RF resonant cavity thruster

A radio frequency (RF) resonant cavity thruster is a device concept that is claimed to be a spacecraft thruster.[1][2] It is purported to generate thrust by reflecting microwaves internally in the device, in violation of the law of conservation of momentum and other laws of physics.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] The device is also known as an EmDrive and has been often referred to by the media as the Impossible Drive.[11][12][13][7] It was introduced in 2001 by Roger Shawyer.[14][15]

For thrusters that use electrical power to change the velocity of spacecraft, see Electrically-powered spacecraft propulsion. For rocket that uses thrust from the momentum of emitted photons, see Photon rocket.

There exists no official design for this device, and neither of the people who claim to have invented it have committed to an explanation for how it could operate as a thruster or what elements define it, making it difficult to tell whether a given object is an example of such a device. However, several prototypes based on its public descriptions have been constructed and tested. In 2016, the Advanced Propulsion Physics Laboratory at NASA reported observing a small apparent thrust from one such test,[16] a result not since replicated. No other published experiment has measured apparent thrust greater than the experiment's margin of error.[17]

History and debunking

Rocket engines operate by expelling propellant, which acts as a reaction mass and which produces thrust per Newton’s third law of motion. In the 1960s, extensive research was conducted on two designs which emit high-velocity ionized gases in similar ways: ion thrusters that convert propellant to ions and accelerate and eject them via electric potentials, and plasma thrusters that convert propellant to plasma ions and accelerate and eject them via plasma currents. All designs for electromagnetic propulsion operate on the principle of reaction mass.

A drive which does not expel propellant in order to produce a reaction force, providing thrust while being a closed system with no external interaction, would be a reactionless drive. Such a drive would violate the conservation of momentum and Newton's third law,[18] leading many physicists to consider the idea pseudoscience.[16] Such drives are a popular concept in science fiction, and their implausibility contributes to enthusiasm for exploring such designs.

The original proposal for an RF resonant cavity thruster came from Roger Shawyer in 2001. He proposed a design with a conical cavity, which he called "EmDrive". He claimed that it produced thrust in the direction of the base of the cavity. Guido Fetta later built the Cannae Drive based on Shawyer's concept[19][18] as a resonant thruster with a pillbox-shaped cavity. Since 2008, a few physicists have tested their own models, trying to reproduce the results claimed by Shawyer and Fetta. Juan Yang at Xi'an's Northwestern Polytechnical University (NWPU) was unable to reproducibly measure thrust from their models, over the course of 4 years.[20][21][22] In 2016, Harold White's group at NASA's Advanced Propulsion Physics Laboratory reported in the Journal of Propulsion and Power that a test of their own model had observed a small thrust.[23] In December 2016, Yue Chen of the communication satellite division of the China Academy of Space Technology (CAST), said his team had tested several prototypes, observed thrust, and was carrying out in-orbit verification.[24][25][26][27] In September 2017, Chen talked about this CAST project again in an interview on CCTV.[28]

Media coverage of experiments using these designs has been controversial and polarized. The EmDrive first drew attention, both credulous and dismissive, when New Scientist wrote about it as an "impossible" drive in 2006.[29] Media outlets were later criticised for misleading claims that a resonant cavity thruster had been "validated by NASA"[30] following White's first tentative test reports in 2014.[31] Scientists have continued to note the lack of unbiased coverage, from both polarized sides.[32]

In 2006, responding to the New Scientist piece, mathematical physicist John C. Baez at the University of California, Riverside, and Australian science-fiction writer Greg Egan, said the positive results reported by Shawyer were likely misinterpretations of experimental errors.[33]

In 2014, White's conference paper suggested that resonant cavity thrusters could work by transferring momentum to the "quantum vacuum virtual plasma."[3] Baez and Carroll criticized this explanation, because in the standard description of vacuum fluctuations, virtual particles do not behave as a plasma; Carroll also noted that the quantum vacuum has no "rest frame", providing nothing to push against, so it can't be used for propulsion.[1][34] In the same way, physicists James F. Woodward and Heidi Fearn published two papers showing that electron-positron virtual pairs of the quantum vacuum, discussed by White as a potential virtual plasma propellant, could not account for thrust in any isolated, closed electromagnetic system such as a quantum vacuum thruster.[2][35]

Physicists Eric W. Davis at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Austin and Sean M. Carroll at the California Institute of Technology said in 2015 that the thrust measurements reported in papers by both Tajmar and White were indicative of thermal effect errors.[36]

In May 2018, researchers from the Institute of Aerospace Engineering at Technische Universität Dresden, Germany, concluded that the dominant effect underlying the apparent thrust could be clearly identified as an artifact caused by Earth's magnetic field interacting with power cables in the chamber, a result that other experts agree with.[37][38][39]

Designs and prototypes
Simplified schematic drawing of an EmDrive prototype by Tajmar and Fiedler.

EmDrive

In 2001, Shawyer founded Satellite Propulsion Research Ltd, in order to work on the EmDrive, a drive that he said used a resonant cavity to produce thrust without propellant. The company was backed by SMART award grants from the UK Department of Trade and Industry.[18][40] In December 2002, he described a working prototype with an alleged total thrust of about 0.02 newtons powered by an 850 W cavity magnetron. The device could operate for only a few dozen seconds before the magnetron failed, due to overheating.[41]

Second device and New Scientist article

In October 2006, Shawyer conducted tests on a new water-cooled prototype and said that it had increased thrust.[42] He reported plans to have the device ready to use in space by May 2009 and to make the resonant cavity a superconductor,[42] neither of which materialized.

