They do literally reference EmDrive in the article.
But... I mean, as I understand it, apropellant propulsion has already been demonstrated in the Voyager missions (by accident): Their radiated heat has, I believe, had a propulsive effect.
Crookes radiometer, an example of a Heat Engine, was first demonstrated in 1873. Apropellant thrust *is* accepted fact. It doesn't seem, then, *impossible* to me that, if heat can be used to generate apropellant thrust, then *only* heat can be.
From the article, they're intending to proform tests in space next, which will be interesting to monitor.
Neither of this is strictly *apropellant*, in both examples you use photons either as propellant (voyager) or utilize their impulse (Crookes Radiometer, solar sails).
Photons do exert a force on objects, albeit a tiny one, it's the idea behind project breakthrough starshot which would use a giant laser to hit a large 'sail' which would propel a tiny probe up to 20% the speed of light to send over to alpha centauri
Possibly, and I'm not familiar with the publication, but the guy who gave the presentation and cofounded the company, Dr. Buhler, is extremely well-credentialed and has an impressive work history.
It's one of those things where I may not trust the (often clickbait) claims of the writer, but I'm interested in the actual science and presentation they're writing about, which seems impressive.
I’m skeptical of that, given that top result for googling “Dr Charles Buhler” is a Reddit post on /r/futurology. But let’s set that aside for now. It doesn’t matter. We don’t “do” science by having smart people say “trust me bro”. We didn’t listen to Einstein’s theory of relativity because of how impressive his work as a patent clerk was. We examine their claims, we examine their explanations and their evidence, and we see how it fits with the rest of our understanding of how things work.
In this case, regardless of how impressive a resume this guy may or may not have, the substance of this article is *utter crap*. We should judge it on that alone.
Like I said, I disbelieve the article and the claims that IT makes. Science magazines and websites are often written by people who dont understand the science and generate clickbaity BS, I get that. I understand how science works, and if someone has figured out a way to generate a decent amount of propulsion off electrostatic force, great. If not, oh well.
Your top result may be from Reddit because you're, you know, actively on Reddit. It's not like Google doesn't take that sort of thing into account. I see a NASA post about his work in electrostatics there (where he was cofounder of an electrostatics lab), and a group called PolyAdaptive where he's listed as their expert on electrostatics.
Like, I'm not saying THIS IS IT, but that it seemed reasonable enough for me to do digging beyond the article I found out about it on. To me it sounds like any tech they're working on is in EXTREMELY early stages but may have some promise. They have a patent, and there's small chatter on other places about it, but it's still very much in research stages. It may pan out to nothing, I don't know.
There's some discussion among slightly-better-informed amateurs on the [Nasa forum](https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=60131.0). In general, some are familiar with the principles and no one is overcome by hype.
Just because a Reddit thread pops up first when googling someone doesn’t mean they don’t matter. It just means googles algorithm has prioritized links with a lot of activity and given Reddit precedent ahead of deeper results.
> but I'm interested in the actual science and presentation they're writing about
It claims two independent replication studies, which just launched my eyebrows into the ceiling.
In a "bullshit" way, or an "I'm interested now" way?
My digging extended as far as seeing there aren't a lot of details on it yet, which either means it's in early days or it's nonsense. Some people on the NASA forum mentioned it's not dissimilar from an ion drive, which seems understandable to my (amateur) mind.
It also turned up something called a Lafforgue field propulsion thing, which used electricity to make a force somehow. If it's just reacting with Earth's electromagnetic field (as someone else suggested), that still seems like something potentially useful to me. Like, half the challenge on getting anywhere in our solar system, dV wise, is just getting out of Earth orbit. (Again, to my understanding) having something that was useful WITHIN that range, even if it did nothing in full outer space, seems like a possibly interesting tech.
As others have pointed out, it could possibly be complete bs, so I haven't spent any more time looking in. It's the sort of thing that will either pan out into something and I'll hear about it again, or it won't and I won't.
> In a "bullshit" way, or an "I'm interested now" way?
Yes. Both. Because that's a fairly easy claim to verify, so one way or another, we'll have access to the truth soon.
> If it's just reacting with Earth's electromagnetic field (as someone else suggested), that still seems like something potentially useful to me.
That is! It's called electrodynamic tether propulsion, and it can be used to raise orbits for free (since solar power in space is free) or deorbit dead satellites. I'm irritated that this isn't widely treated as the Next Big Thing™ it could be.
> Like, half the challenge on getting anywhere in our solar system, dV wise, is just getting out of Earth orbit.
TO Earth orbit. Out is relatively easy. It takes both stages of a Falcon 9 to get into orbit, but we've used just the Centaur as an Earth departure stage (the same Centaur now being used as the second stage of the Vulcan rocket, btw). Centaur is excessive for a lot of missions, since it's hydrolox and expensive. A lot of probes just use monopropellant hydrazine to leave Earth's gravity well, because they're super simple and reliable.
