A lot of people here seem to be missing that Buhler is a _current_ research scientist at NASA, leading the Electrostatics and Surface Physics Laboratory at Kennedy. Here's a 2022 paper he is an author on:
He's playing with alternative propulsion engineering on his own as a side project. If you watch the video of his presentation at APEC he says two groups have replicated some of his work. He's tested it in a vacuum. He has not tested it in space but would like to. Maybe that will make the effect disappear. But he's a leading expert on electrostatics at NASA, currently working for NASA, and he thinks this is real and he's been playing with it for a long time. He says it is trivial to reproduce, you need like $10 worth of material (more to do it in a vacuum). It's hard to see why he would make false claims and jeopardize his day job.
Without rules, high vacuum is achievable on just ~150km, with amateur rocket, I hear in US somewhere about thousand dollars for sub-orbital launch (smallest orbital rocket cost about million).
For example in electronic microscope also used high vacuum, and such microscope usually cost about million dollars and as I remember, it need about tens hours to achieve such high vacuum, so could easy calculate, about thousand experiments in 3-4 years (accounting amortization period for high cost equipment), and also each experiment will cost about thousand dollars without interest rate.
I think, he is typical NASA scientist, bored at his work and have spare money to play game with fake patent.
As NASA worker, he really have possibility to place his experiments in high vacuum chamber, and I'm sure he have experience and seen nothing.
And I'm sure, he understand well, mentioned in patent configuration is very hard to research, and very easy to accidentally achieve some extraordinary results.
But you, humble reader, don't have such opportunities, but you could donate to him for his crazy experiments.
I don't see any discussion of FTL speed, so not clear what you're talking about.
> -Ex-big institute head scientist to lend credence
I believe Buhler is currently the lead research scientist at the Electrostatics and Surface Physics Laboratory at Kennedy. Do you have evidence otherwise?
> Big claim of legitimacy based on a patent being granted
A patent was granted, but that isn't the source of any particular claims of legitimacy I see.
> This is far sketchier than even Ranga Das’s superconductivity claims.
I disagree. While I do think the odds are high that this is the result of the non-obvious intetaction of knowm forces, I suspect the mystery behind this unexplained result will be more interesting once solved.
I'm sorry -- it's much, much more likely that this guy is wildly wrong than him actually finding 1G reactionless engine thrust. It's bad science to outright declare his stuff to be impossible, but it's not bad science to say that I'm not going to spend time on it until he has demos that are being reproduced by others.
Also, I hope he's wrong. Reactionless drives in space are potential civilization destroyers.
While the odds are he's wrong, it's always worth remembering that everything that was ever discovered seemed wildly wrong and "impossible" before it was eventually accepted as obviously the truth. Copernicus comes to mind.
If we hope to advance as a civilization, we need to discover new stuff and new ways of doing things. So in my mind we shouldn't focus on him being "WrOnG", because that will only deter others from trying. We should encourage out of the box thinking and experimentation, and celebrate people who are willing to try new things and look at things with a fresh perspective.
More likely based on your priors. But not "more likely" based on any reasonable or scientific metric. Like, do you have any evidence against this guy's copious evidence? It's ridiculous and totally not science to say, "He's wrong, because reasons". Your reason, I think, is you hope -- like you said. That's okay.
But too much of what is hoped negatively by people somehow gets converted (at 100% efficiency no less!) into "absolute scientific truth" or in your case very high probability :) hahah
> I'm sorry -- it's much, much more likely that this guy is wildly wrong than him actually finding 1G reactionless engine thrust.
The poor headline suggests that, but the inventor claims “the highest we have generated on a stacked system is about 10 milliNewtons.” Of course it would be revolutionary either way.
agree it's likely nonsense, but really interested... why are reactionless drives in space civilization destroyers? (I write a bit of science fiction as a hobby and I'm wondering about a story!)
I think it's pretty telling that this guy using his knowledge of electrostatics as a shield, when the experimental failure of previous reactionless drives have come down to magnetism, especially interaction with the Earth's magnetic field. NASA has a excellent mu-metal shielded vacuum chamber for debunking reactionless concepts. Stick it in there, and let's talk if it shows some results.
Without rules, high vacuum is achievable on just ~150km, with amateur rocket, I hear in US somewhere about thousand dollars for sub-orbital launch (smallest orbital rocket cost about million).
For example in electronic microscope also used high vacuum, and such microscope usually cost about million dollars and as I remember, it need about tens hours to achieve such high vacuum, so could easy calculate, about thousand experiments in 3-4 years (accounting amortization period for high cost equipment), and also each experiment will cost about thousand dollars without interest rate.
I think, he is typical NASA scientist, bored at his work and have spare money to play game with fake patent.
As NASA worker, he really have possibility to place his experiments in high vacuum chamber, and I'm sure he have experience and seen nothing.
And I'm sure, he understand well, mentioned in patent configuration is very hard to research, and very easy to accidentally achieve some extraordinary results.
But you, humble reader, don't have such opportunities, but you could donate to him for his crazy experiments.
It's a slow Saturday morning, so I actually watched most of his YouTube presentation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJjPi7uZ2OI&t=3696s I stopped at the Q&A where they started going off about UFOs...) He claims that the dU/dx in an asymmetric capacitor (a spatial gradient in internal energy) leads to a net overall force on the center of mass. If that were true in this system, then two different springs under compression would also have a net force on the center of mass. Or two adjacent, differently pressured vessels. It's just wrong. There is no net change in momentum happening in this system.
