EmDrive test ... somewhat successful
Jeffrey Schwartz
(01 Aug 2014 16:39 UTC)
|
RE: [TML] EmDrive test ... somewhat successful
Anthony Jackson
(01 Aug 2014 18:04 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] EmDrive test ... somewhat successful
Bruce Johnson
(01 Aug 2014 18:14 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] EmDrive test ... somewhat successful
Jeffrey Schwartz
(01 Aug 2014 19:01 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] EmDrive test ... somewhat successful
Bruce Johnson
(01 Aug 2014 20:01 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] EmDrive test ... somewhat successful
shadow@xxxxxx
(03 Aug 2014 18:52 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] EmDrive test ... somewhat successful Tim (04 Aug 2014 05:37 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] EmDrive test ... somewhat successful
Richard Aiken
(04 Aug 2014 10:48 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] EmDrive test ... somewhat successful
Tim
(04 Aug 2014 14:30 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] EmDrive test ... somewhat successful
Ian Whitchurch
(04 Aug 2014 22:24 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] EmDrive test ... somewhat successful
Bruce Johnson
(04 Aug 2014 22:47 UTC)
|
On Sun, Aug 03, 2014 at 11:52:30AM -0700, shadow@shadowgard.com wrote: > Yeah, even though the claim to have not found any error, the fact > they are getting apparent thrust from *both* test articles argues in > favor of their theory being wrong. Yes, very strongly so. The fact that they ended the report by saying that the experiment *supported* their theory indicates that they're one or more of delusional, incompetent, or deliberately misleading. Also, doing this sort of micronewton-scale experiment *in air* is a horrible sign right from the start. - Tim