Why does some anons on /sci/ hate the concept of RF resonant cavity thruster and the other anons endorse it?
>>8156205
Old conflict between conservative and liberal scientists
>>8156205
Because it's /x/ material at best. People including NASA tried it and failed. The power output you get from cavity resonance thrusters are a fraction of the power you put in.
>>8156234
>NASA tried it and failed
It produced thrust. You seem to have an odd definition of success.
>>8156234
that doesn't matter if it produces thrust then solar can be used to power it thus in effect you don't have to carry any fuel. Thats the whole point.
>>8156205
Because some people understand fundamental cornerstones of physics, and some people are shit posting retards who couldn't think their way out of a mcjob.
>>8156253
Or, some people think it works by another mechanism; like ablation.
>>8156205
It's just another popsci meme, like the warp drive nasa jumped on to.
It's theoretically possible, but there's no reason to think the solutions hold any physical relevance. Wish they'd make a /popsci board so shitters could blow each other with this nonsense
>>8156270
it is. and they stopped working on it
deal with it buttkid
Following the latest Chinese report, I would suggest to build a self-contained emdrive and test it in a microgravity environment (like on the ISS) to settle the case. Either it moves or it doesn't.
If a theory disagrees with experiment, the theory is wrong. Reciting text book prayers doesn't change that.
>>8156401
Yea....see the problem is that you assume all variables in the experiment are accounted for. They're not. That's why there's so much controversey in the first place.
>>8156401
Why should anyone spend millions of dollars testing every free energy device that con artists come up with?
>>8156405
>millions of dollars
add them to the 8.5 TRILLION missing from the DoD budget
or let the Chinese gov pay for it
>>8156205
People are naive and can't fathom a world in which we're never wrong, or we already know everything.
They're more focused on proving it doesn't work with pencil and paper, instead of trying to see why it works with physical engineering.
>>8156205
some people think it's good to have something new. the others troll and like to watch the responses. You can find examples of both in your thread.
>>8156456
But it's already been built. And it didn't work, so your logic is wrong
>>8156528
They measured thrust, didn't they?
>>8156579
The results don't fit the narrative.
>>8156579
Nope.
>>8156579
Couldn't it be producing thrust from some kind of quantum voodoo that we just haven't detected yet?
t. layperson
>>8156255
>ablation
these are the people who understand physics and come to reasonable explanations as to the source of the nano-newton thrusts that are measured, assuming its not just experimental error of course
all the same, it makes the machine decidedly boring and completely worthless
>>8157337
>not just putting the average in with standard deviation as error bars.
Really makes you think..
>>8156270
it would violate conservation of momentum you dumb fucking twat.
everything we know about physics disproves this shit before it even started, and if for some reason the machine worked as suggested, it only begs the question as to why in the name of science haven't we observed the effect any where else? it's not like this thing is doing anything magically different with the physics you put into it.
>>8157564
makes you think what?
Why lose information when you can plot all the information?
>>8157564
>Really makes you think..
error calculation may have its own graph
>>8157561
Hold your horses, it's definitely not nanonewton thrusts. It's almost a newton at 2600 W- not exactly impressive, but not tiny at all.
I still believe it's gotta be ablation, otherwise we'd be seeing quantized thrust output, or a linear increase in force due to Photoelectric effect.
>>8157567
>it would violate conservation of momentum you dumb fucking twat.
No it doesn't.
>>8159233
it doesn't need to conform to it.
laws have to explain observations, not the other way around.
>>8159165
up to 10^0 magnitude? Ok that is a considerable improvement from the first couple tests, I will admit.
>>8159239
In this case it's a law because there are REAMS of experiments confirming it in all imaginable kinds of situations, such that the law is a cornerstone of physics in its entirety.
That means, if you find something violating that law, you look REAL hard for a mistake, and failing to find that, you look REAL hard for an explanation that can adapt standing theory without contradicting ALL the other experiments.
But thanks for the 101 course in scientific theory, bro.
>>8159233
Yes, it would if it worked as proclaimed. "Massless propulsion" is, by definition, in violation of conservation of momentum. That was the very first argument against the machine, and it was loud spoken and widespread and for good reason.
>>8157674
>lose information
>>8159244
>"Massless propulsion" is, by definition, in violation of conservation of momentum
You dont need mass to have momentum
>>8159276
Did you even read what he said?
>>8159276
You need at the bare minimum to have photons escaping or impinging, such that the system is not closed. This is not the case with the RF resonant cavity, and even if it were, radiation pressure is vanishingly small.
So excuse me if I was a little loose with the terms, but this machine still violates conservation of momentum IF it works as advertised.
Thats why most serious critics have their money on some sort of ablation.
>>8159272
learn some basic statistics and get some lab experience
>>8159283
I have both, and your post still doesn't make sense.
So either explain your thought so we can understand it, or fuck off.
I mean, its worth a shot.
It's even more shitty than vasimir.
Even. Without. Propellent.
IF it even works.
