This Contraption Could Be The Future Of Space Travel

The idea of a rogue, genius inventor working outside the confines of a government or corporate lab, creating a new technology that could potentially change the world, is certainly tantalising. Who knows: Guido Fetta could be the next Tesla, and his QDrive could very well revolutionise space travel. Or it could be an idea lacking a sound scientific basis.

What looks like nothing more than a hubcap retrieved from the side of the road, is supposedly the secret to what makes the QDrive engine produce large quantities of thrust, with a minimal amount of input energy. The scientific theories, principles and formulas behind how it works are outlined on the Cannae LLC website. And I encourage you to spend as much time as you need pouring through the abstracts and documents to grasp the concept.

But for those of you without the necessary patience or attention span, the QDrive is essentially a sealed resonating cavity to which an electrical current is applied. The current flows around the inside of the cavity, creating electromagnetic waves and Lorentz forces acting on its upper and lower plates. Normally these forces average and balance out. However, the bottom plate on the QDrive features 60 identical slots running around its perimeter that serve to change the vector direction of the forces on that side. Resulting in an imbalance, and an excess of force, on the top plate. This is of course a gross summation of the science behind the QDrive, but it should give you a general idea of how it produces thrust without burning a drop of fuel.

If it works as Guido and his calculations say it does, the QDrive could be a huge leap forward for space travel, potentially on an intergalactic scale. But even to novice physicists like ourselves, there are reasons for scepticism. In their slick introduction videos Guido points out that the science occasionally deviates from standard physics. And the oft referenced Appendices section of their site is a ghost town. As for the all important experimental proof? Earlier in the year they conducted a handful of real world tests which yielded results that were about 40 per cent off what their theoretical models had predicted. But those results have yet to be published in a scientific paper, or even provided as downloadable data sheets for outside examination.

It also appears that Guido has put a lot of time and money into his company’s website and branding, with the About section of their site crediting more designers than scientists. But we also understand that if you’re looking for more funding to further develop a product or an idea, you have to do everything you can to convince potential investors that you’re legit. So while our knee jerk reaction is to point a finger at the QDrive and shout “Snake Oil!” The science loving geeks inside all of us are secretly hoping Guido Fetta turns out to be a real-life Zefram Cochrane, bringing us one step closer to bona fide warp drives. [QDrive via BoingBoing via House Industries]

Discuss

(18 Comments)
  • [–]

    Joe P

    Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 11:06 AM

    Amazing stuff! Can’t wait to buy one of these and place it right next to the Steorn Orbo powering my house!

    It’s been a while since the last omg I’ve built world changing technology phony so this should be fun.

    • [–]

      Barry

      Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 11:29 AM

      What if he is proven right though? What If???

    • [–]

      Flux

      Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 12:58 PM

      Good call, Joe. But unlike Steorn, who are certainly shysters, this guy seems to be willing to at least try and explain how it works. He may genuinely believe that he has something here. He doesn’t, but he may not know why.

      Long story short, his idea is to set up a resonant EM field which is in balance. Then he takes away reaction surface at a point where there is a high magnetic field strength but low electric field, supposedly changing the effects on the magnetic field but not the electric field (because it’s ‘not strong there’). He worked this out using a computer model, which approximates his solutions using incremental steps on a graph, rather than a smooth curve. Because the computer assumes these incremental steps are all a uniform value, the system presumes that there will be regions where each field are ‘negligible’. But electromagnetism works on smooth curves, so his computer approximations are silently locking in an incorrect assumption. And since he’s operating in confirmation bias mode, he doesn’t want to work out WHY his model doesn’t match existing theory – he likes his idea, his model agrees with his idea but not with existing physics, physics must be wrong.

      He’s neglected to acknowledge that varying the magnetic field will always alter the electric field, reaction surface or not. He’s also ignoring the fact that his grooves will change the resonance pattern of the cavity before he even begins. Non-science ahoy!

      Or maybe he is a shyster – he’s awful casual about handwaving conservation laws, which is a pretty big call. And knowing a little bit about computational science, if I wanted to pull a hoax I’d hide it in the math just like this. I dunno, but either way I wouldn’t buy stock…

  • [–]

    Sam

    Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 11:28 AM

    I think Philishave might have beat him to the punch?

    • [–]

      Ben

      Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 11:30 AM

      The first blade cuts close. The second even closer!

  • [–]

    Jamie

    Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 11:45 AM

    Yeah, but what’s the bass response like?

  • [–]

    EckyThump

    Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 12:06 PM

    “The science loving geeks inside all of us are secretly hoping Guido Fetta turns out to be a real-life Zefram Cochrane”
    Definitely one of those moments where you say, ‘please be true’ and given that they would be keen to protect there patents if they have any, I’m not surprised that it’s not explained too simply! But,… the website is very vague, and I have read it through! The videos are long on irrelevant information and lacking in anything I can understand. Being just your average Joe, and in no way a scientist, I found it too confusing to make sense of! But God I hope it’s just not vapour ware!

  • [–]

    light487

    Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 12:47 PM

    Looks like the designs for those anti-gravity machines, which Mythbusters tested and proved to be phoney; or the free-energy ones.. same.

    Looking at the basic theory, it seems plausible but no more than the crap using the solar panels that 13 year old kid did a few months back.

    • [–]

      EckyThump

      Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 1:52 PM

      I notice he never mentions how much power is used or what supplies it? From the last video, I get the impression that if it develops any thrust at all I doubt it would be more than the ion drive that NASA is already using! If it’s going to be a game changer it needs some wallop!

      • [–]

        Big Windows

        Friday, October 14, 2011 at 1:47 PM

        Mmmmm… More Wallop… Mmmmm…

  • [–]

    Christopher West

    Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 12:57 PM

    hey all ‘science’ starts somewhere. would be awesome to punch the hyperdrive button and blast off to Omega 4 or whatever star system…

  • [–]

    Matt

    Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 1:20 PM

    I love Gizmodo’s headlines (No I don’t)

  • [–]

    James

    Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 1:44 PM

    if it turns out to be true, he’ll end up having a bizarre and tragic “accident” and his invention will disappear mysteriously.

    • [–]

      chris

      Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 4:46 PM

      ^this

  • [–]

    Sean

    Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 3:49 PM

    Come on, they’ve got 4 years to deliver on a hoverboard, and this is the only tech that holds out any hope. Fingers crossed people.

  • [–]

    John

    Friday, October 14, 2011 at 10:33 AM

    Doesn’t this break several of the laws of thermodynamics and energy conservation?

    Still, I want it to be true.

  • [–]

    Nicholas

    Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 12:10 AM

    OK, let see what comes immediately to one’s mind, ah yeah:

    Momentum conservation violation.

    Also, his formula, used for average force is missing a few terms (notably, involving Maxwell stress tensor) so there is no wonder he got non-zero resulting force.

  • [–]

    Chordbuster

    Sunday, October 16, 2011 at 2:39 AM

    HUH?
    My physics education is VERY old. But did someone repeal the laws of physics while I was not watching?

Join The Discussion