I agree that it is just anomalous measurement letting fear/hope reactionless engine.
the problem is that most skeptics don't simply ast for REPLICATE IT MORE TO PROVE IT BAD but DONT WASTE MONEY REPLICATING... they als claim "it is a student error" ignoring all de things that have been checked, and the intriguing sensibility to microwave resonance. what I see most of the time is the total absence of true skeptics. there are believers, confident in one paper, or wisshful. there are deniers afraid to have laws broken, who insut any success ful author there are cautious optimistics who are intrigued, hopeful, but ready to be decieved. No aggressive skeptic have considered the microwave resonance effect and proposed anything... this is what I camm cargo cult skepticism. It remind me the "inverted clamp"... there is a huge problem with lugano that McKubre have spotted, bad calibration, but that one have to consider numerically... what is the error of emissivity required, and what is the real temperature if COP=1 in lugano test... nobody answered. I tried but I suspect I'm wrong, because I don't know exactly how is computed the IR cam estimated temperature at a given emissivity claim. NB: if someone can give me the method I can revert the equation. 2014-11-20 10:20 GMT+01:00 Sunil Shah <s.u.n....@hotmail.com>: > "Another example is the reactionless engine that NASA has just tested > that supposedly violates Newton's Laws of Motion." > > Sorry for being picky, but they haven't tested a reactionless engine. > They have measured "anomalous thrust" in a test pendulum setup. > > http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140009930.pdf > > .s > > ------------------------------ > Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 15:53:07 -0500 > From: janap...@gmail.com > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. > > > Many, if not most, of the LENR detractors/skeptics base their viewpoint on > a position that LENR can’t work because it contradicts the laws of physics. > The heart of the matter lies in engineering. A good engineer will use the > optimum physical principle to get the job done. > > > As a example, a Wakefield accelerator that is just a few feet in length > uses a different set of physical laws to do what the CERN 17 mile diameter > accelerator does. A scientist who specialized in nuclear physics may not > understand what laws to apply to get his job done in a more optimized way. > That does not make the physical principles applied in the optimized > solution invalid. It just means that the engineers of the optimized > solution have amazed the scientist to such a huge extent that the scientist > is baffled into disbelief when he sees the results of the engineering. > > > Another example is the reactionless engine that NASA has just tested that > supposedly violates Newton's Laws of Motion. It turns out that the EMF > field used in the engine pushes against the virtual particles in the > vacuum. > > > This does not make the test that NASA conducted of that engine a SCAM or > the engineers who understand what is going on morons. > > > > >
