News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:EmDrive study officially published by CydeWeys on Saturday November 19, 2016 @05:37PM (#12996107)
The emdrive (at least the current version) requires way more power per Newton of force than even ion engines, which are themselves famously power hungry. You definitely could not get free energy out of an emdrive because the amount of power required to run it is way more than you'd get out.

The advantage of the emdrive is that it does not require reaction mass, at the cost of incredibly high power consumption. Unfortunately that makes it not really viable for anything; ion drives are limited by power, not reaction mass, so the emdrive is actually worse because it uses way more in power than it saves in not needing reaction mass.

Re:EmDrive study officially published by wcoenen on Saturday November 19, 2016 @06:07PM (#12996256)
The drive being power hungry would not change the fact that kinetic energy goes up quadratically with speed (E=(m*v^2)/2) while this drive supposedly can keep accelerating with only constant power input. So kinetic energy would go up quadratically with time while expended energy only goes up linearly. You'd get free energy very soon.

Since violation of conservation of energy is very unlikely, I'd say that this is a sign that the drive doesn't actually work. Or at least that there is some gotcha that we haven't understood yet.

Re:EmDrive study officially published by CydeWeys on Saturday November 19, 2016 @07:32PM (#12996570)
Anything keeps accelerating with only constant power input. That's literally how all rockets in a vacuum work. Nothing special with an emdrive there. It doesn't mean that perpetual motion is possible, it just means that you're wrong about the ramifications of kinetic energy vis a vis power generation.
Re:EmDrive study officially published by wcoenen on Saturday November 19, 2016 @09:59PM (#12997017)
A rocket using chemical energy at a constant rate does not have this problem, because the excess energy it seems to gain from kinetic energy going up quadratically is balanced by a decrease in the kinetic energy that the expelled reaction mass is left with.
Re:EmDrive study officially published by MPSimmons on Saturday November 19, 2016 @11:02PM (#12997205)
If you think of mass as the deformation of spacetime, mass reaction engines push off the wake from expelling mass rapidly in one direction to go in the other direction.

The EM Drive is an energy reaction engine, rather than a mass reaction engine (if it works as described), so instead of pushing off wake, it uses energy itself to "deepen the fold", as it were, and increase speed (and mass, since the two are exchanged).

That's interesting. I've never considered that the very act of increasing the velocity of the EM Drive would actually increase its mass. Hrm.

Re:EmDrive study officially published by CydeWeys on Sunday November 20, 2016 @12:36AM (#12997456)
Not disagreeing with you there, but I don't see how that leads to free energy from an emdrive. How exactly do you get more energy out than you put in?

And anyway, kinetic energy isn't a conserved quantity. It can be converted into potential energy in a gravity well, or lost entirely in inelastic collisions. Momentum is the quantity that is always conserved, and that is what the emdrive violates directly (though still not in a way that allows for perpetual motion or free power, near as I can tell).

Re:EmDrive study officially published by wcoenen on Monday November 21, 2016 @03:18AM (#13003932)
As jack9 proposed higher up in this thread, you could put the EmDrive on the outside of a rotating system to provide constant torque, which accelerates the rotation. Then wait until the system has sped up to the point where the kinetic energy increases faster than the power you put in. Then use the whole thing to drive a generator.
Re:EmDrive study officially published by sathackr on Saturday November 19, 2016 @07:23PM (#12996529)
I would think that once we determine the cause of the thrust, assuming it is real, the design of the 'drive' might be improved to increase efficiency. We currently don't even know what characteristics of the device are causing the generation of thrust.

The first internal combustion engines were quite inefficient as well.

Re:EmDrive study officially published by CydeWeys on Saturday November 19, 2016 @07:36PM (#12996585)
Here's hoping! It's so unbelievably inefficient right now though, it's hard to imagine it improving by orders of magnitude. The original internal combustion engines were comparatively way more efficient.
Re:EmDrive study officially published by UncleSlacky on Monday November 21, 2016 @10:16AM (#13005961)
As I understand it, the version under test here was simply a proof-of-concept, not optimized for maximum efficiency. There are also plans for a version with a superconducting frustum, which should be even more efficient...