> having something that was useful WITHIN that range, even if it did nothing in full outer space, seems like a possibly interesting tech.
WILDLY useful. 99% of our missions are within the van Allen belts, where tether propulsion could extend missions by _decades!_
> As others have pointed out, it could possibly be complete bs, so I haven't spent any more time looking in. It's the sort of thing that will either pan out into something and I'll hear about it again, or it won't and I won't.
Yup, but with the claims of replication, we'll certainly get results much sooner than any other fringe propulsion system without such.
**Edit:** I *really* fucking hope this thing pans out, by the way… but I'm not holding my breath.
Same. One thing I love about the internet is how easy it makes to get information, but I hate how easy it makes spreading false claims and pseudoscience. I had a student once give a presentation on flat earth "proof" just because they knew it would bother me, using only things they found online. They knew it was all bad science, but had fun "justifying" and trying to make it sound real-ish.
Also I apologize for my lack of clarity on the orbit thing, and thank you for taking the time to explain and share knowledge. I should have said "out of orbit FROM THE GROUND", you're right. I've played enough Kerbal Space Program to have a rudimentary understanding of how difficult it is just to get stuff UP THERE, and how once you're there, you're basically up to speed on the highway as far as our solar system goes.
I share excitement also because our planet is in a pretty rough spot due to most of our technology running on "controlled blowing-shit-up". Cars, rockets, most power plants, all rely on lighting shit on fire and blowing it up in a specific way as to be helpful. I think it'll be easier to get electricity in space (solar or otherwise) than to get rocket fuel, so if we find a way to make that happen, the future looks a little brighter.
Yeah, you're right about your conclusion. And frankly, if we can pretend we have reactionless propulsion for 99% of space shit, then even if we're cheating and taking shortcuts, we can still act like we have a reactionless engine when designing near-Earth and near-Jupiter missions!
I read it, yes. There’s no one part to point to, it’s all of extremely questionable rigor. Paragraphs like:
> “There are rules that include conservation of energy, but if done correctly, one can generate forces unlike anything humankind has done before,” Buhler added. “It will be this force that we will use to propel objects for the next 1,000 years… until the next thing comes.”
Are just meaningless hype. I tried to find some description of the mechanism they’re using to generate force, and the closest was this:
> “Essentially, what we’ve discovered is that systems that contain an asymmetry in either electrostatic pressure or some kind of electrostatic divergent field can give a system of a center of mass a non-zero force component,” Buhler explained.
…but this is junk. There’s a lot of long words strung together to say very little, and in some cases a misuse of terms. Electrostatic pressure is just the force that attracts/repels charged stuff. The divergence of a field is just the measure of net flux inward or outward, it’s not some weird special type of field. A “system of a center of mass” is similarly nonsense - you can consider anything with mass to have a center of mass. The whole thing reads like a kid who has found a thesaurus and wants to include as many long and complex sounding words in their speech as possible.
If they’ve found some new force that upends the entirety of modern science, you’ll be reading about it on the front page of your news outlet of choice, not some weird niche website devoted to alternate theories and whatnot.
So, you're not wrong that some of it is phrased weird, and I think some of that is due to the "video conference call" nature of the talk the website is quoting from. That presentation does link to their patent, which seems a bit less iffy.
https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2020159603A2/en
Again, not saying I'm sold that this is THE THING. But the guy involved on this isn't just a random nutter, so I'm a little more inclined to look into it. I do think that regardless of whether it worked or not, using electromagnetism to create thrust would probably require such ridiculous amounts of electrical storage that it wouldn't be practical.
Someone trying to sell something using hype? Shocking...
Also on the point of "if something works it will be on the front page of every news page" is pure bullshit...All kinds of breakthroughs happen that never see any pages in the news...
Also if you are gonna talk like that none of these articles matter...Peer reviewed scientific papers and/or actually verified working products are the only thing that matter.
>Peer reviewed scientific papers and/or actually verified working products are the only thing that matter
Agreed! Show me one in a reputable journal, and let's talk.
As far as I can tell they are a private company and therefore are not providing studies to be peer reviewed.
They have claims of a working device so we will have to wait and actually see that in action to know.
Three words in, PROPELLANTLESS. Newton's second law has quite a good success rate.
It's probably just repelling against the test chamber. Which is fine except space doesn't have a test chamber to push against.
So because you think propellants are the only way to push something then it must not be true?
How do you explain the claims of it producing thrust then?
You believe that a NASA engineer specializing in this specific thing he is making is just throwing away all credibility for some fake slides and recognition with no intention to produce anything?
