Tópico: NASA diz que motor espacial quântico funciona de verdade

[Pipoqueiro]

Um motor espacial capaz de impulsionar uma nave sem consumir combustível, tirando sua energia diretamente do vácuo quântico.

Parece bom demais? Ou esquisito demais?

A comunidade acadêmica vinha marcando a segunda opção, achando esquisito o suficiente para nem olhar para os protótipos, classificados como "invenções malucas".

Mas a coisa repentinamente começou a ganhar ares de seriedade. Um dos inventores do "motor espacial quântico" conseguiu convencer uma equipe da NASA a pelo menos testar seu invento.

Eles testaram e, para surpresa geral, a coisa funcionou.

David Brady e seus colegas do Centro Espacial Johnson testaram o motor quântico em 2013, mas só agora apresentaram um artigo descrevendo os testes durante o evento 50th Joint Propulsion Conference, que terminou na sexta-feira em Cleveland, nos Estados Unidos.

O evento não chamou a atenção de muita gente, exceto de David Hambling, que escreveu um artigo para a revista Wired neste final de semana relatando a apresentação.

Motor espacial sem combustível tira energia do vácuo quântico
Conceito de uma sonda espacial para voos mais longos, explorando o conceito do motor quântico, que não depende de tanques de combustível. [Imagem: Cannae LLC]
Motores quânticos

Tudo começa com o cientista britânico Roger Shawyer, que vem tentando há vários anos chamar a atenção da comunidade científica e das agências espaciais para o seu EmDrive, um motor eletromagnético, que provê empuxo sem disparar massa para o lado oposto.

O conceito é revolucionário, já que transformar diretamente eletricidade em empuxo significa que as naves não precisarão mais levar combustível. O problema é que isso rompe com a lei clássica da conservação de energia, o que tem feito a comunidade científica torcer o nariz para a ideia.

Em 2011, uma equipe da Universidade Politécnica do Noroeste da China testou o conceito, e obteve resultados espantosos. Eles construíram seu próprio motor sem combustível, que alcançou um empuxo de 720 micronewtons, mais do que suficiente para equipar um satélite de verdade.

Mas o que os pesquisadores da NASA testaram agora foi um outro dispositivo, chamado de QDrive, criado por um cientista norte-americano chamado Guido Fetta, que aparentemente teve mais sucesso em convencer a agência espacial em dar crédito à sua invenção.

Nos testes, o motor quântico - o nome completo é Propulsor de Plasma do Vácuo Quântico - gerou entre 30 e 50 micronewtons de força em um equipamento com sensibilidade de 10 micronewtons, ou seja, bem acima da margem de erro.

O propulsor consiste em uma cavidade ressonante, no interior da qual micro-ondas ficam refletindo de um lado para o outro, eventualmente capturando a energia do vácuo.

Shawyer disse que o dispositivo de Fetta que foi testado não é tão eficiente quanto o seu, o que eventualmente poderia explicar porque a equipe chinesa, usando um desenho similar ao seu EmDrive, aferiu um empuxo dezenas de vezes maior.

Motor espacial sem combustível tira energia do vácuo quântico
Este é o EmDrive, construído por Roger Shawyer, que é similar ao modelo testado por uma equipe chinesa, obtendo resultados dezenas de vezes superiores ao agora obtido pela NASA. [Imagem: EmDrive]
Energia do vácuo quântico

Um motor sem propelente é revolucionário em relação aos motores atuais, incluindo os motores iônicos, que também são acionados eletricamente, mas disparam partículas carregadas.

Aparentemente o motor quântico tira sua energia do vácuo quântico, que nada tem de vazio. Em lugar do "nada", o vácuo quântico é um constante "borbulhar" de partículas virtuais que aparecem e decaem constantemente, desaparecendo em frações de tempo tão curtas que são difíceis de medir.

Apesar disso, vários experimentos já mostraram a realidade do vácuo quântico e suas energias, incluindo a geração de luz a partir desse "nada" virtual - hoje já é largamente aceito na comunidade científica que a matéria é resultado de flutuações do vácuo quântico.

Vácuo quântico gera números aleatórios pela internet
Para testar se o vácuo quântico pode ser explorado para gerar trabalho, os pesquisadores da NASA submeteram o motor a um pêndulo de torção muito sensível, procurando tomar o maior número de precauções possíveis para evitar erros de medição.