His "quantum" explanations are even worse (just some hand-wavy BS with the fine structure constant thrown in.)
I don't doubt he has managed to generate 1 g of electrostatic force on a charged object - but that force has to be reacted against something else. Otherwise Newton would be spinning at an ever-accelerating rate in his grave.
Readit News
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20220007230/downloads/Fi...
Here's an article on the NASA web site from April 10, 2024 quoting him:
https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/kennedy/nasa-tec...
which says he is a lead researcher on the Electrodynamic Dust Shield project at NASA. Here's a similar article quoting him:
https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/nasa-eds-techn...
He's playing with alternative propulsion engineering on his own as a side project. If you watch the video of his presentation at APEC he says two groups have replicated some of his work. He's tested it in a vacuum. He has not tested it in space but would like to. Maybe that will make the effect disappear. But he's a leading expert on electrostatics at NASA, currently working for NASA, and he thinks this is real and he's been playing with it for a long time. He says it is trivial to reproduce, you need like $10 worth of material (more to do it in a vacuum). It's hard to see why he would make false claims and jeopardize his day job.
He lie.
Crookes radiometer don't work in really high vacuum, which is not cheap, if do all things with boring rules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer
Without rules, high vacuum is achievable on just ~150km, with amateur rocket, I hear in US somewhere about thousand dollars for sub-orbital launch (smallest orbital rocket cost about million).
For example in electronic microscope also used high vacuum, and such microscope usually cost about million dollars and as I remember, it need about tens hours to achieve such high vacuum, so could easy calculate, about thousand experiments in 3-4 years (accounting amortization period for high cost equipment), and also each experiment will cost about thousand dollars without interest rate.
I think, he is typical NASA scientist, bored at his work and have spare money to play game with fake patent.
As NASA worker, he really have possibility to place his experiments in high vacuum chamber, and I'm sure he have experience and seen nothing.
And I'm sure, he understand well, mentioned in patent configuration is very hard to research, and very easy to accidentally achieve some extraordinary results.
But you, humble reader, don't have such opportunities, but you could donate to him for his crazy experiments.
-New fundamental force
-Explains warp drive (??)
-Requires exquisite measurement methods and cancelling out all other interfering forces (which inevitably they won’t do well)
-Ex-big institute head scientist to lend credence
-No supporting scientific papers in a reputed journal
-Big claim of legitimacy based on a patent being granted
This is far sketchier than even Ranga Das’s superconductivity claims.
I don't see any discussion of FTL speed, so not clear what you're talking about.
> -Ex-big institute head scientist to lend credence
I believe Buhler is currently the lead research scientist at the Electrostatics and Surface Physics Laboratory at Kennedy. Do you have evidence otherwise?
> Big claim of legitimacy based on a patent being granted
A patent was granted, but that isn't the source of any particular claims of legitimacy I see.
> This is far sketchier than even Ranga Das’s superconductivity claims.
I disagree. While I do think the odds are high that this is the result of the non-obvious intetaction of knowm forces, I suspect the mystery behind this unexplained result will be more interesting once solved.
Does it cure cancer like sea algae grown in mountain stream water?
Also, I hope he's wrong. Reactionless drives in space are potential civilization destroyers.
If we hope to advance as a civilization, we need to discover new stuff and new ways of doing things. So in my mind we shouldn't focus on him being "WrOnG", because that will only deter others from trying. We should encourage out of the box thinking and experimentation, and celebrate people who are willing to try new things and look at things with a fresh perspective.
But too much of what is hoped negatively by people somehow gets converted (at 100% efficiency no less!) into "absolute scientific truth" or in your case very high probability :) hahah
The poor headline suggests that, but the inventor claims “the highest we have generated on a stacked system is about 10 milliNewtons.” Of course it would be revolutionary either way.
Incidentally, that is another reason this won’t work: It violates conservation of energy.
But it was part of a conference and they moved to next speaker.
He does say he has a working model and video. Just isn't in this link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJjPi7uZ2OI&t=3696s
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/nasas-em-drive-is-a-...
He mentions aliens multiple times. Not a good sign when claiming to have discovered a new force coming out of a static electric charge.
Crookes radiometer don't work in really high vacuum, which is not cheap, if do all things with boring rules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer
Without rules, high vacuum is achievable on just ~150km, with amateur rocket, I hear in US somewhere about thousand dollars for sub-orbital launch (smallest orbital rocket cost about million).
For example in electronic microscope also used high vacuum, and such microscope usually cost about million dollars and as I remember, it need about tens hours to achieve such high vacuum, so could easy calculate, about thousand experiments in 3-4 years (accounting amortization period for high cost equipment), and also each experiment will cost about thousand dollars without interest rate.
I think, he is typical NASA scientist, bored at his work and have spare money to play game with fake patent.
As NASA worker, he really have possibility to place his experiments in high vacuum chamber, and I'm sure he have experience and seen nothing.
And I'm sure, he understand well, mentioned in patent configuration is very hard to research, and very easy to accidentally achieve some extraordinary results.
But you, humble reader, don't have such opportunities, but you could donate to him for his crazy experiments.
His "quantum" explanations are even worse (just some hand-wavy BS with the fine structure constant thrown in.)
I don't doubt he has managed to generate 1 g of electrostatic force on a charged object - but that force has to be reacted against something else. Otherwise Newton would be spinning at an ever-accelerating rate in his grave.