Different, but this made me think of Borbas Miklos, a simple ion free anomalous thrust experiment:
http://web.archive.org/web/20090902150248/http://bmiklos2000.freeweb.hu/unipolar.htm On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 10:16 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote: > However, apparently a dummy load produced zero thrust... > > And I think the other designs need to be better understood, should they > really be null? > > http://i.imgur.com/daNmDty.png > > > On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 10:09 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