"Os resultados dos testes indicam que o projeto do propulsor de cavidade ressonante de radiofrequências, que é um dispositivo de propulsão elétrica único, está produzindo uma força que não é atribuível a qualquer fenômeno eletromagnético clássico e, portanto, está potencialmente demonstrando uma interação com o plasma virtual do vácuo quântico," concluiu a equipe.

Agora é só esperar que outras equipes se dignem a testar os motores quânticos para ajudar a eliminar as dúvidas. E então começar a sonhar com viagens espaciais que durem anos ou décadas, e não mais séculos.


http://www.inovacaotecnologica.com.br/noticias/noticia.php?artigo=motor-espacial-quantico&id=010130140805#.U-P3KtxdWv8

[Reginaldo brasileiro]

Bem eu gostaria de dar uma olhada no artigo citado . Mas infelizmente,teria que pagar US$40,00 para ler CADA artigo,sendo que os criadores e a instituição por trás do artigo são públicas . Pelo menos há uma petição para que pesquisas cientificas financiadas pelo dinheiro do contribuinte dos Estados Unidos estejam disponiveis gratuitamente na internet:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/require-free-access-over-internet-scientific-journal-articles-arising-taxpayer-funded-research/wDX82FLQ

Há alguma chance de um projeto assim ser aprovado?

[Rocky Joe]

O texto acima tem erros e coisas que ele diz que são "consenso na comunidade científica" ainda são hipóteses, mas o artigo parece legítimo e a idéia em si não tem nada de anormal, embora eu duvide que possa ter aplicações práticas, se tomarmos como exemplo de força causada pelas flutuações quânticas do vácuo o Efeito Casimir, que cai muito com a distância e é logo desprezível. Mas não tenho conhecimento para opinar sobre o artículo.

Um dia!

[Gigaview]

Este é o artigo de David Hambling publicado na Wired inglesa:

10 questions about Nasa's 'impossible' space drive answered

Wired.co.uk's piece last week about Nasa's test of a new type of space drive triggered a tsunami of responses online. Many were understandably sceptical, others were unsure how it would advance space travel. In fact, the paper produced on the day gave much more detail than the advance abstract we linked to then. The actual paper reveals details of tests in early 2014 as well as those in summer 2013 -- and the results are even more astounding.

Here we answer many of your questions, quibbles and criticisms.

1. Isn't such a tiny force likely to be experimental error?

The equipment can measure forces of less than ten micronewtons, and the thrust was several times that high.

The test rig is carefully designed to remove any possible sources of error. Even the lapping of waves in the Gulf of Mexico 25 miles away every three to four seconds would have showed up on the sensors, so the apparatus was floated pneumatically to avoid any influence. The apparatus is completely sealed, with power and signals going through liquid metal contacts to prevent any force being transmitted through cables.

Similar consideration was given to any other possible factors that could influence the result, for example shielding everything from electromagnetic effects. There may be a gap somewhere, but the Nasa experimenters appear to have been scrupulous.

2. Thrust was also measured from the 'Null Drive', doesn't that mean the experiment failed?

Lots of commenters jumped on this, assuming incorrectly that this was a control test and that thrust was measured when there was no drive.

In fact, the 'Null Drive' was a modified version of the Cannae Drive, a flying-saucer-shaped device with slots engraved in one face only. The underlying theory is that the slots create a force imbalance in resonating microwaves; the 'Null Drive' was unslotted, but still produced thrust when filled with microwaves. This may challenge the theory -- it is probably no coincidence that Cannae inventor Guido Fetta is patenting a new version which works differently -- but not the results.

The true 'null test' was when a load was used with no resonant cavity, and as expected this produced no thrust:

"Finally, a 50 ohm RF resistive load was used in place of the test article to verify no significant systemic effects that would cause apparent or real torsion pendulum displacements. The RF load was energised twice at an amplifier output power of approximately 28 watts and no significant pendulum arm displacements were observed."

Equally significantly, reversing the orientation of the drive reversed the thrust.

3. They didn't do it in a vacuum, so how do we know the result is valid in space?

While the original abstract says that tests were run "within a stainless steel vacuum chamber with the door closed but at ambient atmospheric pressure", the full report describes tests in which turbo vacuum pumps were used to evacuate the test chamber to a pressure of five millionths of a Torr, or about a hundred-millionth of normal atmospheric pressure.

