3 ms·

You can't blame NASA for trying shit. They aren't claiming this stuff will work, just that they measured thrust. The fact that one study showed differently isn'

by rocqua 10y ago

You can't blame NASA for trying shit. They aren't claiming this stuff will work, just that they measured thrust. The fact that one study showed differently isn't binding. Many, many papers disagree. I believe they are going to put one of these in space, that'll give a definitive answer.

debunkit 10y ago
I am blaming them for not being up to date on the state of the art and not following up on earlier research, especially on what has been hinted at in: https://tu-dresden.de/ing/maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/ressourcen/dateien/forschung/folder-2007-08-21-5231434330/ag_raumfahrtantriebe/JPC---Direct-Thrust-Measurements-of-an-EM-Drive-and-Evaluation-of-Possible-Side-Effects.pdf https://tu-dresden.de/ing/maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/ressourcen/... First you have to completely decouple the cavity from it's surrounding environment - especially the RF-field has to be generated by an apparatus fixed to the cavities frame of reference. Also the power has to come from a source connected to this frame of reference. For me this is Physics 101. As otherwise your system is not even closed. You are just neglecting that you are pumping LOTS of energy into an open system that you are measuring while assuming it to be closed -> thus leading to wrong conclusions (measuring a change in impulse in one part of the system) For me this in line with uBeam and the like. Whacko-science wherever one looks.
- badlogic 10y ago
  Ah, so you created a new account because you are from TU Dresden. When I was in academia it was OK to call out other institutes without doing so anonymously. Has this changed?
  - binarycoffee 10y ago
    I doubt Mr debunkit is from TU Dresden or he would probably have posted the link to the article first (though it could have been a ruse of course). In any case, I am not from TU Dresden and have only a passing acquaintance with Tajmar, but I do agree that credit and recognition is not going where it should in this case.

by rocqua 10y ago

debunkit 10y ago

I am blaming them for not being up to date on the state of the art and not following up on earlier research, especially on what has been hinted at in: https://tu-dresden.de/ing/maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/ressourcen/dateien/forschung/folder-2007-08-21-5231434330/ag_raumfahrtantriebe/JPC---Direct-Thrust-Measurements-of-an-EM-Drive-and-Evaluation-of-Possible-Side-Effects.pdf https://tu-dresden.de/ing/maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/ressourcen/... First you have to completely decouple the cavity from it's surrounding environment - especially the RF-field has to be generated by an apparatus fixed to the cavities frame of reference. Also the power has to come from a source connected to this frame of reference. For me this is Physics 101. As otherwise your system is not even closed. You are just neglecting that you are pumping LOTS of energy into an open system that you are measuring while assuming it to be closed -> thus leading to wrong conclusions (measuring a change in impulse in one part of the system) For me this in line with uBeam and the like. Whacko-science wherever one looks.

badlogic 10y ago
Ah, so you created a new account because you are from TU Dresden. When I was in academia it was OK to call out other institutes without doing so anonymously. Has this changed?
- binarycoffee 10y ago
  I doubt Mr debunkit is from TU Dresden or he would probably have posted the link to the article first (though it could have been a ruse of course). In any case, I am not from TU Dresden and have only a passing acquaintance with Tajmar, but I do agree that credit and recognition is not going where it should in this case.