New Scientist magazine[14] featured the EmDrive on the cover of 8 September 2006 issue. The article portrayed the device as plausible and emphasized the arguments of those who held that point of view. Science fiction author Greg Egan distributed a public letter stating that "a sensationalist bent and a lack of basic knowledge by its writers" made the magazine's coverage unreliable, sufficient "to constitute a real threat to the public understanding of science". Especially, Egan said he was "gobsmacked by the level of scientific illiteracy" in the magazine's coverage, alleging that it used "meaningless double-talk" to obfuscate the problem of conservation of momentum. The letter was endorsed by mathematical physicist John C. Baez and posted on his blog.[33][1] New Scientist editor Jeremy Webb responded to critics:

It is a fair criticism that New Scientist did not make clear enough how controversial Roger Shawyer's engine is. We should have made more explicit where it apparently contravenes the laws of nature and reported that several physicists declined to comment on the device because they thought it too contentious ... The great thing is that Shawyer's ideas are testable. If he succeeds in getting his machine flown in space, we will know soon enough if it is ground-breaking device or a mere flight of fancy.[29]

New Scientist also published a letter from the former technical director of EADS Astrium:

I reviewed Roger's work and concluded that both theory and experiment were fatally flawed. Roger was advised that the company had no interest in the device, did not wish to seek patent coverage and in fact did not wish to be associated with it in any way.[43]

A letter from physicist Paul Friedlander:

As I read it, I, like the thousands of other physicists who will have read it, immediately realised that this was impossible as described. Physicists are trained to use certain fundamental principles to analyse a problem and this claim clearly flouted one of them ... The Shawyer drive is as impossible as perpetual motion. Relativistic conservation of momentum has been understood for a century and dictates that if nothing emerges from Shawyer's device then its centre of mass will not accelerate. It is likely that Shawyer has used an approximation somewhere in his calculations that would have been reasonable if he hadn't then multiplied the result by 50,000. The reason physicists value principles such as conservation of momentum is that they act as a reality check against errors of this kind.[44]

Later work

In 2007, the UK Department of Trade and Industry granted SPR an export licence to Boeing in the US.[45] According to Shawyer, in December 2008 he was invited to The Pentagon to present on the EmDrive, and in 2009 Boeing expressed interest in it,[46] at which point he stated that SPR built a thruster which produced 18 grams of thrust, and sent it to Boeing. Boeing did not, however, license the technology and communication stopped.[47] In 2012, a Boeing representative confirmed that Boeing Phantom Works used to explore exotic forms of space propulsion, including Shawyer's drive, but such work later ceased. They confirmed that "Phantom Works is not working with Mr. Shawyer," nor pursuing those explorations.[19]

In 2013 and 2014, Shawyer presented ideas for 'second-generation' EmDrive designs and applications at the annual International Astronautical Congress. A paper based on his 2014 presentation was published in Acta Astronautica in 2015.[48] It describes a model for a superconducting resonant cavity and three models for thrusters with multiple cavities, with hypothetical applications for launching space probes.

In 2016, Shawyer filed further patents[49][50] and launched a new company, Universal Propulsion Ltd., as a joint venture with Gilo Industries Group, a small UK aerospace company.[47]

Cannae and other drives

The Cannae Drive (formerly Q-drive),[51] another engine designed to generate propulsion from a resonant cavity without propellant, is another implementation of this idea. Its cavity is also asymmetric, but relatively flat rather than a truncated cone. It was designed by Fetta in 2006 and has been promoted within the US through his company, Cannae LLC, since 2011.[51][52][53][54][55] In 2016, Fetta announced plans to eventually launch a CubeSat satellite containing a version of the Cannae Drive, which they would run for 6 months to observe how it functions in space.[56]

In China, researchers working under Yang at NWPU developed their own prototype resonant cavity thruster in 2008, publishing a report in their university's journal on the theory behind such devices. In 2012 they measured thrust from their prototype, however, in 2014 they found this had been an experimental error. A second, improved prototype did not produce any measured thrust.[19][57][58]

At the China Academy of Space Technology, Yue Chen filed several patent applications in 2016 describing various RF resonant cavity thruster designs. These included a method for stacking several short resonant cavities to improve thrust,[59] and a design with a cavity that was a semicylinder instead of a frustum.[60] That December, Chen announced that CAST was conducting tests on a resonant cavity thruster in orbit,[61] without specifying what design was used. In an interview on CCTV in September 2017, Chen Yue showed some testing of a flat cylindrical device corresponding to the patent describing stacked short cavities with internal diaphragms.[62][59]

Theoretical inconsistencies

The proposed theory for how the EmDrive works violates the conservation of momentum, which states any interaction cannot have a net force; a consequence of the conservation of momentum is Newton's third law, where for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.[16] The conservation of momentum is a symmetry of nature.[63]

An often cited example of apparent nonconservation of momentum is the Casimir effect;[64] in the standard case where two parallel plates are attracted to each other. However the plates move in opposite directions, so no net momentum is extracted from the vacuum and, moreover, energy must be put into the system to take the plates apart again.[65]

Assuming homogeneous electric and magnetic fields, it is impossible for the EmDrive, or any other device, to extract a net momentum transfer from either a classical or quantum vacuum.[65] Extraction of a net momentum "from nothing"[66][67] has been postulated in an inhomogeneous vacuum, but this remains highly controversial as it will violate Lorentz invariance.[65]

Both Harold White's[68][69][70][64] and Mike McCulloch's[71] theories of how the EmDrive could work rely on these asymmetric or dynamical Casimir effects. However, if these vacuum forces are present, they are expected to be exceptionally tiny based on our current understanding, too small to explain the level of observed thrust.[65][72][73] In the event that observed thrust is not due to experimental error, a positive result could indicate new physics.[74][75]

