19 votes

Planet X here we come! "Impossible" breakthrough!

 photo nasa-space-drive-emdrivesi_zps298e3f6e.jpg

‘Impossible’ space drive tested by NASA foretells future of deep-space travel

From RT USA:

NASA has conducted long-awaited experiments to prove that the fabled space drive, capable of generating its own thrust and breaking a fundamental law of physics, works. If the find survives fresh scrutiny, space ship construction will be revolutionized.

The drive’s creator, British scientist Roger Shawyer, has been facing criticism since his 2006 claims, based on the premise that thrust can be created without huge thrusters, instead using electricity to direct microwaves inside a special container.

Shawyer’s company, SPR Ltd., writes that it has “demonstrated a remarkable new space propulsion technology. [It] has successfully tested both an experimental thruster and a demonstrator engine which use patented microwave technology to convert electrical energy directly into thrust. No propellant is used in the conversion process. Thrust is produced by the amplification of the radiation pressure of an electromagnetic wave propagated through a resonant waveguide assembly.”

In short, if the results hold up, humanity can say goodbye to huge energy consumption costs associated with space travel, and say hello to deep-space missions and distant world exploration at a fraction of the cost and at 100 times the speed.

See more at:

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

what your seeing here is essentialy sublight engines....

(just the early prototypes!)

For me, this is the key sentence in the paper found at the NASA


Testing was performed on a low-thrust torsion pendulum that is capable of detecting force at a single-digit micronewton level, within a stainless steel vacuum chamber with the door closed but at ambient atmospheric pressure.

In my opinion, the symmetry of particle pair production would negate any thrust created if this device were to be used in a vacuum. For instance, every electron produced at a point in space will be accompanied by a positron at that same position. While the electron would propel the device in one direction, the positron would do the same in an equal but opposite direction - thus, canceling the effect.

I predict that the thrust produced should be proportional to the ambient pressure and will approach zero as the pressure approaches zero.

I imagine there is a reason why they didn't report the results they surely recorded under vacuum conditions. I would like to see the thrust plotted as a function of the pressure before I jumped to any hasty conclusions.

Wouldn't it be the same in air?

Particle pair production in the vacuum energy doesn't care about air pressure.

It would be nice to know the results if such a vacuum test were done, but it may have been done already, and NASA didn't need to duplicate that part.

I don't think the engine would worry about particle pair production of the vacuum energy anyway, it creates a resonating electromagnetic field which interacts with 'something' to create thrust. Maybe it interacts with the energy released at that instant, regardless of particle location and movement, just absorbing the energy. Maybe it's the magnetic field of the earth itself. Or even a large magnetic field nearby. In that type of lab setting, it's a pretty safe bet there are some high power magnets on the premises.

NASA's results were less than the Chinese, maybe they were more or less magnetically shielded? Since the machine really is doing something, it can't be dismissed completely, IMO. Eventually, it'll have to fly in a vacuum. ;)

Just open the box and see

I have given this some more thought...

Considering the Lorentz force on charged particles, it may be possible to produce a net thrust even taking into account the symmetry of particle pair production.


I would agree that I would like to see the results in a vacuum. There could be some sort of atmospheric effect produced by heating or vibration.

NASA's results are a reproduction, it seems the existence of the force isn't in doubt, though it's strength was less in NASA's test.

According to the engine designer:
Thrust is produced by the amplification of the radiation pressure of an electromagnetic wave propagated through a resonant waveguide assembly.

It was NASA that mentioned the possible connection to vacuum energy.

[it] is producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon and therefore is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma

The quantum vacuum energy isn't caused by the spontaneous generation of particles that fly apart, but rather that smash together, annihilating each other. Some do separate, but very few. It doesn't produce any overall net force that I'm aware of.

I certainly agree that a test in a vacuum is an obvious experiment, and I would expect to see some soon, if the device is to be taken seriously as a space engine.

At least in some cases, NASA still gets my respect for their methodology in experimentation. I assume that NASA wouldn't have overlooked any obvious atmospheric effects.
I do suspect NASA of having ulterior motives in many things, but to what end with this particular device? They are supporting findings that don't fit their view of the world.

Here is the third of the Chinese papers, the one that prompted NASA to reproduce it.

I would still be interested to learn how it works, even if it's atmospherically. There may be something to this. How it works is a really good question, but that it works seems clear.

Just open the box and see

In order for annihilation to occur, pair production must first..


My assessment was correct regarding the symmetry of pair production (annihilation is also symmetric - otherwise conservation would be violated). Where I was in error was neglecting to consider the Lorentz force properly.

However, if the force varies as a function of pressure, it will show that everyday matter has a net charge - which would be something new to my knowledge (but something I could explain with an idea that I had a few years back).

