EM space drive

True. And yet some things, like neutrinos travelling faster than 'c' turn and cold fission out to not to be actual despite claims that those things were witnessed.

Maybe this will help. Two oz of thrust will accelerate a 2oz object the same way a 2oz object is accelerated when if falls off of your desk. Heavier objects will be accelerated proportionately less.As your description implies, it does not take any amount of force to move an object in space. Any net force on an object, however tiny, will accelerate an object, and the object will continue to move until another force acts on it.

Being on the ground does not matter.The question of how much force it takes to move an object is nonsensical unless you talk about all of the forces on an object. Two ounces of thrust can move a 2 oz object upward in earth's gravitational field, but that same 2 oz thrust can also move accelerate a locomotive across a friction free surface.

Did you read just half of my comment before responding? Did I not address everything you mentioned?How much weight do you think you can move with 2 oz of thrust CS assuming we conduct the experiment at ground level? Is there any universal answer?

I note that you did not specify this "universal answer" despite your claim that there is one. Well, your answer is wrong. There is no limit to the amount of weight that two oz of thrust can move here on earth. F= ma applies everywhere.The link below is to an experiment for measuring the gravitational constant by measuring the motion of a pair of 38 gram masses being attracted gravitationally by a pair of 1.5kg mass. A measurable motion of the 38 gram masses was obtained despite the fact that the forces involved are on the order of 7 * 10-10 N. I'll note that the experiment was conducted on earth and not in outer space.http://www.phys.utk.edu/...asco%20Cavendish%20Experiment.pdfEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

See that question at the very end of the material you quoted? What is the answer to that question? Apparently, that's what you decided the issue was. The answer to the question Jon actually asked was given correctly by Nosy Ned.And as for the question of whether having a very small thrust generator without an impulse mass can have applications on the ground, if the only issue that comes to minds is whether you can drive a car with 2 oz of thrust, you are not being very imaginative.

Jon's question was whether he should interpret the 2 oz of thrust to mean that only 2 oz of material can be moved. What's the correct answer to that question?Then you interpret that to mean that Jon is only asking about applications for ground vehicles? Where do you get that?

I suppose that the easy answer is that you could fly into the sun if you were far enough away. Sail power falls off with distance from the sun, but the thruster would not.And of course there may be an opportunity to scale up the force generated assuming that it is real.

The international space station weighs 9*10^5 pounds. Two ounces of thrust would produce an acceleration of about 0.00000014 g on such a mass. You could accelerate the international space station from 0-60 mph in about 8 months. That answer is correct regardless of the strength of the gravitational field the space station is in. Your question is unanswerable without making up a bunch of stuff. Gravity does not affect horizontal motion per se, and there is no standard value for the frictional forces.Vertically, 2oz of thrust can lift a 2oz object in earth's gravitational field.

The drive is almost certainly a hoax that a few people at Nasa have been hoodwinked into accepting. I think people can be forgiven for not taking 2 oz of thrust too seriously given that. "Quantum vacuum virtual plasma?" Really?ABE:On thinking about this a bit, the word hoax is probably not appropriate. What I mean is that the drive almost certainly does not function. I'm not going to start teaching the students I tutor that there are exceptions to conservation of momentum or to Newton's third law.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

"Some understanding of physics"? So you understand how it works?Nobody seems to be able to explain how the drive might work without using Star Trek like faux science talk. But I'd welcome the opportunity to read your attempt to do better.Regarding terrestrial applications, here is a link from what I'm calling the snake oil site. EmDrive - FAQ

quote:

---

Q. How can the EmDrive produce enough thrust for terrestrial applications?
A. The second generation engines will be capable of producing a specific thrust of 30kN/kW. Thus for 1 kilowatt (typical of the power in a microwave oven) a static thrust of 3 tonnes can be obtained, which is enough to support a large car. This is clearly adequate for terrestrial transport applications.
The static thrust/power ratio is calculated assuming a superconducting EmDrive with a Q of 5 x 109. This Q value is routinely achieved in superconducting cavities.

---

It was not a quote mine. Your statement suggested that you had an impression of how momentum was conserved. Here is the entire quote. I've looked at a few discussions on the internet, and it seems that every citation of physicists like Sean Carroll and others pointing out the problems with the em-drive explanations are met with expressions of absolute belief that the drive is working. Apparently, any skepticism whatsoever comes from old physics fogies who need to get out of the way of progress.Airplanes don't "appear" to be violating any laws of physics. There is no law saying that objects cannot move upwards against gravity. Any fool can see that birds fly. On the other hand, there are a couple of laws of physics which do not allow the center of gravity of an object to change its motion unless an external force operates on it.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.