Tests and experiments

Tests by inventors

In 2004, Shawyer claimed to have received seven independent positive reviews from experts at BAE Systems, EADS Astrium, Siemens and the IEE.[76] However no independent expert has published a positive review, and at least one directly disputed Shawyer's claim. In a letter to New Scientist, the then-technical director of EADS Astrium (Shawyer's former employer) denied this, stating:

I reviewed Roger's work and concluded that both theory and experiment were fatally flawed. Roger was advised that the company had no interest in the device, did not wish to seek patent coverage and in fact did not wish to be associated with it in any way.[43]

In 2011, Fetta tested a superconducting version of the Cannae drive. The RF resonant cavity was suspended inside a liquid helium-filled dewar. The weight of the cavity was monitored by load cells. Fetta theorized that when the device was activated and produced upward thrust, the load cells would detect the thrust as a change in weight. According to Fetta, when pulses of RF power were sent into the resonant cavity, there was a reduction in compressive force on the load cells that could indicate thrust.

None of these results were published in the scientific literature, replicated by independent researchers, or replicated consistently by the inventors. In a few cases details were posted for a time on the inventors' websites, but no such documents remain online as of 2019.[77]

In 2015, Shawyer published an article in Acta Astronautica, summarising existing tests on the EmDrive. Of seven tests, four produced a measured force in the intended direction and three produced thrust in the opposite direction. Furthermore, in one test, thrust could be produced in either direction by varying the spring constants in the measuring apparatus.[78]

Northwestern Polytechnical University

In 2008, a team of Chinese researchers led by Juan Yang (杨涓), professor of propulsion theory and engineering of aeronautics and astronautics at Northwestern Polytechnical University (NWPU) in Xi'an, China, said that they had developed a valid electro-magnetic theory behind a microwave resonant cavity thruster.[20][79] A demonstration version of the drive was built and tested with different cavity shapes and at higher power levels in 2010. Using an aerospace engine test stand usually used to precisely test spacecraft engines like ion drives,[18][57][58] they reported a maximum thrust of 720 mN at 2,500 W of input power.[58] Yang noted that her results were tentative, and said she "[was] not able to discuss her work until more results are published".[18] This positive result was over 100x more thrust per input power than any other experiment.

In a 2014 follow-up experiment (published in 2016), Yang could not reproduce the 2010 observation and suggested it was due to experimental error.[21] In that experiment they refined their experimental setup, using a three-wire torsion pendulum to measure thrust, and tested two different power setups. In one trial, the power system was outside the cavity, and they observed a "thrust" of 8–10 mN. In a second trial, the power system was within the cavity, and they measured no such thrust. Instead they observed an insignificant thrust below their noise threshold of 3 mN, fluctuating between ±0.7 mN with a measurement uncertainty of 80%, with 230 W of input power. They concluded that they were unable to measure significant thrust; that "thrust" measured when using external power sources (as in their 2010 experiment) could be noise; and that it was important to use self-contained power systems for these experiments, and more sensitive pendulums with lower torsional stiffness.[21]

NASA Eagleworks

Since 2011, White has had a team at NASA known as the Advanced Propulsion Physics Laboratory, or Eagleworks Laboratories, which is devoted to studying exotic propulsion concepts.[80] The group has investigated ideas for a wide range of untested and fringe proposals, including Alcubierre drives, drives that interact with the quantum vacuum, and RF resonant cavity thrusters.

In 2014, the group began testing resonant cavity thrusters of their own design and sharing some of their results. In November 2016, they published their first peer-reviewed paper on this work, in the Journal of Propulsion and Power.[23][81][82]

EmDrive and tapered cavities

In July 2014, White reported tentative positive results for evaluating a tapered RF resonant cavity.[3] Testing was performed using a low-thrust torsion pendulum able to detect force at the micronewton level within a sealed but unevacuated vacuum chamber (the RF power amplifier used an electrolytic capacitor unable to operate in a hard vacuum).[3] The experimenters recorded directional thrust immediately upon application of power.

Their first tests of this tapered cavity were conducted at very low power (2% of Shawyer's 2002 experiment). A net mean thrust over five runs was measured at 91.2 µN at 17 W of input power.[3] The experiment was criticized for its small data set and for not having been conducted in vacuum, to eliminate thermal air currents.

The group announced a plan to upgrade their equipment to higher power levels, to use vacuum-capable RF amplifiers with power ranges of up to 125 W, and to design a new tapered cavity that could be in the 0.1 N/kW range. The test article was to be subject to independent verification and validation at Glenn Research Center, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.[3][83] As of 2016, this validation has not happened.[84]

In 2015, Paul March from Eagleworks made new results public, measured with a torsional pendulum in a hard vacuum: about 50 µN with 50 W of input power at 5.0×10−6 torr.[83] The new RF power amplifiers were said to be made for hard vacuum, but failed rapidly due to internal corona discharges. Without funding to replace or upgrade them, measurements were scarce for a time.[85]

They conducted further experiments in vacuum, a set of 18 observations with 40-80W of input power. They published the results in the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics's peer-reviewed Journal of Propulsion and Power, under the title "Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum". This was released online in November 2016, with print publication in December.[23][81][82] The study said that the system was "consistently performing with a thrust-to-power ratio of 1.2±0.1mN/kW", and enumerated many potential sources of error.[23]

The paper suggested that pilot-wave theory (a controversial, non-mainstream deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics) could explain how the device produces thrust.[23][81][82] Commenters pointed out that just because a study reporting consistent thrust was published with peer-review does not necessarily mean that the drive functions as claimed.[16] Physicist Chris Lee was very critical of the work, saying that the paper had a small data set and a number of missing details he described as 'gaping holes'.[86] Electrical Engineer George Hathaway analyzed and criticized the scientific method described in the paper.[87]

Cannae drive

White's 2014 tests also evaluated two Cannae drive prototypes.[3] One had radial slots engraved along the bottom rim of the resonant cavity interior, as required by Fetta's hypothesis to produce thrust;[52] another "null" test article lacked those radial slots. Both drives were equipped with an internal dielectric.[3] A third test article, the experimental control, had an RF load but no resonant cavity interior. These tests took place at atmospheric pressure.