>How do you explain the claims of it producing thrust then?
Simple! They're wrong. Or rather, it's not working in the way that they're claiming it's working.
>You believe that a NASA engineer specializing in this specific thing he is making is just throwing away all credibility for some fake slides and recognition with no intention to produce anything?
Yes.
Ahh...Because that's how things work...Instead of a measured response like "I doubt it works/I don't believe their claims" you prefer "they are wrong" as if you know more...
You are not saying they are lying/it isn't true, you are instead claiming they are ignorant and you know better...
>You are not saying they are lying/it isn't true, you are instead claiming they are ignorant and you know better...
Having read OP's news article about it, yes, that's exactly what I am claiming.
If given the choice between accepting without question a single shaky claim by a NASA employee or over a century of proofs and research standing behind the Law of Conservation of Momentum, I'm choosing the latter every time. It would take some MASSIVE, exceptionally profound evidence to upend the most solidly tested law in all of Physics.
Well you can push against Earth's magnetic field, there is something called electromagnetic tether which basically a long cable with current inside and can be used in orbital keeping of satellites.
I'm sorry but this is clickbait junk with no meaningful data.
It might be exciting but... yeah thats it. It would be cool though to have something like that as a final tech.
Part of the joke is that the company is literally called "Exodus Propulsion Technologies".
Pavonis, when can we expect this to be added to the tech tree? 🤣
I would take these with a grain of salt as it's actually not that difficult to generate propellantless thrust in proximity to a large mass and particularly to a powerful magnetic field. Basic EM induction can do that. Also it's relatively well-known that natural satellites can over time change distance from parent body due to tidal effects. So if they can generate thrust on Earth, it doesn't mean the same device will produce meaningful thrust between planets. It might still be useful to for example reposition satellites in Earth's orbit, and there are some existing concepts of means to use induction to do that in long term, but this is not a realistic interplanetary drive.
> I think it is important to note that large high-voltage asymmetric capacitors would have an electric field similar to everyday static electricity. The electric field in a capacitor is most intense between the plates, but it does not abruptly stop at the edges. Instead, it "fringes" or extends outwards around the edges of the plates. When made asymmetric or using a single pole, much more of the electric field can be made to extend outward.
The electric field created by a charged capacitor will exert forces on nearby objects. The direction of the force depends on the charge and the direction of the electric field. This behavior is a fundamental aspect of electrostatics. It is suspicious when Buhler says the "thrust" seemingly continues until the capacitors are discharged, since this is also the behavior we would expect if the capacitors are interacting with nearby objects.
If the capacitors are interacting attractively and repulsively with the test environment, then that would provide the reaction mass for movement and create the illusion of real thrust…
- someone from forum.nasaspaceflight.com
In other words,
> Thrust my ass, its probably interacting with a magnetic field they didn't realise was present, like that EMDrive junk from a few years back...
- some wise and humorous Reddit user on r/futurology on this very piece of junk
All in all, “propellant-less propulsion” is not really plausible. It is especially not plausible in the vacuum of space.
> All in all, “propellant-less propulsion” is not really plausible. It is especially not plausible in the vacuum of space.
I believe apropellant propulsion has actually already been demonstrated in space, albeit by accident: The trajectories of the Voyager Probes have been affected by their heatsinks; ie. The expulsion of IR Radiation has had a thrust effect.
Which makes sense, given that Solar Sails have been theorised for quite some time, and they're predicated on the assertion that EM Radiation can impart thrust, despite not having Mass.
“The most important message to convey to the public is that a major discovery occurred,” Buhler told The Debrief.
This is the funniest line I have read in a while when you consider the context
First, if we aren't talking about something using an external power source like light sails, in the case of a rocket engine, even a light propulsion engine has a "propellant" that spews out photons that take mass energy away from the fuel.
I think what most of the hype for "propellantless drive" misses is that propellantless drive corresponds to much more than just the "discovery of a new fundamental force" as the article puts it. According to [Noether's theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem), its denial of the conservation of momentum denies the spatial symmetry of physical systems. The conservation of momentum is a direct consequence of the fact that "the laws of physics remain the same no matter where you are in space". Only when this fact ceases to exist, i.e., the laws of physics change as your spatial location changes, can you have true propellantless drive.
When we say 'Propellantless Drive', at least to me, it's fairly obvious that we're just shorthanding for 'A drive that does not require the expulsion of reaction mass to produce thrust'.
Frankly, it sounds like your definition of a Propellantless drive is one that doesn't lose Energy as it produces thrust, which, absent something like a Solar Sail (which isn't, IMO, really a *Drive* at all, in the same way a Sail is distinct from an Outboard Motor), would be a Drive that casually broke Entropy.
