NASA Confirms New EM Thruster Violates Laws Of Conservation

Wired reports:

Nasa is a major player in space science, so when a team from the agency this week presents evidence that “impossible” microwave thrusters seem to work, something strange is definitely going on. Either the results are completely wrong, or Nasa has confirmed a major breakthrough in space propulsion.

British scientist Roger Shawyer has been trying to interest people in his EmDrive for some years through his company SPR Ltd. Shawyer claims the EmDrive converts electric power into thrust, without the need for any propellant by bouncing microwaves around in a closed container. He has built a number of demonstration systems, but critics reject his relativity-based theory and insist that, according to the law of conservation of momentum, it cannot work.

US scientist, Guido Fetta, has built his own propellant-less microwave thruster, and managed to persuade Nasa to test it out. The test results were presented on July 30 at the 50th Joint Propulsion Conference in Cleveland, Ohio. Astonishingly enough, they are positive.

The Nasa team based at the Johnson Space Centre gave its paper the title “Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF [radio frequency] Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum“.

NASA proposes that:

“Test results indicate that the RF resonant cavity thruster design, which is unique as an electric propulsion device, is producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon and therefore is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma.”

The paper goes on to note that:

The resistive RF Load evaluation indicated no significant systemic cause for torsion pendulum displacement.  Based upon this observation, both test articles (slotted and unslotted) produced significant thrust in both orientations (forward and reverse).

So what they are saying is that a dummy test device (called the resistive RF load) produced no thrust, while two variations of the thruster design did in fact produce noticeable directional thrust.  The paper also details all of the steps they took to control the test environment so that external vibrations didn’t interfere with the testing equipment.  This means it is highly unlikely the observed forces are simply due to testing artifacts.

In any respect, this is yet ANOTHER proven violation of the so-called “laws” of physics. These “laws” are obviously not real laws at all. They are assumptions.

Here’s a few more violations:

NASA confirms low energy nuclear reactions (cold fusion) are a real phenomena.

AuburnUrbana Champagne, and Rowan University all confirm Blacklight Power’s process of energy production is real and violates conservation laws.

Engineering consulting firms TRC and AirKinetics confirm Solar Hydrogen Trends new hydrogen reactor violates conservation laws in its production of hydrogen. TRC’s validation report can be found here. AirKinetics’ summary report can be downloaded here. The full reports are available under NDA. SHT has also opened its reactor to testing by ANY qualified engineer who wishes to test it.

The people who still don’t believe in Blacklight are going to be in for a rude awakening. These guys are already dealing with major defense contractors, major solar distributors, and a host of other firms that are going to be cooperatively bringing this technology to market. Energy production is going to change. Soon.  Like in the next six months soon.  I just watched a representative of a major defense contractor give a presentation along side Mills at a Blacklight press conference.

Beyond the fact that Blacklight is going to revolutionize the energy industry, they are also going to revolutionize physics. Mills has created a system of quantum level physics based entirely on classical physics. His models are hyper-accurate, and they are the only models that can describe what is going on with their energy production. The defense contractor was openly saying Mills work was going to revolutionize all of science. I agree with him wholeheartedly.

What’s interesting is the guy who came up with this EM thruster device is claiming that it could potentially generate up to a ton of thrust per kilowatt of power consumed. If they could pull that off, interstellar spaceflight, flying cars, and a whole new Jetson’s world will become possible.

Consider that Blackight’s new device will be capable of providing tens of megawatts of power in a device that weighs less than a car. So put two and two together, and suddenly you have unlimited thrust and unlimited power to move anything anywhere. Imagine mobile homes that can hover in the air indefinitely and can “park” on top of Mt. Everest for a holiday.

In the near future, there will be no need for roads, no need for a power grid, and no need to mine the Earth for metals.  It has to be asked, at what point do state powers become irrelevant?  When airports and roads become antiquated, borders become meaningless.  Bitcoin, or a similar currency, will make state dominated money antiquated.  Technology is going to make the state irrelevant.

  • Deus ex machina

    Those in power are going to act like a cornered rat. I hope they don’t kill too many people on their way out… Otherwise this is going to be fun.

    • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

      Michel Vandenberghe of LENr-Cities address your fear, but with a less terrible interpretation.

      “It’s not a technology issue……. .First, If it does not work, forget otherwise forget technology and think business.
      Let’s suppose it works.