About the same net thrust was reported for both the device with radial slots and the device without slots. Thrust was not reported for the experimental control. Some considered the positive result for the non-slotted device a possible flaw in the experiment, as the null test device had been expected to produce less or no thrust based upon Fetta's hypothesis of how thrust was produced by the device.[1][88][89] In the complete paper, however, White concluded that the test results proved that "thrust production was not dependent upon slotting".[3]

Dresden University of Technology

In July 2015, an aerospace research group at the Dresden University of Technology (TUD) under Martin Tajmar reported results for an evaluation of an RF resonant tapered cavity similar to the EmDrive.[90] Testing was performed first on a knife-edge beam balance able to detect force at the micronewton level, atop an antivibration granite table at ambient air pressure; then on a torsion pendulum with a force resolution of 0.1 mN, inside a vacuum chamber at ambient air pressure and in a hard vacuum at 400 μPa (4×10−6 mbar).

They used a conventional ISM band 2.45 GHz 700 W oven magnetron, and a small cavity with a low Q factor (20 in vacuum tests). They observed small positive thrusts in the positive direction and negative thrusts in the negative direction, of about 20 µN in a hard vacuum. However, when they rotated the cavity upwards as a "null" configuration, they observed an anomalous thrust of hundreds of micronewtons, significantly larger than the expected result of zero thrust. This indicated a strong source of noise which they could not identify. This led them to conclude that they could not confirm or refute claims about such a thruster. At the time they considered future experiments with better magnetic shielding, other vacuum tests and improved cavities with higher Q factors.

In 2018, the TU Dresden research team presented a conference paper summarizing the results from the most recent experiments on their upgraded test rig, which seemed to show that their measured thrust was a result of experimental error from insufficiently shielded components interacting with the earth's magnetic field.[91] In their experiments, they measured thrust values consistent with previous experiments, and the thrust reversed appropriately when the thruster was rotated by 180°. However, the team also measured thrust perpendicular to the expected direction when the thruster was rotated by 90°, and did not measure a reduction in thrust when an attenuator was used to reduce the power that actually entered the resonant cavity by a factor of 10,000, which they said "clearly indicates that the "thrust" is not coming from the EMDrive but from some electromagnetic interaction." They concluded that "magnetic interaction from not sufficiently shielded cables or thrusters are a major factor that needs to be taken into account for proper μN thrust measurements for these type of devices," and they plan on conducting future tests at higher power and at different frequencies, and with improved shielding and cavity geometry.[92][91]

Tests in space

In August 2016, Cannae announced plans to launch its thruster on a 6U cubesat which they would run for 6 months to observe how it functions in space. Cannae has formed a company called Theseus for the venture and partnered with LAI International and SpaceQuest Ltd. to launch the satellite. No launch date has yet been announced.[56]

In November 2016, the International Business Times published an unconfirmed report that the U.S. government was testing a version of the EmDrive on the Boeing X-37B and that the Chinese government has made plans to incorporate the EmDrive on its orbital space laboratory Tiangong-2.[93] The US Air Force has only confirmed that the X-37B mission in question did an electric propulsion system test using a Hall-effect thruster, a type of ion thruster that uses a gaseous propellant.[94][95]

In December 2016, Yue Chen told a reporter at China's Science and Technology Daily that his team was testing an EmDrive in orbit, and that they had been funding research in the area for five years. Chen noted that their prototype's thrust was at the "micronewton to millinewton level", which would have to be scaled up to at least 100–1000 millinewtons for a chance of conclusive experimental results. Despite this, he said his goal was to complete validation of the drive, and then to make such technology available in the field of satellite engineering "as quickly as possible".[96][97][98][99][61]

Experimental errors

Experimental errors in the testing of the prototypes generally fall into four categories[100]

  • Measurement errors. Most theoretical scientists who have looked at the EmDrive believe this to be the likely case.
  • Electromagnetic effects.
  • Exhaust not being measured or taken into account.
  • Speculation that our current understanding of the laws of physics are completely wrong.

Measurement errors
Main article: Observational error

The simplest and most likely explanation is that any thrust detected is due to experimental error or noise. In all of the experiments set up, a very large amount of energy goes into generating a tiny amount of thrust. When attempting to measure a small signal superimposed on a large signal, the noise from the large signal can obscure the small signal and give incorrect results. The strongest early result, from Yang's group in China, was later reported to be caused by an experimental error.[21]

Shift in center of gravity due to thermal effects
Infrared image showing heating of the heat sink

The largest error source is believed to come from the thermal expansion of the thruster's heat sink; as it expands this would lead to a change in the centre of gravity causing the resonant cavity to move. White's team attempted to model the thermal effect on the overall displacement by using a superposition of the displacements caused by "thermal effects" and "impulsive thrust" with White saying "That was the thing we worked the hardest to understand and put in a box". Despite these efforts, White's team were unable to fully account for the thermal expansion. In an interview with Aerospace America, White comments that "although maybe we put a little bit of a pencil mark through [thermal errors]... they are certainly not black-Sharpie-crossed-out."[101]