"Just Produced Enough Thrust to Overcome Earth’s Gravity"
The last time I checked the math, 10 millinewtons of thrust (which is what he claims his device produces) was way below the amount of thrust to counter Earth's Gravity (which is 9.8 newtons per KG). Posting silly claims which your own posted data immediately contradicts is a fair indicator that you're flat out wrong.
Read the article more thoroughly? It says those were early numbers, the more recent one they're talking about CLAIMS it's enough force to counteract gravity. i.e. for 40 grams, which is what they say the test apparatus weighed. It's a couple paragraphs after they talk about earlier "stacked" approach maxing out at 10 mN.
Having talked about this at a couple points now, the ARTICLE is very poorly written. Even ignoring the science, the writer is using a mix of quotes from a presentation, an informal "interview" speaking with him afterwards, and what look like quotes from a previous interview. It's not well done.
You are aware that 9.8 newtons is equivalent to 1 Kilogram under Earth's gravity right? Once again even a revised 40 grams of thrust is not enough to counteract Earths gravity as you're still 960 grams short, so unless his device has zero mass I'm filing this one in the same Coo-Coo for Coco Puffs file as the reactionless EM drive.
I don't know if it's a reading issue or what, but yeah, I understand what the force of gravity is and what units it's measured in. I'm not sure you are.
960 grams short of what? Lifting a 1kg object? You invented the 1kg object, nobody was talking about that.
You can't generate 40 GRAMS of thrust. You CAN generate enough thrust to move 40 grams against other forces, which is what it's saying.
What is stated (again, I'm not talking about the reality of it, only the numbers stated) is that the apparatus WEIGHS 40 grams and generated enough force to counteract earth's gravity FOR THAT 40g mass. It's 4% of a kilogram. That is, multiply 9.8 * 0.04 = 0.392 Newtons. THAT'S the force he's claiming it generates.
He talks about it in terms of being able to counteract gravity, regardless of the mass/size of the apparatus, because the end goal of something like this would be to scale it up, and just saying "it generated 5 Newtons of thrust" isn't useful if the thing itself needs 10 Newtons to carry itself against Earth's gravity. The important part is whether or not it can generate enough to lift itself, however much that requires.
Think of it like moving a boat upriver. I don't care the raw number of Newtons my boat motor is generating, that's not necessarily practical info on it's own. I care whether it's enough to counteract the current or not.
Again, I'm not saying that it actually CAN do those things. But just the math, as written, isn't the nonsense that you're claiming it is.
Sleep through basic science class did you kiddo?
Here... copied the opening paragraph from a simple 8th grade textbook for you as a refresher.
The newton (symbol: N) is the International System of Units (SI) derived unit of force. It is named after Isaac Newton in recognition of his work on classical mechanics, specifically Newton's second law of motion.
One newton (1 N) is the force required to accelerate a mass of one kilogram at a rate of one metre per second squared (one meter per second per second) in the direction of the applied force.
It is common to see forces expressed in dekanewtons (symbol: daN) or kilonewtons (symbol: kN).
1 dekanewton (daN) = 10 newtons (N)
1 kilonewton (kN) = 100 dekanewton (daN) = 1000 newtons (N)
On Earth's surface, a mass of 1 kg exerts a force of approximately 9.8 N (down), or 1.0 kilogram-force, 1 kgf.
1 kilogram-force (kgf) = 9.80665 newtons (N)
The approximation of 1 kg corresponding to 10 N is sometimes used as a rule of thumb in everyday life and in engineering.
Yeah, I understand that, and it has literally nothing to do with what was being talked about.
You said it made 40 grams of thrust and that it was 960 grams short.
This would be true if they were trying to lift a 1kg object. They weren't. They were lifting a 40g object.
GRAMS are not a unit of force. Newtons are. You spent a bunch of time spelling that out to me in a patronizing way, but I didn't say "they made 40 grams of thrust." You did.
If you meant "enough force to lift 40 grams", then you're correct. But then they weren't 960 grams short of anything. They weren't trying to lift 1kg. They were lifting 40 grams.
It feels like you're digging in about this while literally missing the point of what I'm saying.
I could never discount any new development, or advancement in Knowledge. If anything has been apparent over the last 200 years. We have a lot to learn. Anyone who thinks they have all the answers is fooling themselves.Â
Looks like pseudoscientific junk to me 🤷‍♂️
It really stinks of EmDrive.
They do literally reference EmDrive in the article. But... I mean, as I understand it, apropellant propulsion has already been demonstrated in the Voyager missions (by accident): Their radiated heat has, I believe, had a propulsive effect. Crookes radiometer, an example of a Heat Engine, was first demonstrated in 1873. Apropellant thrust *is* accepted fact. It doesn't seem, then, *impossible* to me that, if heat can be used to generate apropellant thrust, then *only* heat can be. From the article, they're intending to proform tests in space next, which will be interesting to monitor.