4. Why didn't they test Shawyer's EmDrive design as well as the Cannae drive?

It turns out that in January this year they did test the EmDrive design.

The test results for this were also positive, and in fact their tapered-cavity drive, derived from the Chinese drive which is in turn based on Shawyer's EmDrive, produced 91 micronewtons of thrust for 17 watts of power, compared to the 40 micronewtons of thrust from 28 watts for the Cannae drive.

5. Even if it works, how can such a small thrust push a spacecraft?

The thrust was low because this is a very low-powered apparatus. The Chinese have demonstrated a system using kilowatts rather than watts of power that produces a push of 720 millinewtons. This is enough to lift a couple of ounces, making it competitive with modern space drives. The difference is that this drive doesn't require any propellant, which usually takes up a lot of launch weight and places a limit on how long other drives can operate for.

The Nasa paper says "the expected thrust to power for initial flight applications is expected to be in the 0.4 newton per kilowatt electric (N/kWe) range, which is about seven times higher than the current state of the art Hall thruster in use on orbit today."

6. How does this get us to Mars?

The small but steady push of the EmDrive is a winner for space missions, gradually accelerating spacecraft to high speed.

The Nasa paper projects a 'conservative' manned mission to Mars from Earth orbit, with a 90-ton spacecraft driven by the new technology. Using a 2-megawatt nuclear power source, it can develop 800 newtons (180 pounds) of thrust. The entire mission would take eight months, including a 70-day stay on Mars.

This compares with Nasa's plans using conventional technology which takes six months just to get there, and requires several hundred tons to be put into Earth's orbit to start with. You also have to stay there for at least 18 months while you wait for the planets to align again for the journey back. The new drive provides enough thrust to overcome the gravitational attraction of the Sun at these distances, which makes manoeuvring much easier.

A less conservative projection has an advanced drive developing ten times as much thrust for the same power -- this cuts the transit time to Mars to 28 days, and can generally fly around the solar system at will, a true Nasa dream machine.

7. What's this about hoverboards and flying cars?

A superconducting version of the EmDrive, would, in principle, generate thousands of times more thrust. And because it does not require energy just to hold things up (just as a chair does not require power to keep you off the ground), in theory you could have a hoverboard which does not require energy to float in the air.

You'll have to provide the lateral thrust yourself though, or expend energy pushing the thing along by other means --- and in any case, superconducting electronics are rather bulky and expensive, so the super-EmDrive is likely to be a few years away.

8. Surely a single result by one lab is likely to be an error?
The Nasa work builds on previous results by Roger Shawyer in Britain and Prof Yang Juan at Northwestern Polytechnical University in Xi'an as well as Guido Fetta's work at Cannae. This is more of a confirmation.

9. Why isn't there a simple explanation of how it's supposed to work without violating the laws of physics?

Different research groups all seem to have their own theories -- Shawyer's is based on relativity, the Chinese one is based on Maxwell's Law and Nasa is now talking about pushing against "quantum vacuum virtual particles" and saying that this is "similar to the way a naval submarine interacts with the water which surrounds it." The Nasa report deliberately avoids any theoretical discussion on this point, with good reason.

None of these explanations has gone unchallenged by theoreticians, and it might be fair to say that there is no accepted explanation as to how a close system of resonating microwaves can produce a thrust. There is no accepted theoretical explanation of how high-temperature superconductors work either, but because the effect has been replicated so many times, nobody doubts that it happens.

If the new drive results continue to be replicated, then theory may have to catch up.

10. What happens next?

The next stage will be more tests and more validation. An improved version of the tapered drive based on the EmDrive has been designed, and this will be built and sent out to other facilities so they can confirm the initials results.

The current plan is for IV&V (Independent Verification and Validation) tests at the Glenn Research Center using their low thrust torsion pendulum, similar to the one used, followed by another one at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) using their low thrust torsion pendulum. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory may also test the device using a different type of apparatus known as a Cavendish Balance.