      Let’s say there’s no efficient way to protect IP (except keeping it secret but only for early stage…), show it, and you’re losing the game. When it is disclosed, value is 0. Entry costs are low (it is not a hot fusion reactor…). Do not show it, and it does not make sense.

      Let’s suppose it is possible to protect it with some IP, importance of this breakthrough will impose to make it widely available in order to be able to adress the market demand, and obviously other players will find way to displace the game,even if STH has a lot of money because it takes too much time to grow enough.

      Other usual ideas are then to build consortium, to ask the president and agencies of the united states to endorse the project and so on.. Nothing works.

      It is just waste of time ! Let’s see history !

      Remplace STH name by Rossi to think about what the scenario will be In the best case, Somebody will buy the technology and will try to deal with somebody very big to capture the whole market.

      Evertbody except big egos, know that. A major opportunity to change the world will have been lost. I would be very happy to be wrong.

      Developing an open approach is not an option but an appropriate business strategy.”

      it is a strange way of mind, that is not easy to understand because we are not trained in that way currently…

      • Deus ex machina

        In my mind World War 1 & 2 were a reaction to the peasants getting to much freedom. You could live and work where ever you pleased without anyone harassing you. Kids were getting real educations and individuals where innovating at a breakneck pace.

        So how do you stop this? You start a war and slaughter the peasants. You set up tyrannical governments globally that can generate laws faster then any individual has a chance to keep up. You take control of the currency and crash the economy every few years. You turn the people into cattle with passports and licensing.

        I feel like between the internet and these new technologies, the people in power are getting antsy again. They feel like control can only be maintained by a cull of these new freedoms and powers that the peasants have gained. They may try to start a new gentler World War, one in which doesn’t alarm the peasants to much in the beginning. They also have all this crap in their arsenal: ethnic specific biological weaponry, massive surveillance technologies, and a new psychology empowered propaganda mill.

        I don’t doubt that they will try to control these energy technologies and cryptocurrencys. I know that they will fail too. What scares me is what they might do when they figure that out and between when they realize their game is up.

        • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

          no doubt the lobbies who think they are important, money, but even more the workers union, politicians and their voters, the incumbent professions, will try to maintain the statusquo, preventing market disruption…
          like in France when we block the Uber car to use geolocalization, or force them to go back to their garage between two clients…
          they will try.

          if the good guys are organized as an ecosystem they will adapt, get around, get faster than the bad guys of status quo.

        • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

          one thing I’ve learned about economic rents is that you cannot kill a rent. it is not honest, as people paid for it and it is cheating to change the rules so nastily.
          however you can exchange rents, buy it at honest prices, make it extinguish slowly…

          for example for the taxi, the solution is to allow owner of license to sell many more licens (5 license is ok in France, since the market is underdeveloped)… the you will remove many obligation around taxi, increas those on Uber and finally the market will be free, and license will be free and infinite…

          if you kill economic rent too violently, people use their freedom to destroy the society.

          the governments shoul use it’s power not to prevent change but to organize it… not to something, but extinguishing all the economic rent that thei distributed on the political market as it is frequent.

          very hard as most politicians are rent distributers, and not competition organisers and rent extinguisher.

          typically they use an independent authority to do that, to tight their hand, so they can say “it is not me, it is the authority”… see WTO…

  • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

    EmDrive probably don’t violate any law of conservation, but like for cold fusion/LENR, it violate the lasy assumption most physicist don’t even know they do.

    For EmDrive&al the comment of NASA talking of possible effect linked to virtual particles is wise, and wiser is the fact that they concentrate on the experimental result and not on any theory. that is SCIENCE, the real one.

    for cold fusion I support the approach of Edmund Storms who propose that all conservation laws are respected, and that LENr is caused by NAE, strange structures probably 1D or 2D (like High-Temp superconduction which is probably linked to 2D structures)
    described in a short paper
    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf
    presented at this conference

    detailed in that book

    http://lenrexplained.com/

    For me BLP is one of the worst candidate among LENr innovators.
    see the slandscape

    http://lenrftw.net/are_lenr_devices_real.html

    The leaders are Cherokee/Industrial Heat who develop E-cat technology with Rossi… the soon to came test will be a bomb, but peer review is slow … anyway if it was bad it would be quick and violent.