The vacuum test is the most important of all the tests. Without those results, this device can't be considered to be operating as described by the NASA document.

As well, the paper you linked to is rather poorly written - as it doesn't clearly specify the experimental conditions. At least the NASA paper stated that the tests were done at atmospheric pressure.

I don't understand how it's not operating

Is your objection that the machine is producing NO force?

NASA's test was only about the force produced, not about how it's produced. A test in a vacuum would show if the force is atmospheric or not, but force is being produced.

It seems your objections all stem from NASA's speculation of how the machine works, they are the ones that brought up the vacuum energy.

NASA's speculations are irrelevant, they don't know how it works either, but their paper says it DOES work. As do the three Chinese papers before it.

I do believe that everyday matter does have a charge, which is also unknown to generally accepted science. Whether that has anything to do with this engines function, I don't know.
Can you share your thoughts about that? I really am curious.

Just open the box and see

Certainly, they have demonstrated their is a force of ~10^-6 N

produced under atmospheric conditions. However, that says nil about it's viability as a propulsion device to be used in space. As I pointed out in my original comment, NASA surely has the data under vacuum - as they performed the tests in a vacuum chamber that had the door closed but was not evacuated. If those results were just as remarkable, they would have presented that data instead. Not including it suggests to me that their observations likely change as a function of atmospheric pressure.

As for the slight charge on matter, one possible explanation would be to think back to the Big Bang and the initial processes that followed. Most people envision an essentially infinitely dense piece of matter that exploded and began spreading throughout the universe. However, that is not necessarily the case.

Imagine an energetic event (perhaps explainable through Membrane Theory, for instance) that created a massive particle pair production event that was long enough in duration to allow matter and antimatter to condense symmetrically into what we call atoms and their antiparticle counterparts. In such systems, protons and antiprotons are blanketed with electrons and positrons, respectively. The central location of the protons and antiprotons in the nuclei would slightly decrease the probability of annihilation over that of the positrons and electrons.

Thus, regular matter, as a result, would be left with a slight positive charge (from an excess of protons) while antimatter would be left with a slight negative charge (from an excess of antiprotons).

If the results from experiments using this "thruster" vary as a function of pressure, in my opinion, they are measuring this excess charge on otherwise assumed neutral atmospheric gases.

It is a very small thrust

Presumably, it can be scaled up a touch for an interstellar drive akin to an ion drive.

I don't see NASA withholding data like you suggest in this instance though. Why would they? If vacuum test data showed no thrust, wouldn't they want that result? It seems they were over a barrel to even do the test.

I don't know why a test would be done in a vacuum chamber, but not evacuated either. Is it possible that they did withhold the data because it actually works much better in a vacuum?
Why would NASA want this device to show promise in their tests when they clearly don't believe it should work at all. If it does, it's not by any rules they understand.

A device that creates 30 to 50 micronewtons of thrust on the planet has no practical application beyond curiosity, but, isn't that enough to generate interest in this? I suspect that interstellar warp drive is a bit of media spin (I never heard of it before this), but the device itself is interesting nonetheless.

If it's generating thrust as you suggest, isn't that a worthy discovery? Would't that be a suggestion of your own theory?

I'm certainly not trying to sell anyone on the hype of whatever this is supposed to become, but I think it's fascinating, if only because there is so much question over HOW it works, but not THAT it works. If it does survive further scrutiny (it's bound to get it now that NASA has weighed in), I will be more interested in it.
If it does get a deeper look by more people, maybe someone will finally release test data in a vacuum, pointing toward your theory. Someone is bound to think "hey, this is supposed to fly in space, doh!"

Just open the box and see

If the experiments under vacuum show no thrust...

they won't get any funding for further research on the matter.

As you stated, however, if the effect is proportional to air pressure, it gives credence to the idea that "everyday" mass has a charge - for which I have given a reasonable hypothesis.

Results that cannot be explained always provide opportunities for progress. That's the heart of scientific development.

Its just a Poynting vector

It is a resonant waveguide just 'tilted' off balance to pickup the radiation pressure on the walls of the waveguide as the electromagnetic radiation is spilled out the other side of the waveguide. The Poynting vector will do the work.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

"just" seems a stretch

to describe a Poynting vector.

But I agree that the Poynting theorem could provide a path toward explanation.

It seems that, short of some elaborate hoax, or some simple mistake made at least 4 times by several scientists, the machine is creating thrust.

It could be as simple as not using a vacuum chamber, as dwalters suggests. I will certainly be looking for tests of that nature eventually, but I won't discount it just because what's happening isn't clearly understood.

I'm not convinced that main stream science knows everything, and I'm pretty sure some of the things they "know" just aren't true.

