Shawyer's EMdrive: Lift a Car Against Gravity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kosta
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the claims made regarding a superconducting cavity that purportedly generates 30,000 Newtons per kilowatt, sufficient to lift a large car against gravity. The main contention is whether this technology could enable significant acceleration in space, potentially allowing for rapid travel to Mars. Participants express skepticism about the feasibility of the claims, noting concerns about conservation of momentum and the implications of radiation pressure. The effectiveness of the Lorentz Force in this context is questioned, particularly regarding the assumptions made in the original formulation of the force. Overall, the consensus leans towards viewing the claims as unsubstantiated, with calls for the discussion to be closed due to the lack of peer-reviewed support for the underlying theories.
Kosta
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
http://www.shelleys.demon.co.uk/fdec02em.htm"
And check out new scientist's issue last week if you have subscription, http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2568/25681401.jpg"

What do you guys think of the science behind this? He says with a superconducting cavity he could get 30,000 Newtons per kilowatt - enough to lift(hover) a large car.

He says it wouldn't be useful for propulsion but if it can lift a car againts gravity for a long period of time.. remove that gravity (such as in space) would it not go flying? And would it not be able to achieve at least 1g acceleration? (ie eath-to mars(median 280mil km) in just under 4 days including turnaround)

Thanks, (whats my nick again?):confused:

P.S btw sry if this has been posted before, I searched.. nothing .. I am new..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
It seems to violate conservation of momentum, but I'm a bit rusty as to taking into account the momentum contained in the EM field. Also, I don't think the radiation pressure on one side of the cavity would be smaller than the other since the effective areas are the same once you take into account the sloped inner surface.
 
From the diagram, it is pretty simple to understand why it doesn't work: radiation pressure is what he's talking about and pressure is force over area. The pressure on one side would be higher than the other, but the net force is the same in both directions.

In the photo of his demonstration device, I notice there is something sitting under the side of the balance that his device is sitting on...
 
Last edited:
What does Lorentz Force have to do with this machine? In his paper, he uses a shortened version for the force which neglects the cross-product between velocity and the magnetic field. In Shawyer's formulation the force is just placed there without regard for the direction.
 
By all appearances, this is a crank claim and not worth discussing. The paper has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

This thread should have been locked long ago.
 

Thread 'Today I Learned'

Every day we learn new things. Sometimes it's just a small fact or realization. No matter how trivial or random, let's start recording our daily lessons. Please start off with "Today I learned". Keep commentary to a minimum and just LIKE posts. I'll start! Today I learned that you clean up a white hat by spraying some cleaner with bleach on it (rinse before putting it back on your head!)
View full post »

Similar threads

What if Gravity could be controlled?
Replies
1
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top