NASA confirms ‘impossible’ thruster actually works

Click For 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:
For simple comparison, I think the same thought process can be followed as a block slides down a hill, - for block down hill, simple starting PE of mgh to final max KE 0.5mv^2 - comparing PE1 to max KE2 would result in finding the work friction did through the process. efficiency is just 100*KE2/PE1. If a mousetrap car travels along a flat surface, a starting PE of 0.5 k th^2 can be measured and maximum velocity of the car can also be measured. If energy efficiency is defined by...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
8K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
7K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K