"Plasma Engine Could Get Humans To Mars on 100 Million Times Less Fuel"

[Garnier Fructis]

This has nothing to do with the EM drive. This is about Hall effect thrusters, which are a type of ion thrusters and operate on completely convention principles.

I think it's a response to the stupidity that the article writer did at the end by comparing this to the EM drive.

[Puupi]

Having been in a Renault, I wouldn't trust something that lot designed. It'd probably down tools after 4 hours of working.

That's only because they had Lucas electric systems. Lucas was a great apostle, but a bad electrician.

[Noradin]

Wait, that title makes like no sense.

Fuel currently needed to go to mars = X
100 million times less fuel = X - X*100,000,000 = -999,999,999X.

So, it uses negative fuel?

"100 times less" is a (stupid) colloquial term for "1/100th" because the latter is harder to pronounce and sounds less impressive.

- - - Updated - - -

Tunnel snakes rule!!!!!


Ontopic

I hope this happens, that will make space travel much better in our immediate area. Less fuel means more space

The amount of addtional space you gain is likely not as much as they make it appear.
They likely calculated how much fuel you need to transport the same net load. Since the fuel also needs transport until it is used that means a lot more impressive savings then the gain than the the conversion fuel load into net load.

[GennGreymane]

Give me your sweet roll.

NO!

Dad!!!!


Let me guess, somebody took your sweet roll?

[ItachiZaku]

Give me your sweet roll.

De uh cinnamon roll? de roll of da cinnamon?

[Afrospinach]

I'm still a bit skeptical of the so-called "EM Drive."

I thought this was officially debunked as hokum.

Answer is obvious, use 5 of the engines, actually 6 for good measure, time is money. I play kerbal space program so I am basically a pro.

[Reeve]

I thought this was officially debunked as hokum.

Answer is obvious, use 5 of the engines, actually 6 for good measure, time is money. I play kerbal space program so I am basically a pro.

No, not debunked. But definitely not proven yet either. And since it's theoretically impossible, I'm gonna side with, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

[Tychus]

Wait, that title makes like no sense.

Fuel currently needed to go to mars = X
100 million times less fuel = X - X*100,000,000 = -999,999,999X.

So, it uses negative fuel?

i suspect it's something like X * 1x10^-8

[I Push Buttons]

No, not debunked. But definitely not proven yet either. And since it's theoretically impossible, I'm gonna side with, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

Well the concepts behind it have been theorized and even proven long ago... Like really long. The concept of "radiation pressure" and radiation pressure possessing the property of momentum was theorized as far back as the 1860s and proven as early 1900s...

So this drive isn't producing thrust from nothing, it is producing thrust from differentials in radiation pressure equalizing between the microwave chamber and empty space, similar to say the atmosphere inside of a space station equalizing with the pressure of empty space outside through a hole. Only rather than there being air as a propellant, radiation pressure itself is the propellant. At least in theory.

A lot of the tests have showed that the drive does in fact produce thrust, but its a negligible amount and it happens in all directions, so not only is it not very strong, but what little it does produce is offset by its own force in other directions to produce no net force in any direction.

[Belize]

Wouldn't 100 million times less, just be dividing by 100 million, guys?

Like, if you need 10 apples to get to mars, but a new engine means you need 2 times less, you divide 10 by 2 to get 5 apples?

[Annoying]

Wouldn't 100 million times less, just be dividing by 100 million, guys?

Like, if you need 10 apples to get to mars, but a new engine means you need 2 times less, you divide 10 by 2 to get 5 apples?

Not really, no. If you had 10 apples and had 1 times less, how many apples would you have?

I mean, it's what they're saying, but strictly speaking, saying "times less" means nothing unless it's a number <1.

[Reeve]

Wouldn't 100 million times less, just be dividing by 100 million, guys?

Like, if you need 10 apples to get to mars, but a new engine means you need 2 times less, you divide 10 by 2 to get 5 apples?

