NASA Engineer Reveals Physics-Defying Engine That Can Go 99% the Speed of Light

Envision an engine that does not require propellant. It seems unfeasible, and it probably is.


Despite this, a NASA engineer is still investigating possibilities regarding the EmDrive, a hypothetical "helical" engine that would overcome gravity and generate forward thrust without the need for fuel.


This could be the most exciting technological development of the century, enabling humans to go to the furthest reaches of space.


What is the EmDrive?

In 2001, British physicist Roger Shawyer proposed a theory that proposed using microwaves to pump energy into a conical chamber in order to create thrust.


Theoretically, according to Shawyer, the microwaves would bounce off the chamber walls exponentially, producing enough propulsion to operate a spacecraft without fuel.


It is true that some researchers assert to have produced thrust during EmDrive tests. However, the amount was so small that the critics speculate that external factors might even have contributed to the thrust. The Earth's magnetic field or seismic vibrations could be causing this.


New Research

In recent months, a number of scientists and engineers have expressed opposing views regarding the EmDrive.


While some have said it's impossible, others have persisted in working on what may be a pointless endeavour, arguing that the effort will be worthwhile in the end.


According to New Scientist, NASA engineer David Burns is the most recent of these.


According to Burns, "if you had enough time and power, the engine itself could reach 99 percent the speed of light." Burns stated this to New Scientist.

1 Comments

  1. Saying it requires no fuel but is propelled violates the first law and is, therefore, wrong. His proposed propulsive medium is stated as being microwaves, which must come from somewhere and must require the required energy. It looks like it might be "News Science & Nature" trying to defy physics and not Mr. Burns. This should not be construed as agreement with Mr. Burns. It is not. It is a disagreement with you.

    ReplyDelete
Previous Post Next Post