Their method of accounting for thermal effects has been criticized by Millis and Davies, who highlight that there is a lack of both mathematical and empirical detail to justify the assumptions made about those effects. For example, they do not provide data on temperature measurement over time compared to device displacement. The paper includes a graphical chart, but it is based on a priori assumptions about what the shapes of the "impulsive thrust" and "thermal effects" should be, and how those signals will superimpose. The model further assumes all noise to be thermal and does not include other effects such as interaction with the chamber wall, power lead forces, and tilting. Because the Eagleworks paper has no explicit model for thrust to compare with the observations, it is ultimately subjective, and its data can be interpreted in more than one way. The Eagleworks test, therefore, does not conclusively show a thrust effect, but cannot rule it out either.[74]

White suggested future experiments could run on a Cavendish balance. In such a setup, the thruster could rotate out to much larger angular displacements, letting a thrust (if present) dominate any possible thermal effects. Testing a device in space would also eliminate the center-of-gravity issue. [101]

Electromagnetic interaction with the vacuum chamber's wall

Another source of error could have arisen from electromagnetic interaction with the walls of the vacuum chamber.[101] White argued that any wall interaction could only be the result of a well-formed resonance coupling between the device and wall and that the high frequency used imply the chances of this would be highly dependent on the device's geometry. As components get warmer due to thermal expansion, the device's geometry changes, shifting the resonance of the cavity. In order to counter this effect and keep the system in optimal resonance conditions, White used a phase-locked loop system (PLL). Their analysis assumed that using a PLL ruled out significant electromagnetic interaction with the wall.[23]

Lorentz force from power leads

Another potential source of error was a Lorentz force arising from power leads. Many previous experiments used cups with Galinstan metal alloy, which is liquid at room temperature, to supply electrical power to the device in lieu of solid wires. Martin Tajmar and his graduate student Fiedler characterized and attempted to quantify possible sources of error in their experiment at Dresden University of Technology. They ran multiple tests on their experimental setup, including measurements of the force along different axes with respect to the power supply current. While eliminating or accounting for many other sources of error in previous experiments, such as replacing a magnetic damping mechanism with an oil damper, less efficient but significantly less interacting with electromagnetic field, the study remained inconclusive as to the effects of electromagnetic interaction with the apparatus' power feed, at the same time noting it as possibly the most significant source of noise.[90] White's power setup may have been different, but their paper does not state if the connections are all coaxially aligned with the stand's rotation axis, which would be required to minimize errors from Lorentz forces, and it gives no data from equivalent tests with power into a dummy load so these influences can be compared with those seen in the Tajmar-Fiedler run.[74]

Speculation regarding new physical laws

White's 2016 paper went through about a year of peer review involving five referees.[101][16] Peer review does not mean the results or observations are true, only that the referees looked at the experiment, results and interpretation and found it to be sound and sensible.[16] Brice Cassenti, a professor at the University of Connecticut and an expert in advanced propulsion, spoke to one of the referees, and reported the referee did not believe the results point to any new physics, but that the results were puzzling enough to publish.[75] Cassenti believes there is a mundane explanation for the results, but the probability of the results being valid is slim but not zero.[75]

White's paper was published in the Journal of Propulsion and Power. Marc Millis and Eric Davies who ran NASA's previous advanced propulsion project, the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program have commented that while White used techniques that would be acceptable for checking the electric propulsion of Hall thrusters, the tests were not sufficient to demonstrate that any new physics effect exists.[74]

gollark: Trying with "beware apioforms" instead...
gollark: > Apparently the picture is palaiologos's picture is palaiologos's picture.
gollark: > My opinion on apioforms is ~~not real~~<|endoftext|>If you do things people can do that subject to memetic campaigns.<|endoftext|>You can't do that with Autobotrobot.<|endoftext|>A finite but arbitrarily large quantity of apioforms in a finite time and the GTech™️™️™️™️™️ sphere station capacity.<|endoftext|>They can do that.<|endoftext|>Wait, is this using the advanced heavserver emitter or something?<|endoftext|>In a sense, I mean.<|endoftext|>The picture secretly encodes the entire image into a microcontrollers.<|endoftext|>Well, the picture contains a finite but arbitrarily large quantity of bees.<|endoftext|>https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/47791692185690374144/ferriswd0c68/unknown.png<|endoftext|>Apparently the picture is palaiologos's picture is palaiologos's picture.<|endoftext|><|endoftext|>https://media.discordapp
gollark: Not my phone.
gollark: I mean, you're actually being emulated on one of the GTech™ computing servers.