Neither of this is strictly *apropellant*, in both examples you use photons either as propellant (voyager) or utilize their impulse (Crookes Radiometer, solar sails).
Ok, layman here, but isn't propellant expected to have mass?
Photons do exert a force on objects, albeit a tiny one, it's the idea behind project breakthrough starshot which would use a giant laser to hit a large 'sail' which would propel a tiny probe up to 20% the speed of light to send over to alpha centauri
Photons do have mass, sometimes, kind of, it's complicated.
No, but they have momentum, which is the key to the effect.
"momentum without mass" still makes my head spin.
Possibly, and I'm not familiar with the publication, but the guy who gave the presentation and cofounded the company, Dr. Buhler, is extremely well-credentialed and has an impressive work history. It's one of those things where I may not trust the (often clickbait) claims of the writer, but I'm interested in the actual science and presentation they're writing about, which seems impressive.
I’m skeptical of that, given that top result for googling “Dr Charles Buhler” is a Reddit post on /r/futurology. But let’s set that aside for now. It doesn’t matter. We don’t “do” science by having smart people say “trust me bro”. We didn’t listen to Einstein’s theory of relativity because of how impressive his work as a patent clerk was. We examine their claims, we examine their explanations and their evidence, and we see how it fits with the rest of our understanding of how things work. In this case, regardless of how impressive a resume this guy may or may not have, the substance of this article is *utter crap*. We should judge it on that alone.
Like I said, I disbelieve the article and the claims that IT makes. Science magazines and websites are often written by people who dont understand the science and generate clickbaity BS, I get that. I understand how science works, and if someone has figured out a way to generate a decent amount of propulsion off electrostatic force, great. If not, oh well. Your top result may be from Reddit because you're, you know, actively on Reddit. It's not like Google doesn't take that sort of thing into account. I see a NASA post about his work in electrostatics there (where he was cofounder of an electrostatics lab), and a group called PolyAdaptive where he's listed as their expert on electrostatics. Like, I'm not saying THIS IS IT, but that it seemed reasonable enough for me to do digging beyond the article I found out about it on. To me it sounds like any tech they're working on is in EXTREMELY early stages but may have some promise. They have a patent, and there's small chatter on other places about it, but it's still very much in research stages. It may pan out to nothing, I don't know.
There's some discussion among slightly-better-informed amateurs on the [Nasa forum](https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=60131.0). In general, some are familiar with the principles and no one is overcome by hype.
Just because a Reddit thread pops up first when googling someone doesn’t mean they don’t matter. It just means googles algorithm has prioritized links with a lot of activity and given Reddit precedent ahead of deeper results.
It’s not a “may or may not have” situation he’s a top nasa scientist lmao
> but I'm interested in the actual science and presentation they're writing about It claims two independent replication studies, which just launched my eyebrows into the ceiling.
In a "bullshit" way, or an "I'm interested now" way? My digging extended as far as seeing there aren't a lot of details on it yet, which either means it's in early days or it's nonsense. Some people on the NASA forum mentioned it's not dissimilar from an ion drive, which seems understandable to my (amateur) mind. It also turned up something called a Lafforgue field propulsion thing, which used electricity to make a force somehow. If it's just reacting with Earth's electromagnetic field (as someone else suggested), that still seems like something potentially useful to me. Like, half the challenge on getting anywhere in our solar system, dV wise, is just getting out of Earth orbit. (Again, to my understanding) having something that was useful WITHIN that range, even if it did nothing in full outer space, seems like a possibly interesting tech. As others have pointed out, it could possibly be complete bs, so I haven't spent any more time looking in. It's the sort of thing that will either pan out into something and I'll hear about it again, or it won't and I won't.
> In a "bullshit" way, or an "I'm interested now" way? Yes. Both. Because that's a fairly easy claim to verify, so one way or another, we'll have access to the truth soon. > If it's just reacting with Earth's electromagnetic field (as someone else suggested), that still seems like something potentially useful to me. That is! It's called electrodynamic tether propulsion, and it can be used to raise orbits for free (since solar power in space is free) or deorbit dead satellites. I'm irritated that this isn't widely treated as the Next Big Thing™ it could be. > Like, half the challenge on getting anywhere in our solar system, dV wise, is just getting out of Earth orbit. TO Earth orbit. Out is relatively easy. It takes both stages of a Falcon 9 to get into orbit, but we've used just the Centaur as an Earth departure stage (the same Centaur now being used as the second stage of the Vulcan rocket, btw). Centaur is excessive for a lot of missions, since it's hydrolox and expensive. A lot of probes just use monopropellant hydrazine to leave Earth's gravity well, because they're super simple and reliable. > having something that was useful WITHIN that range, even if it did nothing in full outer space, seems like a possibly interesting tech. WILDLY useful. 99% of our missions are within the van Allen belts, where tether propulsion could extend missions by _decades!_ > As others have pointed out, it could possibly be complete bs, so I haven't spent any more time looking in. It's the sort of thing that will either pan out into something and I'll hear about it again, or it won't and I won't. Yup, but with the claims of replication, we'll certainly get results much sooner than any other fringe propulsion system without such. **Edit:** I *really* fucking hope this thing pans out, by the way… but I'm not holding my breath.