After that, the sky's the limit. Or perhaps it isn't.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive

[Rhyan]

Jornalismo impossível cria motor espacial baseado em mentiras
http://astropt.org/blog/2014/08/07/jornalismo-impossivel-cria-motor-espacial-baseado-em-mentiras/

[Pipoqueiro]

Este é o artigo de David Hambling publicado na Wired inglesa:

10 questions about Nasa's 'impossible' space drive answered

Wired.co.uk's piece last week about Nasa's test of a new type of space drive triggered a tsunami of responses online. Many were understandably sceptical, others were unsure how it would advance space travel. In fact, the paper produced on the day gave much more detail than the advance abstract we linked to then. The actual paper reveals details of tests in early 2014 as well as those in summer 2013 -- and the results are even more astounding.

Here we answer many of your questions, quibbles and criticisms.

1. Isn't such a tiny force likely to be experimental error?

The equipment can measure forces of less than ten micronewtons, and the thrust was several times that high.

The test rig is carefully designed to remove any possible sources of error. Even the lapping of waves in the Gulf of Mexico 25 miles away every three to four seconds would have showed up on the sensors, so the apparatus was floated pneumatically to avoid any influence. The apparatus is completely sealed, with power and signals going through liquid metal contacts to prevent any force being transmitted through cables.

Similar consideration was given to any other possible factors that could influence the result, for example shielding everything from electromagnetic effects. There may be a gap somewhere, but the Nasa experimenters appear to have been scrupulous.

2. Thrust was also measured from the 'Null Drive', doesn't that mean the experiment failed?

Lots of commenters jumped on this, assuming incorrectly that this was a control test and that thrust was measured when there was no drive.

In fact, the 'Null Drive' was a modified version of the Cannae Drive, a flying-saucer-shaped device with slots engraved in one face only. The underlying theory is that the slots create a force imbalance in resonating microwaves; the 'Null Drive' was unslotted, but still produced thrust when filled with microwaves. This may challenge the theory -- it is probably no coincidence that Cannae inventor Guido Fetta is patenting a new version which works differently -- but not the results.

The true 'null test' was when a load was used with no resonant cavity, and as expected this produced no thrust:

"Finally, a 50 ohm RF resistive load was used in place of the test article to verify no significant systemic effects that would cause apparent or real torsion pendulum displacements. The RF load was energised twice at an amplifier output power of approximately 28 watts and no significant pendulum arm displacements were observed."

Equally significantly, reversing the orientation of the drive reversed the thrust.

3. They didn't do it in a vacuum, so how do we know the result is valid in space?

While the original abstract says that tests were run "within a stainless steel vacuum chamber with the door closed but at ambient atmospheric pressure", the full report describes tests in which turbo vacuum pumps were used to evacuate the test chamber to a pressure of five millionths of a Torr, or about a hundred-millionth of normal atmospheric pressure.

4. Why didn't they test Shawyer's EmDrive design as well as the Cannae drive?

It turns out that in January this year they did test the EmDrive design.

The test results for this were also positive, and in fact their tapered-cavity drive, derived from the Chinese drive which is in turn based on Shawyer's EmDrive, produced 91 micronewtons of thrust for 17 watts of power, compared to the 40 micronewtons of thrust from 28 watts for the Cannae drive.

5. Even if it works, how can such a small thrust push a spacecraft?

The thrust was low because this is a very low-powered apparatus. The Chinese have demonstrated a system using kilowatts rather than watts of power that produces a push of 720 millinewtons. This is enough to lift a couple of ounces, making it competitive with modern space drives. The difference is that this drive doesn't require any propellant, which usually takes up a lot of launch weight and places a limit on how long other drives can operate for.

The Nasa paper says "the expected thrust to power for initial flight applications is expected to be in the 0.4 newton per kilowatt electric (N/kWe) range, which is about seven times higher than the current state of the art Hall thruster in use on orbit today."

6. How does this get us to Mars?

The small but steady push of the EmDrive is a winner for space missions, gradually accelerating spacecraft to high speed.

The Nasa paper projects a 'conservative' manned mission to Mars from Earth orbit, with a 90-ton spacecraft driven by the new technology. Using a 2-megawatt nuclear power source, it can develop 800 newtons (180 pounds) of thrust. The entire mission would take eight months, including a 70-day stay on Mars.

This compares with Nasa's plans using conventional technology which takes six months just to get there, and requires several hundred tons to be put into Earth's orbit to start with. You also have to stay there for at least 18 months while you wait for the planets to align again for the journey back. The new drive provides enough thrust to overcome the gravitational attraction of the Sun at these distances, which makes manoeuvring much easier.

