Alain, where did you read that the blank/dummy control drive also worked? >From what I read it seemed to indicate that it passed (got negative result) on that drive.
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote: > few bad point for the test are : > 1- the thrust is much weaker than EmDrive > 2- the "blank" reactor works too. > the 1 is probably linked to the bad Q compares to EmDrive > > the 2 maybe is simply that Fetta does not understand well his reactor, and > that it worsk for another reason than the one he imagine. > > one hypothesis is that Shawyer is right (at least phenomenologically) and > Fetta have build involuntarily 2 EmDrive > > point 2 rule out the fraud as a fraudster would have make the blank fail. > > the characteristic of rauds is that it work as expected. > > that Emdrive and Canae Drive work in 4 test setups make clear that it is > not a measurement artifact. > it is something unexpected linked to microwave, resonance... whether it is > real thrust or artifact is a question, but it is a microwave resonance > artifact if artifact. > > > 2014-07-31 20:22 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>: > >> See: >> >> >> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive >> >> Eric >> >> >