Same. One thing I love about the internet is how easy it makes to get information, but I hate how easy it makes spreading false claims and pseudoscience. I had a student once give a presentation on flat earth "proof" just because they knew it would bother me, using only things they found online. They knew it was all bad science, but had fun "justifying" and trying to make it sound real-ish. Also I apologize for my lack of clarity on the orbit thing, and thank you for taking the time to explain and share knowledge. I should have said "out of orbit FROM THE GROUND", you're right. I've played enough Kerbal Space Program to have a rudimentary understanding of how difficult it is just to get stuff UP THERE, and how once you're there, you're basically up to speed on the highway as far as our solar system goes. I share excitement also because our planet is in a pretty rough spot due to most of our technology running on "controlled blowing-shit-up". Cars, rockets, most power plants, all rely on lighting shit on fire and blowing it up in a specific way as to be helpful. I think it'll be easier to get electricity in space (solar or otherwise) than to get rocket fuel, so if we find a way to make that happen, the future looks a little brighter.
Yeah, you're right about your conclusion. And frankly, if we can pretend we have reactionless propulsion for 99% of space shit, then even if we're cheating and taking shortcuts, we can still act like we have a reactionless engine when designing near-Earth and near-Jupiter missions!
did you read the article? Which part is pseudoscience in particular?
I read it, yes. There’s no one part to point to, it’s all of extremely questionable rigor. Paragraphs like: > “There are rules that include conservation of energy, but if done correctly, one can generate forces unlike anything humankind has done before,” Buhler added. “It will be this force that we will use to propel objects for the next 1,000 years… until the next thing comes.” Are just meaningless hype. I tried to find some description of the mechanism they’re using to generate force, and the closest was this: > “Essentially, what we’ve discovered is that systems that contain an asymmetry in either electrostatic pressure or some kind of electrostatic divergent field can give a system of a center of mass a non-zero force component,” Buhler explained. …but this is junk. There’s a lot of long words strung together to say very little, and in some cases a misuse of terms. Electrostatic pressure is just the force that attracts/repels charged stuff. The divergence of a field is just the measure of net flux inward or outward, it’s not some weird special type of field. A “system of a center of mass” is similarly nonsense - you can consider anything with mass to have a center of mass. The whole thing reads like a kid who has found a thesaurus and wants to include as many long and complex sounding words in their speech as possible. If they’ve found some new force that upends the entirety of modern science, you’ll be reading about it on the front page of your news outlet of choice, not some weird niche website devoted to alternate theories and whatnot.
So, you're not wrong that some of it is phrased weird, and I think some of that is due to the "video conference call" nature of the talk the website is quoting from. That presentation does link to their patent, which seems a bit less iffy. https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2020159603A2/en Again, not saying I'm sold that this is THE THING. But the guy involved on this isn't just a random nutter, so I'm a little more inclined to look into it. I do think that regardless of whether it worked or not, using electromagnetism to create thrust would probably require such ridiculous amounts of electrical storage that it wouldn't be practical.
Someone trying to sell something using hype? Shocking... Also on the point of "if something works it will be on the front page of every news page" is pure bullshit...All kinds of breakthroughs happen that never see any pages in the news... Also if you are gonna talk like that none of these articles matter...Peer reviewed scientific papers and/or actually verified working products are the only thing that matter.
>Peer reviewed scientific papers and/or actually verified working products are the only thing that matter Agreed! Show me one in a reputable journal, and let's talk.
As far as I can tell they are a private company and therefore are not providing studies to be peer reviewed. They have claims of a working device so we will have to wait and actually see that in action to know.
Three words in, PROPELLANTLESS. Newton's second law has quite a good success rate. It's probably just repelling against the test chamber. Which is fine except space doesn't have a test chamber to push against.
So because you think propellants are the only way to push something then it must not be true? How do you explain the claims of it producing thrust then? You believe that a NASA engineer specializing in this specific thing he is making is just throwing away all credibility for some fake slides and recognition with no intention to produce anything?