A less conservative projection has an advanced drive developing ten times as much thrust for the same power -- this cuts the transit time to Mars to 28 days, and can generally fly around the solar system at will, a true Nasa dream machine.

7. What's this about hoverboards and flying cars?

A superconducting version of the EmDrive, would, in principle, generate thousands of times more thrust. And because it does not require energy just to hold things up (just as a chair does not require power to keep you off the ground), in theory you could have a hoverboard which does not require energy to float in the air.

You'll have to provide the lateral thrust yourself though, or expend energy pushing the thing along by other means --- and in any case, superconducting electronics are rather bulky and expensive, so the super-EmDrive is likely to be a few years away.

8. Surely a single result by one lab is likely to be an error?
The Nasa work builds on previous results by Roger Shawyer in Britain and Prof Yang Juan at Northwestern Polytechnical University in Xi'an as well as Guido Fetta's work at Cannae. This is more of a confirmation.

9. Why isn't there a simple explanation of how it's supposed to work without violating the laws of physics?

Different research groups all seem to have their own theories -- Shawyer's is based on relativity, the Chinese one is based on Maxwell's Law and Nasa is now talking about pushing against "quantum vacuum virtual particles" and saying that this is "similar to the way a naval submarine interacts with the water which surrounds it." The Nasa report deliberately avoids any theoretical discussion on this point, with good reason.

None of these explanations has gone unchallenged by theoreticians, and it might be fair to say that there is no accepted explanation as to how a close system of resonating microwaves can produce a thrust. There is no accepted theoretical explanation of how high-temperature superconductors work either, but because the effect has been replicated so many times, nobody doubts that it happens.

If the new drive results continue to be replicated, then theory may have to catch up.

10. What happens next?

The next stage will be more tests and more validation. An improved version of the tapered drive based on the EmDrive has been designed, and this will be built and sent out to other facilities so they can confirm the initials results.

The current plan is for IV&V (Independent Verification and Validation) tests at the Glenn Research Center using their low thrust torsion pendulum, similar to the one used, followed by another one at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) using their low thrust torsion pendulum. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory may also test the device using a different type of apparatus known as a Cavendish Balance.

After that, the sky's the limit. Or perhaps it isn't.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive

Interessante, obrigado pela contribuição ao tópico 

Eu também estou cético quanto a esse invento, exatamente por isso fiz o tópico, quero ver as opiniões de quem entende mais do que eu sobre o assunto. 

[Reginaldo brasileiro]

Eu também estou cético quanto a esse invento, exatamente por isso fiz o tópico, quero ver as opiniões de quem entende mais do que eu sobre o assunto. 

Não há muito que possa ser dito,porque os resultados detalhados da experiência não estão disponiveis gratuitamente,o que nos força a aceitar a opinião de jornalistas,cuja prioridade é a divulgação da noticia ao invés da acuracidade da mesma .
Outro problema é pela resposta dada a pergunta 9,não haveria uma base teórica atualmente que explique o que está acontecendo ou em outras palavras,eles não sabem explicar porque o motor deles funciona . Se nem os engenheiros por trás deste motor espacial tem uma opinião formada sobre assunto,o que dizer então dos nossos especialistas em física aqui do fórum .

[Rocky Joe]

Pode não haver um modelo* que descreva o motor em seus pormenores, mas a dificuldade vem (se for o caso) da dificuldade de utilizar a teoria para cálculos, e não porquê o fenômeno é inesperado qualitativamente.

Quando se fala de "vácuo quântico", se fala de um nome que os físicos deram para um estado de um sistema em que não contém partículas de um determinado tipo. Há um "vácuo de elétrons", "um vácuo de fótons", etc. Mas pode haver outros observáveis físicos nestes estados que não sejam quantidade de partícula, e esses podem ser não nulos. Em especial, há um campo quântico**, que não tem um valor bem definido - ele "flutua" sobre uma média (que é zero, por curiosidade), que pode muito bem causar efeitos reais. Um exemplo é a força de Casimir. Outro é o decaimento de qualquer átomo (i.e, quando um elétron cai de um estado mais excitado para um menos excitado - as flutuações quânticas do vácuo dão o 'empurrão' inicial).

