NASA confirms ‘impossible’ thruster actually works

AI Thread Summary
NASA has confirmed the functionality of a thruster previously deemed "impossible," which could significantly change space travel. The discussion highlights skepticism regarding the scientific validity of the findings, as they stem from a conference paper rather than peer-reviewed research. Critics point out that the experimental setup involved iterative testing and manual adjustments, raising questions about the reliability of the results. Observations of thrust were made in both test articles, but one was designed to produce thrust while the other was not, complicating the interpretation of the results. The thread has been closed for moderation due to concerns over the scientific rigor of the claims.
Tanelorn
Messages
906
Reaction score
15
Physics news on Phys.org
These articles are all over the place the last couple of days. Yours appears to be a near carbon copy of an article at gizmodo, which in turn got their article from the Spanish gizmodo site, which in turn got their article from The UK Wired site. This would be better as a study in poor scientific journalism than a question about fringe science.

Note very well: We don't discuss fringe science at this site.

All of these articles are based on a recently presented conference paper: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052. This is just a conference paper; we can reject it just on that basis. Conference papers do not count as peer reviewed scientific literature. What's worse, from the paper, emphasis mine,
Integration of the two test articles and their supporting equipment was performed in an iterative fashion between the test bench and the vacuum chamber. In other words, the test article was tested on the bench, then moved to the chamber, then moved back as needed to resolve issues. Manual frequency control was required throughout the test. Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the "null" test article).
The authors couldn't reject the null hypothesis. This might we be just a null result, which is exactly what should be expected.


Thread closed pending moderation.
 
Last edited:
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top