3 ms·

This is now two layers of garbage clickbait. The article links to: http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/new-nasa-emdrive-paper-shows-force-of.html http://www.

This is now two layers of garbage clickbait. The article links to: http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/new-nasa-emdrive-paper-shows-force-of.html http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/new-nasa-emdrive-paper-... which links to: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7kgKijo-p0ibm94VUY0TVktQlU/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7kgKijo-p0ibm94VUY0TVktQlU... which is a year old and basically says "more work is needed to rule out mundane sources of error like thermal expansion". If there was a new published paper anywhere, it would be significant but there isn't. This is just a work in progress with any number of corrections to be made (NOTE: in 12 months, no one has submitted this leaked paper). Even if it does work, it's less propulsion than an ion drive.

mikeash 10y ago
Your final sentence puzzles me. If it works, then it's new physics. That's tremendously exciting, no matter how little thrust it produces. Especially since this is a device built without the slightest clue of how it actually works, so thrust could no doubt be increased dramatically once there's a good theoretical foundation behind it. Of course, the fact that it represents new physics is also why the smart money is on it being some sort of measurement error.
- Ph0X 10y ago
  I'm confused how this was presented by someone 10 years ago, and with all the researches out there, no one has yet replicated or refuted his work, and NASA is the only one doing it... 10 years later?
  - mikeash 10y ago
    The supposed effect is so small that it's extremely difficult to distinguish it from potential confounding forces, like air currents or magnetism. Sufficiently precise experiments require sophisticated equipment, so not many researchers can try it. Even with really good equipment, it's hard to tell if the measured force is real. The work has been replicated and refuted many times, but never conclusively.
- pg_is_a_butt 10y ago
  Your conclusion puzzles me. If it works, then, as suspected, it could be a product of thermal expansion. now, perhaps, the specific cone shape exploits thermal expansion and contraction in a way that hasn't been observed before. if it's thermal expansion, but it still works, then will the materials withstand the constant cycle over a long period in space. you're all idiots.

mikeash 10y ago

Your final sentence puzzles me. If it works, then it's new physics. That's tremendously exciting, no matter how little thrust it produces. Especially since this is a device built without the slightest clue of how it actually works, so thrust could no doubt be increased dramatically once there's a good theoretical foundation behind it. Of course, the fact that it represents new physics is also why the smart money is on it being some sort of measurement error.

Ph0X 10y ago
I'm confused how this was presented by someone 10 years ago, and with all the researches out there, no one has yet replicated or refuted his work, and NASA is the only one doing it... 10 years later?
- mikeash 10y ago
  The supposed effect is so small that it's extremely difficult to distinguish it from potential confounding forces, like air currents or magnetism. Sufficiently precise experiments require sophisticated equipment, so not many researchers can try it. Even with really good equipment, it's hard to tell if the measured force is real. The work has been replicated and refuted many times, but never conclusively.
pg_is_a_butt 10y ago
Your conclusion puzzles me. If it works, then, as suspected, it could be a product of thermal expansion. now, perhaps, the specific cone shape exploits thermal expansion and contraction in a way that hasn't been observed before. if it's thermal expansion, but it still works, then will the materials withstand the constant cycle over a long period in space. you're all idiots.