See also

Notes

    References
    1. Powell, Corey S. (6 August 2014). "Did NASA Validate an "Impossible" Space Drive? In a Word, No". Discover. Retrieved 6 August 2014.
    2. Fearn, H.; Woodward, J. F. (May 2016). "Breakthrough Propulsion I: The Quantum Vacuum" (PDF). Journal of the British Interplanetary Society. 59 (5): 155–162. Bibcode:2016JBIS...69..155F.
    3. Brady, David A.; White, Harold G.; March, Paul; Lawrence, James T.; Davies, Franck J. (30 July 2014). Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum (PDF). 50th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. doi:10.2514/6.2014-4029. Retrieved 31 July 2014. Lay summary (PDF) – NASA (30 July 2014).
    4. "The Impossible Propulsion Drive Is Heading to Space". popularmechanics.com. 2 September 2016. Retrieved 9 October 2017.
    5. Crew, Bec. "The 'Impossible' EM Drive Is About to Be Tested in Space". sciencealert.com. Retrieved 9 October 2017.
    6. "NASA Team Claims 'Impossible' Space Engine Works—Get the Facts". National Geographic. 21 November 2016. Retrieved 9 October 2017.
    7. Seeker (19 November 2016). "How The 'Impossible Drive' Could Break Newton's Third Law". Retrieved 9 October 2017 – via YouTube.
    8. Ratner, Paul (7 September 2016). "EM Drive, the Impossible Rocket Engine, May Be Closer to Reality". bigthink.com.
    9. Poitras, Colin (7 December 2016). "To Mars in 70 days: Expert discusses NASA's study of paradoxical EM propulsion drive". Phys.org. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
    10. "China Claims To Have Built A Version Of NASA's 'Impossible Engine' That Uses NO Fuel". HuffPost UK. 13 September 2017. Retrieved 20 July 2019.
    11. "Can the 'impossible' space drive survive falsification in orbit? – ExtremeTech". extremetech.com. 16 September 2016. Retrieved 1 November 2017.
    12. Torchinsky, Jason. "How The 'Impossible' Space Drive Engine May Work". jalopnik.com. Retrieved 1 November 2017.
    13. Hambling, David (7 August 2014). "10 questions about Nasa's 'impossible' space drive answered". Wired UK. Retrieved 1 November 2017.
    14. Shawyer, Roger (September 2006). "A Theory of Microwave Propulsion for Spacecraft (Theory paper v.9.3)" (PDF). New Scientist. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 May 2018.
    15. Breeze, Nick (29 July 2015). "Roger Shawyer, EmDrive Interview, 2015". Envisionation UK.
    16. Drake, Nadia; Greshko, Michael (21 November 2016). "NASA Team Claims 'Impossible' Space Engine Works—Get the Facts". National Geographic. Nationalgeographic.com. Retrieved 23 November 2016.
    17. "'Impossible' EmDrive Space Thruster May Really Be Impossible". Space.com. Retrieved 3 September 2018.
    18. Hambling, David (6 February 2013). "EmDrive: China's radical new space drive". Wired UK.
    19. Hambling, David (5 November 2012). "Propellentless Space Propulsion Research Continues". Aviation Week & Space Technology.
    20. Hambling, David (24 September 2008). "Chinese Say They're Building 'Impossible' Space Drive". Wired.
    21. Yang, J.; Liu, X.-C.; Wang, Y.-G.; Tang, M.-J.; Luo, L.-T.; Jin, Y.-Z.; Ning, Z.-X. (February 2016). "Thrust Measurement of an Independent Microwave Thruster Propulsion Device with Three-Wire Torsion Pendulum Thrust Measurement System". Journal of Propulsion Technology (in Chinese). 37 (2): 362–371.
    22. "EM Drive Developments, NASA spaceflight forums, discussion of Yang's 2016 paper". forum.nasaspaceflight.com. Retrieved 14 September 2016.
    23. White, Harold; March, Paul; Lawrence, James; Vera, Jerry; Sylvester, Andre; Brady, Davi; Bailey, Paul (17 November 2016). "Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum". Journal of Propulsion and Power. 33 (4): 830–841. doi:10.2514/1.B36120. hdl:2060/20170000277.
    24. Russon, Mary-Ann (13 December 2016). "EmDrive: Chinese space agency to put controversial tech onto satellites 'as soon as possible'". International Business Times. Retrieved 15 December 2016.
    25. Russon, Mary-Ann (14 December 2016). "EmDrive: These are the problems China must fix to make microwave thrusters work on satellites". International Business Times. Retrieved 15 December 2016.
    26. 操秀英 (11 December 2016). "电磁驱动：天方夜谭还是重大突破 我国正开展关键技术攻关，争取5年内实现工程应用" [EmDrive: Fantasy or major breakthrough]. Science and Technology Daily (in Chinese). Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China. Retrieved 15 December 2016.
    27. Kumar, Kalyan (26 December 2016). "China Confirms EmDrive Research, Plans To Use The Technology On Chinese Satellites As Soon As Possible". Retrieved 28 December 2016.
    28. Gallagher, Sophie (13 September 2017). "China Claims To Have Built A Version Of NASA's 'Impossible Engine' That Uses NO Fuel". The Huffington Post UK.
    29. Webb, Jeremy (3 October 2006). "Emdrive on trial". New Scientist Publisher's blog.
    30. David Hambling (31 July 2014). "Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive". Wired. Retrieved 6 September 2016.
    31. Powell, Corey S. (6 August 2014). "Did NASA Validate an "Impossible" Space Drive? In a Word, No". Discover magazine. Retrieved 16 February 2016.
    32. Millis, Marc; Hathaway, George; Tajmar, Martin; Davis, Eric; Maclay, Jordan (30 December 2016). Gilster, Paul (ed.). "Uncertain Propulsion Breakthroughs?". Centauri Dreams.
    33. Egan, Greg (19 September 2006). Baez, John C. (ed.). "A Plea to Save New Scientist". The n-Category Café (a group blog on math, physics and philosophy).
    34. Baez, John. "The incredible shrinking force". Google Plus. Retrieved 6 August 2014.
