this is the 3rd test, done with different metrology, and with many cross checking documented on EmDrive (like changing turn...)
as Ed Storms says in his books, when a phenomenon survive to the change of the measurement setup(shawyer, chinese, nasa), and is similar in different setup(emdirve, qdrive) that share a common thing (resonance, asymmetry, microwave), there is a great chance something real linked to the core technology is happening... and not independent artifacts that conspires independently to fool scientists. however the ideas of shawyer about the theory have no strong reason to be good, so his computation on how to improve it... he have good hint, no more... about the theory the idea that the EmDrive is surfing, rowing, sculling on the virtual particles of the void is the most reasonable I've heard. I don't need no violation of any conservation law... just less unchecked assumption (as for LENR). 2014-07-31 23:45 GMT+02:00 David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>: > I have a hangup about the conservation of momentum that makes me skeptical > of this device. My guess is that the thrust will be shown to be an error > once everything is taken into account. The power to generate the large > amount of RF must enter the device from somewhere and that is likely the > root of the thrust. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: leaking pen <itsat...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 4:16 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive > > Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now? > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> See: >> >> >> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive >> >> Eric >> >> >