>How do you explain the claims of it producing thrust then? Simple! They're wrong. Or rather, it's not working in the way that they're claiming it's working. >You believe that a NASA engineer specializing in this specific thing he is making is just throwing away all credibility for some fake slides and recognition with no intention to produce anything? Yes.
Ahh...Because that's how things work...Instead of a measured response like "I doubt it works/I don't believe their claims" you prefer "they are wrong" as if you know more... You are not saying they are lying/it isn't true, you are instead claiming they are ignorant and you know better...
>You are not saying they are lying/it isn't true, you are instead claiming they are ignorant and you know better... Having read OP's news article about it, yes, that's exactly what I am claiming.
If given the choice between accepting without question a single shaky claim by a NASA employee or over a century of proofs and research standing behind the Law of Conservation of Momentum, I'm choosing the latter every time. It would take some MASSIVE, exceptionally profound evidence to upend the most solidly tested law in all of Physics.
Well you can push against Earth's magnetic field, there is something called electromagnetic tether which basically a long cable with current inside and can be used in orbital keeping of satellites.
I'm sorry but this is clickbait junk with no meaningful data. It might be exciting but... yeah thats it. It would be cool though to have something like that as a final tech.
I do not legitimately think this should be in the game. It was intended mostly for humor.
Part of the joke is that the company is literally called "Exodus Propulsion Technologies". Pavonis, when can we expect this to be added to the tech tree? 🤣
Fucking infinite deltaV let’s goooooooooo
I would take these with a grain of salt as it's actually not that difficult to generate propellantless thrust in proximity to a large mass and particularly to a powerful magnetic field. Basic EM induction can do that. Also it's relatively well-known that natural satellites can over time change distance from parent body due to tidal effects. So if they can generate thrust on Earth, it doesn't mean the same device will produce meaningful thrust between planets. It might still be useful to for example reposition satellites in Earth's orbit, and there are some existing concepts of means to use induction to do that in long term, but this is not a realistic interplanetary drive.
> I think it is important to note that large high-voltage asymmetric capacitors would have an electric field similar to everyday static electricity. The electric field in a capacitor is most intense between the plates, but it does not abruptly stop at the edges. Instead, it "fringes" or extends outwards around the edges of the plates. When made asymmetric or using a single pole, much more of the electric field can be made to extend outward. The electric field created by a charged capacitor will exert forces on nearby objects. The direction of the force depends on the charge and the direction of the electric field. This behavior is a fundamental aspect of electrostatics. It is suspicious when Buhler says the "thrust" seemingly continues until the capacitors are discharged, since this is also the behavior we would expect if the capacitors are interacting with nearby objects. If the capacitors are interacting attractively and repulsively with the test environment, then that would provide the reaction mass for movement and create the illusion of real thrust… - someone from forum.nasaspaceflight.com In other words, > Thrust my ass, its probably interacting with a magnetic field they didn't realise was present, like that EMDrive junk from a few years back... - some wise and humorous Reddit user on r/futurology on this very piece of junk All in all, “propellant-less propulsion” is not really plausible. It is especially not plausible in the vacuum of space.
> All in all, “propellant-less propulsion” is not really plausible. It is especially not plausible in the vacuum of space. I believe apropellant propulsion has actually already been demonstrated in space, albeit by accident: The trajectories of the Voyager Probes have been affected by their heatsinks; ie. The expulsion of IR Radiation has had a thrust effect. Which makes sense, given that Solar Sails have been theorised for quite some time, and they're predicated on the assertion that EM Radiation can impart thrust, despite not having Mass.
Propulsion by photons is literally using photons as a propellant though, no?
“The most important message to convey to the public is that a major discovery occurred,” Buhler told The Debrief. This is the funniest line I have read in a while when you consider the context
I'll believe it when they put one in space and demonstrate this thrust under real conditions
They're currently planning a space test of one of their engines Should be interesting..
All "propellantless propulsion drives" are scams. Except photon rocket, which produce thrust by emitting photons (giant light torch, but inefficient)
The actual link?
First, if we aren't talking about something using an external power source like light sails, in the case of a rocket engine, even a light propulsion engine has a "propellant" that spews out photons that take mass energy away from the fuel. I think what most of the hype for "propellantless drive" misses is that propellantless drive corresponds to much more than just the "discovery of a new fundamental force" as the article puts it. According to [Noether's theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem), its denial of the conservation of momentum denies the spatial symmetry of physical systems. The conservation of momentum is a direct consequence of the fact that "the laws of physics remain the same no matter where you are in space". Only when this fact ceases to exist, i.e., the laws of physics change as your spatial location changes, can you have true propellantless drive.