    35. Fearn, H.; Woodward, J. F. (October 2016). "Breakthrough Propulsion II: A Mass Change Experiment". Journal of the British Interplanetary Society. 59 (10): 331–339. Bibcode:2016JBIS...69..331F.
    36. Dvorsky, George (28 July 2015). "No, German Scientists Have Not Confirmed the "Impossible" EMDrive". io9.
    37. NASA's 'Impossible' Space Engine Tested—Here Are the Results. Nadia Drake, National Geographic. 22 May 2018.
    38. 'Impossible' EmDrive Space Thruster May Really Be Impossible. Mike Wall, Space.com. May 23, 2018,
    39. The SpaceDrive Project - First Results on EMDrive and Mach-Effect Thrusters. (PDF) Martin Tajmar, Matthias Kößling, Marcel Weikert, and Maxime Monette. Technische Universität Dresden, Germany. Presented at Barcelo Renacimiento Hotel, Seville, Spain 14 – 18 MAY 2018.
    40. Margaret, Hodge (5 December 2006). "Answer about the Electromagnetic Relativity Drive". Column 346W. Daily Hansard Official Report. London: House of Commons of the United Kingdom.
    41. "Roger Shawyer – EM Space Drive – Articles & Patent".
    42. Tom Shelley (14 May 2007). "No-propellant drive prepares for space and beyond". Eureka Magazine. Retrieved 4 May 2015.
    43. Alvin Wilby. "Emdrive? No thanks". New Scientist.
    44. Paul Friedlander. "Emdrive on trial". New Scientist.
    45. "End User Undertaking.pdf". Retrieved 9 October 2017.
    46. Shawyer, Roger (November–December 2015). "Second generation EmDrive propulsion applied to SSTO launcher and interstellar probe" (PDF). Acta Astronautica. 116: 166–174. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2015.07.002.
    47. Mary-Ann Russon (14 October 2016). "EmDrive exclusive: Roger Shawyer confirms MoD and DoD interested in controversial space propulsion tech". International Business Times.
    48. Shawyer, Roger (1 November 2015). "Second generation EmDrive propulsion applied to SSTO launcher and interstellar probe" (PDF). Acta Astronautica. 116: 166–174. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2015.07.002.
    49. Mary-Ann Russon (12 October 2016). "EmDrive: Roger Shawyer is patenting a new design for next-gen superconducting thruster". International Business Times.
    50. WO application 2016162676, SHAWYER, Roger John & CARDOZO, Gilo, "Superconducting Microwave Radiation Thruster", published 2016-10-16, assigned to Satellite Propulsion Research Ltd.
    51. WO application 2007089284, Fetta, Guido Paul, "Resonating cavity propulsion system", published 2007-11-15, assigned to Fetta, Guido Paul
    52. "Cannae Drive". Cannae LLC website. Retrieved 31 July 2014.
    53. US application 2014013724, Fetta, Guido P., "Electromagnetic thruster", published 2014-01-16, assigned to Cannae LLC
    54. Fetta, Guido P. (30 August 2014). Numerical and Experimental Results for a Novel Propulsion Technology Requiring no On-Board Propellant. 50th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. doi:10.2514/6.2014-3853.
    55. WO application 2016004044, Fetta, Guido P., "Electromagnetic thrusting system", published 2016-01-07, assigned to Cannae LLC
    56. "The Impossible Propulsion Drive Is Heading to Space". 2 September 2016. Retrieved 14 September 2016.
    57. Yang, Juan; Wang, Yu-Quan; Ma, Yan-Jie; Li, Peng-Fei; Yang, Le; Wang, Yang; He, Guo-Qiang (May 2013). "Prediction and experimental measurement of the electromagnetic thrust generated by a microwave thruster system" (PDF). Chinese Physics B. 22 (5): 050301. Bibcode:2013ChPhB..22e0301Y. doi:10.1088/1674-1056/22/5/050301.
    58. Shi, Feng; Yang, Juan; Tang, Ming-Jie; Luo, Li-Tao; Wang, Yu-Quan (September 2014). "Resonance experiment on a microwave resonator system" (PDF). Chinese Physics B (in Chinese). 63 (15): 154103. doi:10.7498/aps.63.154103.
    59. CN application 105781921A, Chen, Yue; Peng Weifeng & Bai Guangming et al., "Electromagnetic thruster cavity based on periodic structure", published 2016-07-20, assigned to China Academy of Space Technology
    60. CN application 105947224A, Chen, Yue; Peng Weifeng & Bai Guangming, "An electromagnetic propulsion system and method", published 2016-09-21, assigned to China Academy of Space Technology
    61. Lin, Jeffrey; Singer, P. W. (20 December 2016). "EmDrive: China Claims Success With This "Reactionless" Engine for Space Travel". popsci.com. Popular Science. Retrieved 21 December 2016.
    62. Propellantless propulsion: The Chinese EmDrive by CAST scientist Dr Chen Yue, China's Space Agency on YouTube
    63. Lee, C. (8 February 2013). "Generating Thrust Without Fuel Relies on Missing Details". arstechnica.com. Archived from the original on 11 May 2017.
    64. Maxey, K. "Propulsion on an Interstellar Scale – the Quantum Vacuum Plasma Thruster". engineering.com. engineering.com. Archived from the original on 15 February 2013.
    65. Lafleur, T. (2014). "Can the Quantum Vacuum be Used as a Reaction Medium to Generate Thrust?". arXiv:1411.5359 [quant-ph].
    66. Cho, A. (23 January 2004). "Momentum From Nothing". Phys. Rev. Focus. 13. doi:10.1103/PhysRevFocus.13.3. ISSN 1539-0748.
    67. Ball, P. (2 February 2003). "Movement From Nothing". Nature. doi:10.1038/news040126-19. Archived from the original on 1 February 2017.
    68. White, H.; March, P.; Williams, N.; O'Neill, W. (2011). "Eagleworks Laboratories: Advanced Propulsion Physics Research" (PDF). NASA.
    69. White, H.; March, P. (2012). "Advanced Propulsion Physics: Harnessing the Quantum Vacuum" (PDF). Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space.
    70. White, H. (5 November 2014). "NASA Ames Research Director's Colloquium: Eagleworks Laboratories: Advanced Propulsion". NASA's Ames Research Center – via YouTube. 56m:21s That test article is trying to establish more accurately the requirements as required by the mathematics – working with negative vacuum energy – the Casimir force.
