German Scientists Just Tested NASA’s EM Drive… Does It Work Now?

Further testing of the EM Drive provides the latest update on the controversial device, but what does this change the future of space travel? *Disclaimer: The …


  1. I wouldn't throw the impossible drive out the window just yet. I think there is still potential in it. I wish I could help as I'd love to contribute to the making of starships.

  2. I know this is old but I still have a question, what’s the point of these drives? Hypothetically would the measured performance of the EM drive be more energy efficient than just shining a laser in space? And at that point you’d probably need solar panels so a solar sail would be more efficient.

  3. Nasa did check the interaction with ambient magnetic fields. Here is a citation from the official NASA publication, 
    " The third error is magnetic interaction, which has the potential for a false positive resulting from dc currents in power cables interacting during test article operation with ambient magnetic fields (e.g., local Earth field, magnetic damper) to generate a torque displacement on the pendulum. All dc power cables are a twisted pair or twisted shielded pair to minimize magnetic interaction. The test article is tested in forward, reverse, and null thrust orientations, but dc power cable routing and orientation is the same for all three configurations (power cables come in from the top of the test article), meaning any false positives will be the same magnitude and polarity for all three tests. This is not observed during the test campaign". Read More:

  4. Why is a reactionless drive impossible? You can use magnets for instance to repel each other. You are generating force at a distance and for instance pushing the other magnet across a table just by bringing the first magnet close to it.

    would in not be possible to create a ship with one electromagnet and the front end and one in the back end in such a way that it gives you "thrust"

  5. The EM drive, though I'm not supporting it, is still being tested, as there are also many fringe theories about how it works that goes into deep physics and also crazy physics. The key here is if they find the EM drive works, or any anomolyic readings for that matter, that research will be steered into a certain direction, however if experimental data disproves any of these theories, then our actual testing prowess will have increased (as you have mentioned).

  6. Just… (oh, God, *facepalm, deep breath*)… for the record: EM drives are based off of the same theories that found Hawking and Unruh radiation. This is science vs science. Stop saying that "science wins this debate!", it makes you sound like a idio… like an average millennial.
    But then again, this IS Seeker; garbage in, garbage out.

    When one does the experiments, the effect is relative to H-bar (ie, plank scale), so it's vanishingly small; it's a very, very, extremely-fucking-very difficult experiment to do. And the krauts couldn't even get their basic nuclear science right back in the day, so color me skeptical of their EM research.

  7. I still don’t feel we have a complete understanding of the universe and the laws that surround it. So I’m always excited when Newton’s fullproof laws are put to the test.

  8. The Em drive is way too clever for my brain to process but I think she's lovely and she can come round to my house and explain it anytime she wants and I will feed and water her!.

  9. No tiene errores entiendan esta sostenido en su misma base así se produce el empuje si estuvieran en piezas separadas (ejemplo) es como que solo diéramos un paso ; al estar en una sola masa y estar al bacillo produce un empuje en su misma masa ya que el ralla de las microondas solo es luz al salís y se convierte en fuerza al chocar con el cobren lo amplifica por su forma a la misma razón de él porque el rayo sale Asia el lugar que queremos avanzar es impulso ( velocidad (=) (ó) relativa a la cantidad de ondas y la frecuencia con la que choquen con. La parte más pequeña del cono de cobre gracias. (V= d/t ) e base a esto v = frecuencia ejercida en amperios (/) entre el tiempo que se le aplique las microondas V=F/T

  10. I think its only impossible cause rockets and spaceships would no longer need fuel which in turn would take money out the pockets of the true rulers of the world, oil companies. All this money spent on tests it would probably be cheaper to strap it on something instead of putting it in a vacuum tube. Nonsense

  11. The method of propelling without momentum split is to convert electric
    energy to kinetic using full momentum transfer by pushing or pooling
    against space occupied by xxxx entity of matter… That way momentum and
    energy i conserved… In reality some energy will be converted to heat
    due to ohmic loses…

  12. I find it funny how these Youtubers act like science is set in stone. We know nothing our grasp of physicists only works because we make it do so. We know so little so to say something is impossible is a joke an should be treated as such. Look up Quantum Teleportation an you tell me if anything is impossible.

  13. No, the future is Orman Force Drive: Electromagnetic mobility for all… No noise, no pollution and green energy security for ever… No need for roads, shoes, tires everything levitates using just small amount of electric energy to compensate ohmic loses… Works everywhere including vacuum of space and only needs electric energy converting it to kinetic trough use of Orman Force… Amazing fact is that this invention was possible in Tesla times… It is a joke or is it?

  14. Roger Shawyer invented the EM Drive back in 1998, NASA was the one that demanded the work be peer reviewed, a process that could take 15-20 years, hoping to bankrupt the inventor but in 2001, Shawyer was given a £45,000 grant from the British government to test the EmDrive. His test reportedly achieved 0.016 Newtons of force and required 850 watts of power, but no peer review of the tests verified this. It’s worth noting, however, that this number was low enough that it was potentially an experimental error.

    In 2008, Yang Juan and a team of Chinese researches at the Northwestern Polytechnical University allegedly verified the theory behind RF resonant cavity thrusters, and subsequently built their own version in 2010, testing the drive multiple times from 2012 to 2014. Tests results were purportedly positive, achieving up yo 750 mN (millinewtons) of thrust, and requiring 2,500 watts of power.

    In 2014, NASA researchers, tested their own version of an EmDrive, including in a hard vacuum. Once again, the group reported thrust (about 1/1,000 of Shawyer’s claims), and once again, the data was never published through peer-reviewed sources. Other NASA groups are skeptical of researchers’ claims, but in their paper, it is clearly stated that these findings neither confirm nor refute the drive, instead calling for further tests.

    In 2015, that same NASA group tested a version of chemical engineer Guido Fetta’s Cannae Drive (née Q Drive), and reported positive net thrust. Similarly, a research group at Dresden University of Technology also tested the drive, again reporting thrust, both predicted and unexpected.

    Yet another test by a NASA research group, Eagleworks, in late 2015 seemingly confirmed the validity of the EmDrive. The test corrected errors that had occurred in the previous tests, and surprisingly, the drive achieved thrust. However, the group has not yet submitted their findings for peer review. It’s possible that other unforeseen errors in the experiment may have cause thrust (the most likely of which is that the vacuum was compromised, causing heat to expand air within it testing environment and move the drive). Whether the findings are ultimately published or not, more tests need to be done. That’s exactly what Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory intend to do. For EmDrive believers, there seems to be some hope.

    NASA will keep calling for more tests, decades and decades worth of testing, they're still trying to bury it while they sabatoge testing and giving false results.

  15. "The team concluded that the tiny amount of thrust that NASA's team detected in 2016 was most likely due to the interaction of the metal drive with Earth's magnetic field." This begs the question, can we use the potential energy already stored in Earth's magnetic field as a practical source of thrust in Earth orbiting satellites?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.