Measured Against Reality

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Microwave Propulsion

Roger Shawyer has made a remarkable claim: that he can create thrust using only microwaves. Naturally, skepticism abounds; normally when someone proclaims something so outlandish, they have no proof, neither prototype nor theoretical evidence, to back it up. Roger, however, has both. It also helps that he’s been in the aerospace industry for years, working with commercial and military satellites, as an engineers at Matra Marconi Space, and consulting on the Galileo Project.

His engine works with no moving parts, using only microwaves and esoteric physics. He uses a principle discovered by Maxwell nearly 150 years ago, and the same one behind solar sails: that light exerts a force on any surface it hits. Shawyer uses resonant cavities, (those with lengths in integer multiples of the wavelength of light being used) to produce the force. Unfortunately, with cylindrical cavities the forces on both ends are the same, canceling any force.

Continue reading...However, by making a conically shaped resonant cavity, the waves will travel more slowly in the narrow end, producing an uneven force that results in thrust. According to Shawyer, it’s that simple.

But what actually makes the thrust? That’s where relativity comes in. Because the microwaves are moving close to (or at) the speed of light, relativistic effects must be taken into account. This means “that the microwaves move in their own frame of reference. In other words they move independently of the cavity - as if they are outside it. As a result, the microwaves themselves exert a push on the cavity.” Very strange indeed.

The chief engineering difficulty is that the cavity tends to release energy, which diminishes the effectiveness of the engine. Shawyer has two prototypes, the better of the two produces about 300 miliNewtons, or 0.067 pounds of thrust. More efficient containers, like those used in particle accelerators and made of superconductors, could vastly improve performance.

One big drawback is that the faster these engines go, the less effective they become. That’s why Shawyer wants to use them to make hover-cars, freeing them from the ground while using conventional propulsion to move them.

As is usually the case with a new, untested technology, some people think it’s meaningless crank science, and others think it’s the wave of the future. However, Shawyer has been meticulous in documenting his research, and independent analysts have been impressed.

It’s hard to say what might come of this, there are many technological hurdles still to be crossed, and .067 pounds of thrust, while a good start, is nowhere near enough to be used in anything practical. Maybe one day when we’re all driving hover-cars around Shawyer will be looked upon as the man who gave us the relativity-drive; but he may also fade into obscurity. It’ll be a few years before we can tell for sure. I’ll be waiting to hear more, that’s for sure.

(From New Scientist, Sept. 08 2006, Reltivity Drive: the End of Wings and Wheels? Subscription required)

Labels: , , , ,

15 Comments:

  • I think this is awesome, if it can be made practical

    By Blogger Attu01, at 8:40 AM, September 14, 2006  

  • I need to see this in a video,preferablly in real life, before I believe it.

    To much rumor on the internet these days.

    By Blogger Ran, at 11:48 AM, September 14, 2006  

  • ".067 pounds of thrust, while a good start, is nowhere near enough to be used in anything practical."

    wouldn't this be practical in a weightless environment?

    By Anonymous Scotty, at 11:55 AM, September 14, 2006  

  • ran, this was in New Scientist, which is pretty reputable, so I'd be surprised if it was totally fake. I understand the skepticism though, it's definitely better to be skeptical.

    By Blogger Stupac2, at 11:58 AM, September 14, 2006  

  • scotty, it would. I forgot to mention that one of the principle uses envisioned for this is propulsion in space, specifically satellites.

    By Blogger Stupac2, at 12:02 PM, September 14, 2006  

  • wow this sounds great. i cant wait to see this in action. is there a diagram of some sort to show how this is done?

    By Anonymous themetree, at 12:46 PM, September 14, 2006  

  • themetree, there's a picture here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1455622/posts, but no diagram.

    By Blogger Stupac2, at 12:54 PM, September 14, 2006  

  • This would be of enormous benefit to spacecraft. Suddenly you wouldn't have to send up any reaction mass. And 300 milliNewtons is more than most ion thrusters.

    By Blogger Richard Kulisz, at 8:55 PM, September 14, 2006  

  • I may be mistaken, but don't you need moving parts to create microwaves?

    This sounds great right now for spacecraft, and hopefully with more refinement, will be practical on earth too.

    This is the first pure energy drive isn't it? Thats an amazing discovery even if not practical.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:08 AM, September 15, 2006  

  • Here's my analysis of Shawyer's 'Theory paper':
    http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/shawyerfraud.pdf.

    Dr John Costella

    By Anonymous Dr John P Costella, at 10:22 PM, October 04, 2006  

  • You know I seen an experiment where they fired a laser at a high speed spinning disk, it produced sparks that gave off thrust.

    However wonder if the same could be applied to how putting metal in a microwave with sparks, but have microwave rays hit a metal surface instead on a spinning disk.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:49 AM, March 28, 2007  

  • Dr Costella-

    for starters- ur paper uses 'ad hominem' this is politician tactics- not a weapon of the wise

    secondly, not all photons collide elastically in the chamber...

    also momentum is proportional to frequency in the quantum world

    (p = hf/c)

    as not all collisions are elastic momentum changes resaulting in a force..

    and a small final thing to contemplate- the angle can affect whethewr a colission is elastic or inelastic, just as a waveguide can be the same length as the wave and still not absorb it..

    By Anonymous the hogg, at 7:53 AM, June 12, 2007  

  • This is about the best idea ive ever heard! hovercars would be cool and there would be no ground resistance so they could go faster than regular cars

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:18 PM, August 28, 2008  

  • I trust it.In fact i can build a kind of ship without propellers,it can move freely due to internal force. Is any body interested in it?
    lywcy68@163.com

    By Anonymous Charles Wang, at 7:47 AM, September 27, 2008  

  • Dr Costella.

    You are right if the particles and the cone start with the same momentum (lets say 0). So if the cone (or something attached to it) generates matterial particles the momentum is always the same (nothing goes nowhere as you say). Yet, if the cone had a hole somewhere and you could feed a pipe that spat bullets into it, then the bullets' momentum would be transferred to the cone in the way the original paper shows. And here is the crux. According to the original paper (and I don't know if the analysis is right or wrong) the fact that the EM radiation has its own frame of reference (that is, it always has the same momentum no matter the momentum of its emmitter) then the cone behaves like having fed into it a hose that emmitts bullets but isn't physically connected to it. Thus the generation of trust on the cone's walls isn't offset but the opposite effect in the emmitters nozzle. That is why you need STR. Yet as I said I don't know enough of STR's symmetries to say if there is another effect that acts to balance the momenta.

    By Anonymous george, at 5:17 AM, June 23, 2009  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home