Just open the box and see

It's my understanding that Poynting's theorem...

would require the surface of the waveguide to have a net charge; however, it was not mentioned to be so in the paper.

The oscillating field induces a net charge.


The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

I would like to see the design of the waveguide...

If the waveguide were to be symmetric, all the forces would cancel.

I would like to see an explosion diagram of the device.

Waveguide cannot be symmetric

or at least the total constructive wave must be imbalanced precisely for the purpose of ensuring the entire system does not just vibrate.

I have not seen the details of the system but gaining those tiny thrust vectors can easily be achieved with Poynting vectors.

This whole concept here makes me think of Thermoacoustic engines used for refrigeration compression. Thermoacoustic engines uses air but it is still is just a wave and a resonator cavity that performs the work.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

For instance, this waveguide has D2h symmetry...

so much for "cannot."

I should have said tri-axis symmetry to be more accurate

1 or 2 axis symmetry is ok. For example a horn, bell or cone would work. A sphere or ellipsoid or dual bell, dual horn etc would not work.

More of a lazy comment than anything else.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

So those with C∞v symmetry?

With C∞v symmetry the resonant frequency of the waveguide would be a function of distance along it's major axis - essentially rendering it undefined. I'm not an expert with respect to waveguides, but my intuition says it wouldn't work.

I can see several design options for vectoring poynting pressure

I am not an expert in this particular field but I am fairly deeply skilled in optical design and I have worked with various RF technologies in different eras of work in the past. I am fairly certain that if I wanted to build something along these lines for a thrust application I could achieve this for small thrusts. I honestly don't think this is worth my time though. I think there are much better avenues for thrust applications that are possible and I think there are probably even better ways for travel other than thrust.

I think Haramein's work opens whole new possibilities for travel that transcends thrust altogether. My brain is moving more towards real Stargates as a future possibility for technological achievement. I like to look way out into the possibilities. Waveguides for thrust all seems relatively simple and intuitively straightforward. Looking at how these techniques could possibly assist in opening holographic portals to any desired point in the universe or in shaping local space time for intrinsic momentum is something more interesting to me.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Just don't leave Earth without the

Brussard deflector or you will be ripped to shreds.

My bags are packed

How long till the Chinese start mass production? Do a little crowd sourcing to fund a cargo ship firefly style. I mean to do a little misbehaving.

Yes ladies and gentlemen,

Yes ladies and gentlemen, NASA has discovered a way to harness all the hot air and bull s.h.i.t. of every politician in the country and use it to propel space craft. What WILL they think of next!

Turn off the TV Propaganda.
Find out what's really going on!
"Your portal to reality!"

SteveMT's picture

NASA need look no further than using its own BS.

By using just their own, they shouldn't need any of the politician's BS. NASA has plenty already.

So 100 times faster gets us to Alpha Centauri

in around 50 years.

Why is electricity in space so taboo

to the extent that the RT article says it is 'breaking the fundamental laws of physics?'

"[Researchers] are investigating the plasma universe. They remind us that interplanetary, interstellar, and intergalactic space if filled with tenuous plasma, a medium that continually defies expectations.

Plasma is distinguished by the presence of charged particles, and freely moving electrons in plasma are the primary carriers of electric currents. For today's innovators, electricity is the key to understanding never-ending surprises of the space age."

-From The Electric Universe, by Thornhill and Talbott

SteveMT's picture

"thrust can be generated out of thin air"

There is no "air" in space! This apparent miracle thrust production sounds like the Fed printing money "out of thin air," which is no miracle at all.
If NASA claims anything to be true, it's a lie until proven otherwise. Let's test this new thrust by using it to go (back) to the moon before we start using it for intergalactic space travel.

"The one thing the paper does not wish to do is explain how the drive works"

What? Are these people crazy? The laws of thermodynamics cannot be thrown under the bus without a clear and detailed explanation.

Thrust does not require air.

Definitely not buying this invention till I see it in action. RT reports won't convince me.

Thrust is just a force pushing on an object. I could thrust a knife into a water melon. You are too locked into the way thrust is generated for planes and spaceships today...they use combustion which requires air yes.

This thing is using a wave to push. An object will remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. Does not matter if that force requires oxygen or air or rainbows and unicorn flatulence. So long as there is a force pushing on a object it will generate thrust.

Newton was first. Thermodynamics was only started after a couple mechanics in a coal mine created a steam engine to pump water out of a mine shaft.

SteveMT's picture

Whether a wave or a rocket engine is used shouldn't matter.

The amount of work involved with moving a mass to a specified velocity is defined by the conditions used. Whether that required amount of energy comes from waves or from thrust, the energy required must be the same.

I stopped reading when I read this...

"breaking a fundamental law of physics"....

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820