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/07/19/e-cat-report-watch-thread/

    Brillouin who works with SRI have a good networks and is probably the candidate of the US government, indirectly supported by Navy/DoD

    http://www.lenrnews.eu/dod-darpa-and-cold-fusionlenr-are-they-watching-or-trying-to-save-usa-industry/

    There is other small startup like Lenuco, Nanortech, LENR-cars/LENr-Invest who are not well advanced but who can cause a surprise.

    I follow LENR-Cities which will make a big surpise in Europe, not with a reactor but with a “market sandbox”, an ecosystem where innovators of all size could develop and sell each others service to develope that transition.

    As you are libertarian, this idea is interesting. it is free market, contracts to enforce collaboration, cross interest, mutual assured development…

    the antithesis of the state funded research, but not the jungle law.

    what the anarchist have dream, people who agree on a vision, make their law, share resources, and can leave.

    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/49-Interview-with-Michel-Vandenberghe-of-LENR-Cities-moving-forward-Towards-a-Europ/

    • Peter B

      considering they are referring to relativistic effects, I am suspecting this in reality relates to what is called “hidden momentum” that comes out of combining special relativity and electrodynamics… no quantum mechanics required as I understand it….

      here is a paper published by none other than David Griffiths on the subject…

      http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/77/9/10.1119/1.3152712

      • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

        thanks.
        I know enough to stay modest …
        this idea seems interesting , as an approach.
        in many strange discoveries there is often a hidden parameter that we ignored because in normal life it is useless…

        it can even be an artifact, or a useful artifact

  • Timo Ylhäinen

    Goofy science makes goofy news. Though this one was only minutely entertaining.

    • Matt

      Hey. What this article is saying, is that this guy has invented an engine that runs on the endless stream of quantum particles, flitting in and out of existence. Modern travel runs on classical mechanics— to this point space travel is accomplished by burning enormous quantities of fuel in the opposite direction.

      There’s no way this discovery is “minutely entertaining.” This could change everything.

      • Timo Ylhäinen

        It will not change anything, because it is just a measurement error and quite obviously so to anyone with even rudimentary understanding of physics.

  • Pingback: Harold White afirma que su motor EmDrive viola las leyes de la física | Ciencia | La Ciencia de la Mula Francis()

  • OneManITDept

    Now this information bares watching for further development!

  • GovernmentAgent

    I can see the author drooling as he bangs furiously on his keyboard… I can also picture where his spare hand is placed…

  • GovernmentAgent

    From the “article”: ‘We could also interpret this another way, and say that the device
    proves the existence of an aether, because that’s what it’s apparently
    pushing against. “quantum vacuum virtual plasma” is another term for
    “aether.”

    In any respect, this is yet ANOTHER proven violation of the so-called
    “laws” of physics. These “laws” are obviously not real laws at all.
    They are assumptions.’

    ——————————————

    The author probably has no idea about the history of the aether hypothesis and how it was solidly refuted despite near-100% acceptance by the scientific community. He also obviously has no clue that the “quantum vacuum virtual plasma” is NOT the same as aether. He also overlooks that Chinese did same experiment and found a 1000x difference in thrust as well as ignoring that a “null” group got the same result when none was expected.

    If this microwave thruster is real, then it would be really easy to reproduce… don’t hold your breath.

    • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

      I’m willing to wager far more familiar with the history of aether theory than you are. As for your assertion that the virtual plasma is not an aether, that’s just plain wrong. It may not be the flavor that Lorentz envisioned, but it’s a theoretical aether none the less. The theory calls for the spontaneous creation of particles out of nothing. Well.. not nothing, because nothing can’t do anything, ergo, it’s an aether based theory.

      • Eric

        The obvious point is that this experiment has now been done twice with results that vary by a factor of 1,000. Even if you are willing to suspend belief of the conservation of momentum (if you could violate this, you’d have some pretty earth shattering results), you would have to suspend your belief in a lot of other things to get results this wildly different with almost identical experiments.

        I will gladly wager a c-note that we end up finding the results are from an experimental error and not a result of the proposed mechanisms in play. As noted earlier, a control group also displayed a positive thrust further underscoring the likelihood that this is just a flaw in the experiment. And for the conspiracy theorist out there… any company that could produce a machine that provided thrust without propellant would quickly become Fortune 500.

        • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

          I guess we shall see.

        • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

          the difference in performance, if all is real, is probably the Fettya design is bad, and Shaywer much better.
          the Q factor seems the key , and Fetta seems very bad.

    • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

      ” as well as ignoring that a “null” group got the same result when none was expected.”

      where did you get that?

      on the opposite it seems they tested many blank situation and it did work only when resonating.

      for Emdrive the FAQ explain what they cross checked. I imagine they at least tested the same:

      http://emdrive.com/faq.html

      8.
      Q. Has buoyancy been allowed for?
      A. Buoyancy has been allowed for in the initial experiments and then eliminated by hermetically sealing the thruster.

      9.
      Q. Are there any convection currents which might affect the results?
      A. Convection currents did not affect the results, as measurements were taken with the thrust vector up, down and horizontal. Test runs were also carried out using a thermal simulation heater to quantify the effects of change of coolant temperature.

      10.
      Q. Has stiffness in cables and pipes been allowed for?
      A. The only connections to the balance were high flex electrical links

      11.
      Q. Has friction in any pivots been allowed for?
      A. Static thrust measurements were carried out using 3 different techniques – a counterbalance rig with a knife edge pivot, a direct weighing method using a 16kg balance (0.1 gm resolution), and with the thruster suspended from a spring balance with the weight partly offloaded on to an electronic balance.

      12.
      Q. Have electromagnetic effects been taken into account? These include interactions between current-carrying conductors and between such conductors carrying RF currents and nearby metallic structures in which currents might be induced.
      A. Stray electromagnetic effects were eliminated by using different test rigs, by testing two thrusters with very different mounting structures, and by changing the orientation by 90 degrees to eliminate the Earth’s magnetic field.

      13.
      Q. Is there any ionization within the air, which might cause electrostatic charging and resulting forces?
      A. Electrostatic charges were eliminated by the comprehensive earthing required for safety reasons, and to provide the return path for the magnetron anode current.

      14.
      Q. Could RF pick-up measurement circuits have produced erroneous results?
      A. EMC tests were carried out on the instrumentation to eliminate the effects of RF pick up.

      15.
      Q. Could acceleration be caused by spurious torques generated by the air bearing?
      A. Dynamic tests are preceded by an acceleration calibration test, using standard weights to determine the air bearing friction.

      16.
      Q. Could acceleration be caused by anomalous thermal or electromagnetic effects?
      A. Acceleration and deceleration tests have been carried out in both clockwise and anti-clockwise directions Acceleration from rest only starts when the magnetron output frequency matches the resonant frequency of the engine, following an initial warm-up period.

      • Eric

        Here is what OP is referring to

        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).

        • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

          right, I missed that surprise. sure that seing that they checked all possible artfacts twice, so if there is an artifact it is smart… note that if it was a fraud the fraudster would have desactivated the trick.

          beside an artifact on those 2 devices and the Emdrive of shwayer and the one tested by the Chinese, which is improbable, there is the very probable fact that Fetta have a bad theory, and did not design a reactor that don’t work, because his hypothesis is broken.

          his result is much weaker than Emdrive, and maybe what he observe is simply a parasitic effect of what Shawyer do better.

          Shawyer already interpret the weakness as a consequence of a bad Q-factor of the cavity , by Fetta design itself.

          it is not definitive, but not searching would be absurd and anti-scientific…
          since current scientific community is mostly dogmatic , lasy, submissive, I imagine they will continue to avoid that subject and work on predictable science.

          • Eric

            “it is not definitive, but not searching would be absurd and anti-scientific…since current scientific community is mostly dogmatic , lasy, submissive, I imagine they will continue to avoid that subject and work on predictable science.”

            You haven’t the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Every researcher in the world would LOVE to have their name associated with a law breaking or redefining discovery. Expect half a dozen universities to be trying to duplicate these findings in the next few months (assuming they haven’t already).

          • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

            it is a myth.

            every scientist on the planet would flee that subject not to be lynched.

            see what is happening to cold fusion/LENr, despite the evidences and the huge potential.

            scientists are submissive, slave of the funding money and the peer review. They are forced to follow the mainstream taboo and sacred crows.

            even scientists themselves, when prized and free from the crowd, describe that problem:

            http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/18/we-need-more-scientific-mavericks

            http://home.isr.umich.edu/releases/growing-inequalities-science-field/

            http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals

            http://phys.org/news/2013-11-funding-prone-formation.html

            the few that have courage, there are some, are quickly destroyed lik were F&P, Bockris and a thousand of others…

            who followed what yang yan did ? carefully nobody…
            NASA is one of the only organization to face the consensus in some tiny discrete place, provided everybody laugh at them.

