It looks like I can answer my own question. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140006052.pdf
Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the “null” test article). On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 9:16 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >>> >>> >> >
