More on the null test... http://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/2c8xah/nasa_validates_impossible_space_drive_wired_uk/cjdg3bh
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 11:21 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
