Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?
- Thread starter Flunklesnarkin_sl
- Start date
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
They found the CMB basically by accident. It would be really great if some outliers managed to get lucky.
Let us remember the sacrifice of those early, brave jaunt research volunteers. Back in the early days the only trigger was imminent death, and it was not a reliable method of induction.
Let us remember the sacrifice of those early, brave jaunt research volunteers. Back in the early days the only trigger was imminent death, and it was not a reliable method of induction.
TheBeagle
JunkiesNetwork Donor
- 8,492
- 29,242
It's been awhile since I read it and I don't feel like googling but I remember a legit article where some physicists made a tiny microscopic switch out of gold in a total vacuum that was "flipped" for lack of a better word, by quantum flux(?) or whatever, in which a particle/antiparticle winked in and out of existence long enough to flip the switch.
Burnem Wizfyre
Log Wizard
- 11,810
- 19,618
I think there is a video about that as well to be honest, not sure which show it was in but I sure as shit dont remember an article about that but I remember in one of the many science shows/videos I watch having come that very same thing.
So how the Q-Thruster produces force through the virtual particle/antiparticle annihilation is beyond me, at this point. I've been trying to read up on what I think is happening, but I'm not coming up with any answers, yet.
I really do hope this is another pigeon-shit incident, though. New science is the best science.
I really do hope this is another pigeon-shit incident, though. New science is the best science.
That's the reason - "ZOMG ATOMS!!!" People are fucking idiots about anything nuclear.
NASA doesn't count as real science?
(Wired hid a link to the paper in their article:NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS) - Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum)
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
I went looking for it last night. The only place I think you'd be able to find data is in the actual presentation they gave at the conference. And I don't know if you're going to be able to access that without either having been there or having a JPL/Nasa card that you have to swipe to get into the building.
It sounds like the presentation was "this works. Dunno why, but it works. We think. We're pretty sure it's not an instrument error."
Also worth noting that in digging into it for an hour or so I read (and I have -NO- idea if this is correct) that the apparatus itself is very small. Like cost prohibitively small. Like you're looking at nanotech. But I was reading through a lot of comment pages and god knows if anyone actually knows what they're talking about. On the other hand... I might have stumbled across a comment or two from members of the audience who were at the presentation. Who the fuck knows. The web of a thousand lies.
It sounds like the presentation was "this works. Dunno why, but it works. We think. We're pretty sure it's not an instrument error."
Also worth noting that in digging into it for an hour or so I read (and I have -NO- idea if this is correct) that the apparatus itself is very small. Like cost prohibitively small. Like you're looking at nanotech. But I was reading through a lot of comment pages and god knows if anyone actually knows what they're talking about. On the other hand... I might have stumbled across a comment or two from members of the audience who were at the presentation. Who the fuck knows. The web of a thousand lies.
BrutulTM
Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
- 14,431
- 2,218
Quantum physicists and astrophysicists have that in common. Astrophysicists study the biggest shit in the universe and quantum physicists study the smallest but they can both tell us anything that they want because we have zero understanding of either.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 45,417
- 73,485
That's as far as I got too. Nobody talked about how easy it is to reliably replicate the results, accurately predict the results, or most importantly scale the technology to something useful.
The Chinese did the same tests a couple of years ago & got the same results, which is what triggered the NASA research in the first place IIRC. The bloke whooriginallydid the experiments says its fully scalable to whatever size you want, but he is trying to sell it.
EmDrive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
EmDrive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
Sadly if it's not cold fusion or zero point energy I think that the original bloke is about to get fucked out of a zillion zillion dollars.The Chinese did the same tests a couple of years ago & got the same results, which is what triggered the NASA research in the first place IIRC. The bloke whooriginallydid the experiments says its fully scalable to whatever size you want, but he is trying to sell it.
EmDrive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Blakkheim
Karazhan Raider
- 7,977
- 35,821
BrutulTM
Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
- 14,431
- 2,218
If they tripled cell phone battery life I think it would be officially "good enough". If you could get through 48 hours easily even with heavy use then there's not really any push to improve battery life beyond that. It would be nice of course, but I wouldn't pay extra for it.
It's not only about increased life, but the size of the battery compared to the battery life. If they can squeeze 3 times the charge out of it, then they could have the same battery life as today with a battery 1/3 the size. This would allow for smaller/thinner/lighter devices. You might only have to charge that smartwatch once a week!
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
Seems like it would also be important for making bigger batteries.
Big chemical batteries are nothing but a lot of small ones daisy chained together. The universe imposes a physical size limit. You can't just scale a battery up, even though it seems like you probably should be able to. Until that changes it seems that any improvement in small batteries will be a (probably diminishing) improvement in large ones. And that's important.
I remember talking to my uncle about the batteries in formula1 cars because he likes that kind of crap and saying, "Well that's dumb. Why don't they just make 1 big one?" He looks at me like I'm Gods Own Idiot and goes, "You broke the code didn't you? Because they can't."
Big chemical batteries are nothing but a lot of small ones daisy chained together. The universe imposes a physical size limit. You can't just scale a battery up, even though it seems like you probably should be able to. Until that changes it seems that any improvement in small batteries will be a (probably diminishing) improvement in large ones. And that's important.
I remember talking to my uncle about the batteries in formula1 cars because he likes that kind of crap and saying, "Well that's dumb. Why don't they just make 1 big one?" He looks at me like I'm Gods Own Idiot and goes, "You broke the code didn't you? Because they can't."