The proper question to ask of Occam's razor whether it's more likely that three small groups made mistakes in their test setups that gave them the results they desperately wished to see, or that tens of thousands of physicists working over decades completely failed to find an effect that is easy to produce on a variety of different devices that are simple to make.
If there is a good reason to suspect an experimental flaw, pointing out that reason and spreading the idea about that flaw does absolutely advance scientific knowledge.
There appears to be a clear dependency between thrust magnitude and the presence of some sort of dielectric RF resonator in the thrust chamber. The geometry, location, and material properties of this resonator must be evaluated using numerous COMSOL® iterations to arrive at a viable thruster solution. We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust.
Quote from: Silversheep2011 on 08/03/2014 07:22 amQuote from: FlyingMoose on 08/03/2014 04:43 amThis discovery came about because Shawyer was trying to explain the thrust generated by the microwave transmitters on satellites which exceeded what was expected and required additional fuel to correct.This would really make an interesting subject to read or a comparison point to read up on.who you be able to supply a link or a paper?I have spent about 5 hours and have been unable to find it again. Google is worthless because any keywords I can think of only find hundreds of news articles about the recent NASA experiment. It was a mention in a forum, it wasn't an official paper. Perhaps someone with better google-fu can find it.
Quote from: FlyingMoose on 08/03/2014 04:43 amThis discovery came about because Shawyer was trying to explain the thrust generated by the microwave transmitters on satellites which exceeded what was expected and required additional fuel to correct.This would really make an interesting subject to read or a comparison point to read up on.who you be able to supply a link or a paper?
This discovery came about because Shawyer was trying to explain the thrust generated by the microwave transmitters on satellites which exceeded what was expected and required additional fuel to correct.
I step into this debate with trepidation. My perspective is that neither proponent has developed a successful characterisation of any effect...
Financial Sponsor: NASA Johnson Space Center; Houston, TX, United States
A rocket motor utilises the shape of the nozzle to convert chemical energy to a directed force, which we call thrust. Is it possible that all that happening here is microwave energy is converted to thrust by the shape of the chamber?
I suppose the question to ask next is, Has NASA finally invented a thruster that finally defies Betterridge's Law of Headlines?Color me skeptical after Flesichmann-Ponns, OPERA...Great if it was true (or terrifying considering the inevitable military applications) but I will wait a while this blows over and see if it sticks.
What military applications, I could see you could produce a very stealthy air vehicle through it but what else?
Guys I applaud trying to stay on topic, but you're giving so little detail I have no idea what you're talking about. Going to that site shows some terrible "scientific" thoughts, is that what you mean.Perhaps it needs a separate thread on "misunderstanding science" or whatever the concern is - otherwise an illustration of your concern would be great
Quote from: GregA on 08/05/2014 10:33 pmGuys I applaud trying to stay on topic, but you're giving so little detail I have no idea what you're talking about. Going to that site shows some terrible "scientific" thoughts, is that what you mean.Perhaps it needs a separate thread on "misunderstanding science" or whatever the concern is - otherwise an illustration of your concern would be great See link below.http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5469Make of what is posted in there what you will.
Quote from: Star One on 08/06/2014 08:14 pmQuote from: GregA on 08/05/2014 10:33 pmGuys I applaud trying to stay on topic, but you're giving so little detail I have no idea what you're talking about. Going to that site shows some terrible "scientific" thoughts, is that what you mean.Perhaps it needs a separate thread on "misunderstanding science" or whatever the concern is - otherwise an illustration of your concern would be great See link below.http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5469Make of what is posted in there what you will.Just speed-read that thread. Isn't GIThruster someone who was banned from NSF back-in-the-day before my time here? What was the score with him? (I can probably guess..)I'm glad to be with sensible people who can discuss this properly here at NSF.