          • 77Jack

            Coincidence theorists always have this idealistic view of mainstream science where every scientist is tirelessly searching for the truth fighting a relentless battle against belief, bias, and preconceived ideas. He is the ideal man devoid of the faults, frailties and vices that plague the profane.

            It’s a fairy tale.

            Not that it’s impossible for individuals to attain a higher state of consciousness and rise above their base desires, but this just isn’t what’s going on in mainstream science today. There’s real science going on, to be sure, but it’s labeled “fringe”.

            Scientists go through the same basic indoctrination and operant conditioning system we all go through, public school. They then go on to higher indoctrination centers where they go through even more filters to weed out as many of the non-conformists who happened to have made it through the first system.

            The result is that the majority of scientists have been corrupted into a form of priest class where they act, not as seekers of truth, but as defenders of the dogma they were inculcated with during their schooling.

            If they were truly searching for truth they wouldn’t be telling us what is impossible because you can’t honestly be searching for what is (ie, the truth) when you have preconceived notions as to what is possible and what is not.

            All human beings filter their perceptions based on their beliefs and scientists are no different. A Christian may not be able to see evidence that contradicts his beliefs because his beliefs affect his perceptions and filter out that information.

            It’s the same with a scientist, not all of course but the vast majority. The only real difference is that a Christian knows that he is acting on faith and belief whereas a scientist falsely believes he is working with a clear and unbiased mind devoid of “religious” belief.

            So that being said, very very few researchers in the world would LOVE to have their name associated with a law breaking or redefining discovery. That would require a reexamination of all scientific knowledge and call into question what is “known”. Titans and heroes of science might have to be toppled, people’s whole careers might be for not, jobs would be lost, and depending on what “law” is being broken all of society might have to change.

            That is far too scary a prospect for most scientists to contemplate much less hope for or work toward. That is why all theories that contradict mainstream science are called “fringe”, “pseudo-science”, “quackery”, “woo” and/or other infantile names.

            I expect that this will get little to no coverage as time goes on and most people will forget about it.

            Anywho, that’s just my $0.02

          • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

            +2

            at this price it is a good article.

            what you describe is well presented by Thomas Kuhn

            Kuhn also explain tha indoctrination is required to push the limits of the paradigm, to exploit it.

            if scientists were doubting all the time they would lose much energy. instead they know 99% as faith, and dig in a tiny direction, very hard… it works for “normal science”, not for revolution.

            what works well however is multiple paradigm from various “school” or various domains. Pasteur was a chemist and did what Semmelweis and alexander gordon of Aberdeen failed to do, despite the fact that illiterate mother and nuns were aware of it.

            http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html

            paradigm is unavoidable, but we need more diversity, less consensus, simply local consensus that change from communities to communities…

            western science, determined by US Ivy league, deciding of the truth in Science, Nature, NYT, then in Wikipedia, then in all press, is a dead end.

          • 77Jack

            Yeah I agree and thanks.

            The centralized consensus approach is employed to control thought and suppress the evolution of consciousness.

            What seems most logical to me is to not fixate on specialization and to take a more holistic approach where specialization works in cooperation with an interdisciplinary method.

            Then people could really start to see cause and effect and how the microcosm relates to the macrocosm and vice versa.

          • Eric

            Many assertions. No backing. When a new experiment purports to upend centuries of science, then yes, it does get a lot of scrutiny and skepticism. That is as it should be.

            The bottom line, though is that anyone is free to reproduce this experiment. It isn’t terribly costly… and any university, government or even small company could easily fund it.

            And if a company did develop an engine (for lack of a better term on my part), they would have a huge market.

            It is really easy to sit on the sideline and criticize scientists and accuse them of conspiracy. But you know what is great about science? Anyone can do scientific research. It doesn’t require a degree.

            So, if you and AlainCo are confident that this is a new viable propulsion system, invest in it. A small group of you would be able to fund this. Frankly, I hope you are right… it would revolutionize space travel. Not just an incremental jump, but really, truly revolutionize it.

            So, it is easy to snipe… much harder to actually do something. Which will you do?

          • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

            in fact with modern western society you cannot make experiments above what an individual can do in his kitchen.

            You need funding by the government, who ask for peer opinion. peer reviewer look at each other and the first who dare to have an open mind is ridiculed, so he don’t even move.

            that is groupthink.

            http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf

            in corps it is slightly better, but the board of control prevent investment in fringe test. they replicate academic groupthink.
            only rich inventors, lone entrepreneurs, can invest in fringe tests.

            see for example the attack agains Elforsk for just investing 600k on a test

            http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/372-ELFORSK-answers-to-Sveriges-Radio-attack-against-their-work-on-LENR-and-E-cat/

            their claim is an evidence, that the risk of not testing is much higher than the risk of missing a key information, but what we see is that nobody dared to do that, or when it was done was ridiculed without the least evidence.

            EmDrive need to be investigated.

            the chinese, breaking from Western domination, decided to do it despite western opinion…

            I don’t know if it is working, but what is sure is that it is not a hoax, a simple error… it is either a complex artifact that was replicated among 3 teams, or a real phenomenon.

            whay is there any people that simply defend the idea that we should not test ?

            why is there so few people to say this reaction is anti-scientific ?

            the answer is that academic community is not scientific, but “normal science”, afraid of ridicule more than curious.

            they can say they love revolution, but only the one they predicted with a theory, and considered as serious by the community. Individual can dissent but they are marginalized…

            what we see with those Nasa guy is good science at work, and the reaction is the bad science at work.

            the dysfunction is that when the good science will again fail, as it have to happen 99% of the time (that is the risk), the bad scientists will make them regret to be good scientists.
            and there would be few good scientists turned bad.

            modern science is even more conservative than engineering… I’me even heard one bad scientists expressing his fear of the consequence if the scientists makes mistake…
            As I am an engineer, i know that my job is to manage the risk, and have method. the job of scientists is to take the risk.
            The most stupid is that it is the opposite today which happen… engineer have more incentive to take risk to be wrong, because there is a payoff if it works, and few risk if it fail in the lab… not in science.

          • 77Jack

            Haha, I love guys like you.

            What am I doing? Well, what I have been doing for the past 7 years or so is simply learning and gathering knowledge. What I’m doing now is starting to write to put together a blog for people to read and hopefully induce them to start thinking about things differently and challenge their beliefs about how the world works.

            So, what is it that you’re doing, besides blindly following the crowd? What proof of your many assertions have you provided? All you’re doing is speaking from ignorance and you’re taking it on blind faith that science works as you’ve described.

            Does it really work that way?

            How would you find that out?

            How much effort would be require to find that out?

            If you find that science doesn’t work the way you believe, what else doesn’t work the way you believe?

            How much effort would be required to look into that?

            If many things or everything works different than the way you believe, what do you do then?

            It’s far more easy to sit in the crowd and hurl insults at those trying to point out that the game is rigged…much harder to get off your ass and start looking into things on your own. Which will you do?

        • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

          someone on reddit explain the “null test” problems with better language than me… basically Fetta made prediction from his theory and it failed, by working despite his theory.

          http://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/2c8xah/nasa_validates_impossible_space_drive_wired_uk/cjdg3bh

          (skpkzk2) “I’m using the term null test differently than the paper. When I say null test, I mean the RF load that was supposed to not do anything to prove that the testing apparatus was not the cause of the anomalous readings.

          The paper refers to the symmetric test aparatus as the null test, because it was meant to test a prediction of Fetta’s theory on how the device produces thrust (that the force is produced by an imbalance of the lorentz force caused by the asymmetric chamber). This test seems to indicate that Fetta’s theory is incorrect (or at the very least innacurate). Dr. White’s theory on how thrust is produced however predicted that both test articles should produce thrust, which they did.

          I’m not saying that the abstract is wrong, I’m saying it is incomplete and that quote, taken out of context, implies the opposite of what actually happened.

          Now the debate on this subject is not over. Fetta sticks to his theory, and is planning on publishing a paper in the next few months (probably around october) on the subject. I do not speak to the validity of either side’s claim, I’m merely stating that the issue is different from the one /u/IsTom thinks it is.”

  • Peter

    probably the only place I could find that had the full paper from the NASA team… thanks!

  • OneManITDept

    This is quickly becoming an extremely interesting bit of science!

  • Moronbusters

    The complete explanation for how/why the device works is contained on the site of the inventor in the UK. (Who woulda thunk to look there?) emdrive.com

    Once you read the scientific papers there you will see than no violation of physics (as we understand it takes place)