, unless
you make a mistake. And nobody's shown where the invariances aren't
true; they just say the conservation is wrong. So I think it's much
more like squaring the circle or trisecting the angle. And then using
that to prove the earth is cubical.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw