Will the EM Engine survive peer review, or be debunked like cold fusion?

CW4 Guy Butler — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 13:03:29 -0400

For the last two years, NASA has been playing with the EM engine - a reactionless engine that generates thrust using microwave radiation.

Since this violates the law of conservation of momentum, they've tried everything they can think of to eliminate any outside interference - and it still generates thrust. Now it's in peer review - will it survive?

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-nasa-eagleworks-confirms-paper-controversial-space-propulsion-under-peer-review-1551210

EmDrive: Nasa Eagleworks confirms paper on controversial space propulsion is under peer review

Nasa Eagleworks engineer Paul March asks EmDrive fans to be patient as a paper is now being peer-reviewed.

Response by SSG Ed Mikus made Apr 7 at 2016 1:10 PM

SSG Ed Mikus — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 13:10:25 -0400

I hope so!

Response by Capt Daniel Goodman made Apr 7 at 2016 1:16 PM

Capt Daniel Goodman — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 13:16:47 -0400

Look at http://www.spacewarpdynamicsllc.com I'd mentioned it as a shared link before you might possibly find it of serious interest the science while unusual strikes me as apparently quite well founded at least theoretically...

spacewarp

Response by Capt Daniel Goodman made Apr 7 at 2016 1:17 PM

Capt Daniel Goodman — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 13:17:34 -0400

And if had of course read of the em engine you'd mentioned here as well...

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Apr 7 at 2016 1:25 PM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 13:25:47 -0400

From what little engineering information is provided in the article, I'm going with "it will be debunked". While microwaves have momentum without mass, this doesn't help overcome the conservation of momentum law. The thrust provided at this point is so tiny, it might be the unseen result of an open system that appears to be a closed system. Very small amounts of EM energy or even ions or electrons emitted from the backside (outside flat portion) of the closed cone would make it an open system. Until the concept is scaled up to move thrust beyond the "error bars" in the test equipment, I remain skeptical.

Response by SGT Chris Birkinbine made Apr 7 at 2016 3:08 PM

SGT Chris Birkinbine — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 15:08:36 -0400

Without having read the whitepaper or their actual research it is hard to say. This really hits home the importance of peer review in scientific research however. This might sound like a cop-out answer, but in every situation similar to this, either a mistake is pointed out, or physical law is redefined. It will be very interesting to see which. What should be obvious is that SOMETHING is going on.

It reminds me of the famed anti-gravity device favored by conspiracy theorists, developed by Thomas Brown. The killing blow there was that the physical effects did not exist in a vacuum, and thus lead to the discovery of previously unknown or at least not well understood effects of electrohydrodynamics.

My scientific gut tells me, that something similar will be found here. The important question will inevitably be, however, is if whatever is the cause - is it scalable. If it is not scalable, then it is just a scientific curiosity, and not actually usable as a source of propulsion. Either way, I look forward to finding out.