    71. McCulloch, M. E. (2013). "Inertia From an Asymmetric Casimir Effect". EPL. 101 (5): 59001. arXiv:1302.2775. Bibcode:2013EL....10159001M. doi:10.1209/0295-5075/101/59001. ISSN 0295-5075.
    72. Freeman, D. (2015). "Warp Drives and Science Fictions". berkeleysciencereview.com. UC Berkeley. Archived from the original on 12 June 2017.
    73. Marcus, A. (12 October 2009). "Research in a Vacuum: DARPA Tries to Tap Elusive Casimir Effect for Breakthrough Technology". Scientific American. Archived from the original on 2 March 2015.
    74. Millis, M.; Hathaway, G.; Tajmar, M.; Davis, E.; Maclay, J. (30 December 2016). "Uncertain Propulsion Breakthroughs?". centauri-dreams.org. Tau Zero Foundation. Archived from the original on 30 December 2016.
    75. Poitras, C. (6 December 2016). "To Mars in 70 Days. Science Fiction or Fact?". today.uconn.edu. University of Connecticut. Archived from the original on 5 March 2017.
    76. Fisher, Richard (5 November 2004). "Defying gravity: UK team claims engine based on microwaves could revolutionise spacecraft propulsion". The Engineer. 293 (7663): 8.
    77. Fetta's experimental notes are no longer available, but an archived version as of 2 November 2012 is on archive.org: EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS (retrieved 11 February 2015)
    78. Shawyer, Roger (1 November 2015). "Second generation EmDrive propulsion applied to SSTO launcher and interstellar probe". Acta Astronautica. 116: 166–174. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2015.07.002.
    79. ZHU, Yu; YANG, Juan; MA, Nan (September 2008). "The Performance Analysis of Microwave Thrust Without Propellant Based on the Quantum Theory". Journal of Astronautics (in Chinese). 29 (5): 1612–1615.
    80. White, Harold; March, Paul; Nehemiah, Williams; O'Neill, William (5 December 2011). Eagleworks Laboratories: Advanced Propulsion Physics Research. NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS) (Technical report). NASA. JSC-CN-25207.
    81. Burgess, Matt (21 November 2016). "Nasa's 'impossible' EmDrive could work, study says". Wired. Wired.com. Retrieved 22 November 2016.
    82. Johnson, Lief (19 November 2016). "NASA's Peer-Reviewed Paper on the EmDrive Is Now Online". Motherboard.com. Retrieved 22 November 2016.
    83. Wang, Brian (6 February 2015). "Update on EMDrive work at NASA Eagleworks". NextBigFuture. Archived from the original on 15 March 2016. Retrieved 8 February 2015.
    84. Topic: EM Drive Developments – related to space flight applications – Thread 8, Nasa Spaceflight Forum, posts by Paul March, 26 November 2016.
    85. Wang, Brian (7 February 2015). "NASA Emdrive experiments have force measurements while the device is in a hard vacuum". NextBigFuture. Archived from the original on 8 February 2015. Retrieved 8 February 2015.
    86. Lee, Chris (23 November 2016). "NASA's EM-drive still a WTF-thruster". arstechnica.co.uk. Retrieved 23 November 2016.
    87. Hathaway, George (3 January 2017). Gilster, Paul (ed.). "Close Look at Recent EmDrive Paper". Centauri Dreams.
    88. Timmer, John (1 August 2014). "Don't buy stock in impossible space drives just yet". Ars Technica. Ars Technica. Retrieved 2 August 2014.
    89. Nelsen, Eleanor (31 July 2014). "Improbable Thruster Seems to Work by Violating Known Laws of Physics". Nova. PBS. Retrieved 1 August 2014.
    90. Tajmar, Martin; Fiedler, Georg (July 2015). Direct Thrust Measurements of an EM Drive and Evaluation of Possible Side-Effects (PDF). 51st AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. doi:10.2514/6.2015-4083. Retrieved 26 July 2015.
    91. "'Impossible' EM drive doesn't seem to work after all". New Scientist. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
    92. Tajmar, Martin; Kößling, Matthias; Weikert, Marcel; Monette, Maxime (16 May 2018). The SpaceDrive Project – First Results on EMDrive and Mach-Effect Thrusters. Space Propulsion Conference, at Seville, Spain.
    93. Russon, Mary-Ann (7 November 2016). "Space race revealed: US and China test futuristic EmDrive on Tiangong-2 and mysterious X-37B plane". International Business Times. Retrieved 15 December 2016.
    94. Szondy, David (28 April 2015). "Hall ion thrusters to fly on X-37B spaceplane". newatlas.com. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
    95. Ray, Justin (27 April 2015). "X-37B launch date firms up as new details emerge about experiment". Spaceflight Now. Retrieved 27 April 2015.
    96. Russon, Mary-Ann (13 December 2016). "EmDrive: Chinese space agency to put controversial tech onto satellites 'as soon as possible'". International Business Times. Retrieved 15 December 2016.
    97. Russon, Mary-Ann (14 December 2016). "EmDrive: These are the problems China must fix to make microwave thrusters work on satellites". International Business Times. Retrieved 15 December 2016.
    98. 操秀英 (11 December 2016), "电磁驱动：天方夜谭还是重大突破 我国正开展关键技术攻关，争取5年内实现工程应用" [EmDrive: Fantasy or major breakthrough], Science and Technology Daily (in Chinese), retrieved 15 December 2016
    99. Yan, Li (21 December 2016). "Mars could be getting closer and closer, if this science isn't m". China News Service (中国新闻社). Retrieved 21 December 2016.
    100. "The Impossible' EmDrive Thruster Has Cleared Its First Credibility Hurdle – D-brief". D-brief (Discover Magazine). 21 November 2016. Retrieved 23 November 2016.
    101. Hadhazy, A. (2016). "Fuel Free Space Travel" (PDF). Aerospace America. February 2017: 16–23.
    This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.