Se parece complicado, é que, até onde sei, nem físicos entendem a teoria muito bem.

* Estou usando a diferença entre modelo e teoria.

** Para físicos: embora eu não sei se o campo é de fato um observável.

[Cientista]

Um motor espacial capaz de impulsionar uma nave sem consumir combustível, tirando sua energia diretamente do vácuo quântico.

Parece bom demais? Ou esquisito demais?

A comunidade acadêmica vinha marcando a segunda opção, achando esquisito o suficiente para nem olhar para os protótipos, classificados como "invenções malucas".

Mas a coisa repentinamente começou a ganhar ares de seriedade. Um dos inventores do "motor espacial quântico" conseguiu convencer uma equipe da NASA a pelo menos testar seu invento.

Eles testaram e, para surpresa geral, a coisa funcionou.

David Brady e seus colegas do Centro Espacial Johnson testaram o motor quântico em 2013, mas só agora apresentaram um artigo descrevendo os testes durante o evento 50th Joint Propulsion Conference, que terminou na sexta-feira em Cleveland, nos Estados Unidos.

O evento não chamou a atenção de muita gente, exceto de David Hambling, que escreveu um artigo para a revista Wired neste final de semana relatando a apresentação.

Motor espacial sem combustível tira energia do vácuo quântico

É sem combustível ou sem material autônomo para propelir? Ali adiante é dito que, para o "funcionamento" do delírio, é prevista uma fonte de energia nuclear. hahahahahahahhahaha Esses caras...

Conceito de uma sonda espacial para voos mais longos, explorando o conceito do motor quântico, que não depende de tanques de combustível. [Imagem: Cannae LLC]

Não, só de reatores...   hahahahahahah

Motores quânticos

Tudo começa com o cientista britânico Roger Shawyer, que vem tentando há vários anos chamar a atenção da comunidade científica e das agências espaciais para o seu EmDrive, um motor eletromagnético, que provê empuxo sem disparar massa para o lado oposto.

O conceito é revolucionário, já que transformar diretamente eletricidade em empuxo significa que as naves não precisarão mais levar combustível. O problema é que isso rompe com a lei clássica da conservação de energia, o que tem feito a comunidade científica torcer o nariz para a ideia.

Mas é tanto bulshit num parágrafo só que só resta...        agradecer!    HA HA HA AH AH HA AH...

Caramba, tô até trocando as letras! 'xeu pará poraqui...

Este é o artigo de David Hambling publicado na Wired inglesa:

10 questions about Nasa's 'impossible' space drive answered

Wired.co.uk's piece last week about Nasa's test of a new type of space drive triggered a tsunami of responses online. Many were understandably sceptical, others were unsure how it would advance space travel. In fact, the paper produced on the day gave much more detail than the advance abstract we linked to then. The actual paper reveals details of tests in early 2014 as well as those in summer 2013 -- and the results are even more astounding.

Here we answer many of your questions, quibbles and criticisms.

1. Isn't such a tiny force likely to be experimental error?

The equipment can measure forces of less than ten micronewtons, and the thrust was several times that high.

The test rig is carefully designed to remove any possible sources of error. Even the lapping of waves in the Gulf of Mexico 25 miles away every three to four seconds would have showed up on the sensors, so the apparatus was floated pneumatically to avoid any influence. The apparatus is completely sealed, with power and signals going through liquid metal contacts to prevent any force being transmitted through cables.

KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK...

Bulshit pouco é bobagem. Pra que economizar, né não?! hahahahahhahahaha...

Puxa vida, coisas como o efeito Townsend Brown eram mais refinad(inh)as...  esses caras, assim como até físicos e engenheiros 'de verdade' estão perdendo muito a classe... É a deterioração dos sistemas... Por que seria diferente com humanos?  Aí eu choro...   snif

[Reginaldo brasileiro]

Puxa vida, coisas como o efeito Townsend Brown eram mais refinad(inh)as...  esses caras, assim como até físicos e engenheiros 'de verdade' estão perdendo muito a classe... É a deterioração dos sistemas... Por que seria diferente com humanos?  Aí eu choro...   snif

Deixe eles tentarem fazer estas coisas . Mesmo se um entre 1000 conseguir fazer algo que os fisicos dizem que não deveria ser possível,baseado no conhecimento atual,seria fantástico ver eles sendo sucedidos .