After reading the article, and doing a little digging on this I can confidently say this article is utter garbage. You can look up the patent application on this, it’s something to do with electrostatic forces which is a well known area of physics. Nothing magical about it.
I do wonder why we never ask why they are former NASA / Blue Origin / SpaceX whatever. Did they try to bring up some crazy idea and let go? Did they just lose it?
Im always hopeful for new breakthroughs but always sceptical
Produces 1g thrust but requires hard-vacuum (this means the practical use right now is meant for space not on Earth)
They claim the tech goes back to Asymmetrical Capacitors which is old tech, but this exploits it in a new or different way
They claim the team members that have worked on this included others from NASA, Blue Origin, and the USAF; of course this doesn’t mean the USAF, NASA, or Blue Origin are invested officially, but some definite heavy hitting organizations…
Much of the same could be said of the EmDrive. This is one of those extraordinary claims which requires extraordinary evidence, especially given the recent history of the topic.
Gravity and vacuum are not mutually exclusive - you always have to deal with gravity forces, although they become negligible pretty quickly when you get into and then leave orbits.
As to the specific claim, I suspect that the experiments they are currently doing (in vacuum chambers on earth) have gotten to the point that they are measuring the propulsion system producing more thrust than it’s own weight (T/W >1), which would technically be enough thrust to overcome gravity. Even if it wasn’t practically useful for actually getting to orbit, that amount of thrust on a reactionless motor would be incredible, and would totally unlock the solar system for us.
they become negligible pretty quickly when you get into and then leave orbits.
You’re not wrong, but it’s worth noting that in low earth orbit (e.g. typical ISS orbiting altitude) earth’s gravity is still 90% as strong as at sea level. Astronauts on the ISS are weightless not because they escaped earth’s gravity, but because they’re continuously falling.
I’m not a physicist, but I’ll try to answer your question:
Gravity, pressure (atmospheric), and a vacuum are not the same; nor are they mutually exclusive.
The Earth’s mass and centrifugal forces are said to exert a total of 1 gravity (1g). While the influence of gravity is scientifically never-ending, there is a distance or limit, known as the Hill Sphere where the effects of a celestial body’s’ gravity dissipates enough that its influence is scientifically negligible. For the planet Earth, the Hill Sphere is about 1.5 billion km or 0.01 astronomical units (AU).
Shortly after the Earth formed, there was no atmosphere and different types of gasses like Nitrogen, etc were being expelled by tons of volcanic activity; much like Venus. Due to the Earth’s gravitational force, these gasses didn’t just dissipate into space; over approximately 3 billion years, these gasses built up and interacted with other gasses / processes that an atmosphere formed. Earth’s atmosphere today is made up of 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, 0.9% Argon, and 0.1% others. This mixture of gasses, compacted by the Earth’s gravitational force, exerts 360 degrees of 6.9 Kpa at sea-level. At 498.9 km above sea-level, the atmospheric pressure becomes zero
A vacuum is technically space devoid of matter; therefore, there are varying levels of vacuum. Space is said to be 99.999% vacuum because the amount of matter in Space is infinitesimal compared to the size of the Universe.
A hard vacuum (99.999%) on Earth can be constructed by pumping / sucking out the matter from a container, but while the internal contents of the vacuum would now have zero atmospheric pressure, the vacuum and contents or lack of still exists on Earth and is still experiencing 1 gravity. If you puncture the vacuum at sea-level, the 360 degree atmospheric pressure of 6.9 Kpa would force air into the vacuum.
In other words, a hard vacuum doesn’t negate gravity; if it did, gravity in Space wouldn’t be possible and NASA wouldn’t need the vomit comet to simulate micro-gravity. Therefore, when they say they can produce enough thrust in a hard vacuum to overcome 1 gravity, they quite literally are saying that within the vacuum on Earth, they can make an object weightless / move.
Note: Someone else already posted essentially what I did in a much more concise manner… but I already typed all that… so… gonna leave it up for now
If I remember right that is the slang term for a device used to simulated high force situations astronauts are expected to experience. So named for the frequent effect
It’s so much more interesting than the parent comment makes it out to be, though. In case you didn’t already read anything about it, it’s an ordinary (on the outside) jet that flies in parabolic arcs which at a certain point lets the passengers experience microgravity and float around the modified cabin for a minute or so at a time. Anyone can go for a ride last I checked… if you have several thousand dollars laying around, anyway.
they’ve created a drive powered by a “New Force” outside our current known laws of physics, giving the propellant-less drive enough boost to overcome gravity.
Obviously Buhler’s claims are pretty “woah, if true,” but the history of propellant-less drives is filled with seemingly positive results that are eventually dashed upon the rocks of scientific reality.
Sure, here’s what your research paper could look like:
Title: Unveiling a Novel Force: Propelling Beyond Gravitational Constraints
Abstract: This paper investigates a newly hypothesized force that enables propellant-less drives to defy gravity. Examining experimental anomalies and theoretical speculations, it explores potential mechanisms and applications, signaling a transformative leap in space exploration and transportation technology.
But as an AI model, I don’t know shit and come up with bullshit out of my synthetic ass.
If someone already quietly had similar tech maneuvering their satellites, and wanted to remain the only actor with eyes in the sky that can’t be shot down or eventually chased down due to lack of fuel.
It’d sure be nice if some break through like this was realized. But when you have a company to greatly benefit from this “impossible discovery”, hard to stay optimistic it isn’t some grift.
Add comment