If you have 10 apples and you have 2 times as many, you have 20 apples. If you have 10 apples and you have 2 times more, you have 30 apples (the original 10 and 2 times as many more). If you have 10 apples and you have 2 times less, you have the original 10, less the 2 times as many (20) to give you negative 10 apples.

[Tychus]

Not really, no. If you had 10 apples and had 1 times less, how many apples would you have?

afaik the common usage of "times more/less" is as a simple coefficient. x times more = 10 * x, x times less = 10 * 1/x. so for "1", it's still 10 going either way.

ie, "times more" is used like "times as much", where "more" is a directional signal, rather than expressing addition.

- - - Updated - - -

If you have 10 apples and you have 2 times as many, you have 20 apples. If you have 10 apples and you have 2 times more, you have 30 apples (the original 10 and 2 times as many more). If you have 10 apples and you have 2 times less, you have the original 10, less the 2 times as many (20) to give you negative 10 apples.

that's certainly a valid thing to say, but it's very, very common to use "times as much" and "times more" interchangeably.

[Belize]

If you have 10 apples and you have 2 times as many, you have 20 apples. If you have 10 apples and you have 2 times more, you have 30 apples (the original 10 and 2 times as many more). If you have 10 apples and you have 2 times less, you have the original 10, less the 2 times as many (20) to give you negative 10 apples.

That seems like a case of semantics, more than anything honestly. Clearly you can't have negative apples.

And "more" and "many" can be interchanged here. There's a lot of people around Beaumont that say they have "X amount times more than someone else" meaning they multiplied the other's amount by x.

[apples]

Not really, no. If you had 10 apples and had 1 times less, how many apples would you have?

I mean, it's what they're saying, but strictly speaking, saying "times less" means nothing unless it's a number <1.

times less is the colloquial opposite of times more

i have 2 apples, jane has 4

jane has 2 TIMES MORE apples than apples 4=2*2

apples has 2 TIMES LESS apples than jane 2=4/2

its all about the subject in reference to the other subject

[Tychus]

Clearly you can't have negative apples.

i'm sure accountants can come up with a notion of "apple debt" :-)

[Unholyground]

Futurama had it right, don't move within the universe, move the universe around you. The only problem is that it requires concentrated dark matter, and I don't see any niblonians around.

[Forgettable]

I've never seen such a heated debate on the term "times less" before. Seriously, wut?

100 Million Times Less = 1/100,000,000

If 100,000,000 Litres of fuel are currently used on a space journey, now only 1 Litre is used. Not difficult.

[Garnier Fructis]

Well the concepts behind it have been theorized and even proven long ago... Like really long. The concept of "radiation pressure" and radiation pressure possessing the property of momentum was theorized as far back as the 1860s and proven as early 1900s...

So this drive isn't producing thrust from nothing, it is producing thrust from differentials in radiation pressure equalizing between the microwave chamber and empty space, similar to say the atmosphere inside of a space station equalizing with the pressure of empty space outside through a hole. Only rather than there being air as a propellant, radiation pressure itself is the propellant. At least in theory.

A lot of the tests have showed that the drive does in fact produce thrust, but its a negligible amount and it happens in all directions, so not only is it not very strong, but what little it does produce is offset by its own force in other directions to produce no net force in any direction.

More importantly, it can't be determined if it's actual thrust or simply measurement error.

And yes, radiation pressure is a thing, and it can impart momentum. But it doesn't violate physics, which the EM drive does by producing an overall violation of momentum. Putting known scientific principles together in theoretically impossible ways does not in fact mean that the concept was theorized or proved. So the safe assumption is not that thrust was generated ,but that we can chalk it up to experimental error.

[Noradin]

Not really, no. If you had 10 apples and had 1 times less, how many apples would you have?

I mean, it's what they're saying, but strictly speaking, saying "times less" means nothing unless it's a number <1.

Yes, strictly speaking, but as a colloquial shorthand it is an instruction to just devide by that number because the numerals for x and 1/x are sounding so similar and anyone is supposed to understand you anyway when you just drop that extra ending. Less spitting while speaking is always good.