I think cheapest and best way to prove, it will be build device that could be used on ISS(my understanding weight and power consumption are not overwhelming) and move it to ISS using one of the Dragon supply missions and tested on Orbit. I think in short time we will see if it is keeping ISS on same orbit or even raise orbit.
1887 Michelson–Morley experiment find very strange behavior that completely question current understanding of universe physic . After Einstein publish his theory and explain experiment everything was clear, it was 18 years after experiment.I will not judge results of EMDrive until we could replicated or disapprove it by other tests. I think our understanding universe and fabric is still not very clear. If by some luck we could interact and use resources that build our universe, to move us around solar system, it is worth of couple millions to spend and it is definitely purpose of NASA to do it. As I mention if other test replicate results,I will recommend to bring on ISS. This is exactly reason for ISS as orbital laboratory for space exploration.
...6) Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.Yes. Three examples: A) [Dr. White] a MagnetoHydroDynamics model for the quantum vacuum, B) [Prof. Woodward] an unconventional Mach effect resulting in an “impulse” mass transient term and a second always-negative “wormhole” mass transient term, and C) [Prof. Brito] a Minkowski instead of an Abraham stress tensor explanation (to name three different explanations that have been proposed). "Conventional experience" has not shown A) translational momentum transfer imparted from (electron/positron pairs of) virtual particles from the quantum vacuum, B) transient changes in mass resulting from EM, and C) translational momentum imparted from EM explained in terms of (the unsymmetric) Minkowski 3D+time stress tensor (without addressing "hidden momentum" as done by Poincare, Shockley and others)....
From my perspective I feel these types of comments keep getting raised because the authors want something to force the collective community to either take notice or prove them right. Shouldn't the onus now be on the critics. Shouldn't the critics be required to attempt a reproduction and publish their results, even if it is in Conference Proceedings.
Question: Does someone know what the diameter of the base of the NASA Tapered (Frustum) Cavity thruster is (was)?
Maybe in a perfect world, but not this one. See GoatGuy's proofs that it cannot work. That's a proof easy to do, all you need do is ignore one source of energy while claiming that your argument is complete. It doesn't help that there is no agreement on what that ignored energy source is and only those who have positive experimental results "know" that it does exist.
... In the current context, Rodal and others are saying effectively, “there is a distant moving mass, that of the Universe, expanding in all directions (isotropically?); insofar as retaining the Holy Grail of Physics is concerned (either conservation of momentum, or conservation of energy, take your pick), Mach's Principle and Woodward's derivations postulate that the Universe's expanding mass is creating an Inertial Field, which is also in continuous expansion, and if this is true, then perhaps the impulse-energy and Q-thruster devices are conserving energy if the inertial field and Universe mass is brought into play”....GoatGuy
To paraphrase more briefly: If one includes the Universe's mass, and if that mass creates an inertial field, which travels both backward and forward in time at “c”, then deflecting that inertial field ought to deliver force independent of apparatus orientation, speed, or acceleration history, if it is Lorentz-transform invariant.
Or that one cannot propel a sailboat using the wind or get energy from windmills... Or propel a Solar Sail using the Sun or get a huge amount of energy from the Sun...
Ha. Are you serious? You can't be serious For example, I'm the one that wrote:[One of Langmuir's characteristic of PS]<<Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.Yes. Three examples: A) [Dr. White] a MagnetoHydroDynamics model for the quantum vacuum, B) [Prof. Woodward] an unconventional Mach effect resulting in an “impulse” mass transient term and a second always-negative “wormhole” mass transient term, and C) [Prof. Brito] a Minkowski instead of an Abraham stress tensor explanation (to name three different explanations that have been proposed). "Conventional experience" has not shown A) translational momentum transfer imparted from (electron/positron pairs of) virtual particles from the quantum vacuum, B) transient changes in mass resulting from EM, and C) translational momentum imparted from EM explained in terms of (the unsymmetric) Minkowski 3D+time stress tensor (without addressing "hidden momentum" as done by Poincare, Shockley and others).>>
Quote from: Rodal on 09/17/2014 09:27 pmOr that one cannot propel a sailboat using the wind or get energy from windmills... Or propel a Solar Sail using the Sun or get a huge amount of energy from the Sun...Yes, yes … this is what I just commented on above. The allusion has become something of a mantra: there's an inertial wind, and all such force-for-power-input devices are simply catching the breeze, not unlike a sailboat's sail or a windmill's enshrouded spars.But is there a relatively simple derivation of this (that doesn't require 3 years of symbolic calculus and a head-full of opaque assertions) that can be set to type? I've seen simple, wordy accounts like I've just made, and I've seen 20 to 100 page papers. I have yet to see something that can fit in a few pages, and which ordinary mortals with basic physics smarts can follow. I welcome such a brief explanation; I mean that with honesty, and without rancor. Perhaps Rodal you have the goods?GoatGuy