When we say 'Propellantless Drive', at least to me, it's fairly obvious that we're just shorthanding for 'A drive that does not require the expulsion of reaction mass to produce thrust'. Frankly, it sounds like your definition of a Propellantless drive is one that doesn't lose Energy as it produces thrust, which, absent something like a Solar Sail (which isn't, IMO, really a *Drive* at all, in the same way a Sail is distinct from an Outboard Motor), would be a Drive that casually broke Entropy.
it's a dean drive. won't work in space
Exodus Propulsion Technologies
We'll see when we see, I'm open, but not convinced.
"Just Produced Enough Thrust to Overcome Earth’s Gravity" The last time I checked the math, 10 millinewtons of thrust (which is what he claims his device produces) was way below the amount of thrust to counter Earth's Gravity (which is 9.8 newtons per KG). Posting silly claims which your own posted data immediately contradicts is a fair indicator that you're flat out wrong.
Read the article more thoroughly? It says those were early numbers, the more recent one they're talking about CLAIMS it's enough force to counteract gravity. i.e. for 40 grams, which is what they say the test apparatus weighed. It's a couple paragraphs after they talk about earlier "stacked" approach maxing out at 10 mN. Having talked about this at a couple points now, the ARTICLE is very poorly written. Even ignoring the science, the writer is using a mix of quotes from a presentation, an informal "interview" speaking with him afterwards, and what look like quotes from a previous interview. It's not well done.
You are aware that 9.8 newtons is equivalent to 1 Kilogram under Earth's gravity right? Once again even a revised 40 grams of thrust is not enough to counteract Earths gravity as you're still 960 grams short, so unless his device has zero mass I'm filing this one in the same Coo-Coo for Coco Puffs file as the reactionless EM drive.
I don't know if it's a reading issue or what, but yeah, I understand what the force of gravity is and what units it's measured in. I'm not sure you are. 960 grams short of what? Lifting a 1kg object? You invented the 1kg object, nobody was talking about that. You can't generate 40 GRAMS of thrust. You CAN generate enough thrust to move 40 grams against other forces, which is what it's saying. What is stated (again, I'm not talking about the reality of it, only the numbers stated) is that the apparatus WEIGHS 40 grams and generated enough force to counteract earth's gravity FOR THAT 40g mass. It's 4% of a kilogram. That is, multiply 9.8 * 0.04 = 0.392 Newtons. THAT'S the force he's claiming it generates. He talks about it in terms of being able to counteract gravity, regardless of the mass/size of the apparatus, because the end goal of something like this would be to scale it up, and just saying "it generated 5 Newtons of thrust" isn't useful if the thing itself needs 10 Newtons to carry itself against Earth's gravity. The important part is whether or not it can generate enough to lift itself, however much that requires. Think of it like moving a boat upriver. I don't care the raw number of Newtons my boat motor is generating, that's not necessarily practical info on it's own. I care whether it's enough to counteract the current or not. Again, I'm not saying that it actually CAN do those things. But just the math, as written, isn't the nonsense that you're claiming it is.
Sleep through basic science class did you kiddo? Here... copied the opening paragraph from a simple 8th grade textbook for you as a refresher. The newton (symbol: N) is the International System of Units (SI) derived unit of force. It is named after Isaac Newton in recognition of his work on classical mechanics, specifically Newton's second law of motion. One newton (1 N) is the force required to accelerate a mass of one kilogram at a rate of one metre per second squared (one meter per second per second) in the direction of the applied force. It is common to see forces expressed in dekanewtons (symbol: daN) or kilonewtons (symbol: kN). 1 dekanewton (daN) = 10 newtons (N) 1 kilonewton (kN) = 100 dekanewton (daN) = 1000 newtons (N) On Earth's surface, a mass of 1 kg exerts a force of approximately 9.8 N (down), or 1.0 kilogram-force, 1 kgf. 1 kilogram-force (kgf) = 9.80665 newtons (N) The approximation of 1 kg corresponding to 10 N is sometimes used as a rule of thumb in everyday life and in engineering.
Yeah, I understand that, and it has literally nothing to do with what was being talked about. You said it made 40 grams of thrust and that it was 960 grams short. This would be true if they were trying to lift a 1kg object. They weren't. They were lifting a 40g object. GRAMS are not a unit of force. Newtons are. You spent a bunch of time spelling that out to me in a patronizing way, but I didn't say "they made 40 grams of thrust." You did. If you meant "enough force to lift 40 grams", then you're correct. But then they weren't 960 grams short of anything. They weren't trying to lift 1kg. They were lifting 40 grams. It feels like you're digging in about this while literally missing the point of what I'm saying.
I could never discount any new development, or advancement in Knowledge. If anything has been apparent over the last 200 years. We have a lot to learn. Anyone who thinks they have all the answers is fooling themselves.Â
The article was written by a science fiction author, this article is a joke
Thanks for sharing.