It is my understanding that Eaglework's new paper has been today accepted for publication in a peer-review journal, where it will be published. I expect that Eagleworks should receive notification momentarily (it should be in the mail). Note: I have not heard this from anybody employed by NASA.Congratulations to Dr. White, Paul March and the rest of the NASA Eagleworks team !!!!!!!!
Quote from: Rodal on 08/26/2016 11:15 pmIt is my understanding that Eaglework's new paper has been today accepted for publication in a peer-review journal, where it will be published. I expect that Eagleworks should receive notification momentarily (it should be in the mail). Note: I have not heard this from anybody employed by NASA.Congratulations to Dr. White, Paul March and the rest of the NASA Eagleworks team !!!!!!!!So, if you didn't hear that from NASA, either they have a leak, OR you were among the anonymous reviewers...
Quote from: jstepp590 on 08/21/2016 02:31 pmUh actually I was not debating anything. It's a rough crowd here. Nobody's yet floated the device across the conference room table for investors. The first one to do so wins. They do like debating tho!Still, I threw an eyeball over the link you provided:http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807Most of the designs here are closed cavities. No place for the photons to exit, for one thing.For another, the paper's authors look to be trying to find the math before they have a device. Here, they're trying to build a device before they have the math.I have no idea what the best way to proceed is, but hey. Thanks for posting.
Uh actually I was not debating anything.
I know everyone here is optimistic, but part of science is the negative as well, so the paper could be closing the door. Unless that is not how this paper review process would work? Thinking back to things like the opera ftl neutrinos, there was alot of scientific hubbub before it was released / resolved, I know NASA has been sealed lips but with theory shattering results I imagine at least one peer reviewer would leak something. Someone more familiar with the peer review process will hopefully set me straight or clarify!
Quote from: chucknorris101 on 08/27/2016 07:03 pmI know everyone here is optimistic, but part of science is the negative as well, so the paper could be closing the door. Unless that is not how this paper review process would work? Thinking back to things like the opera ftl neutrinos, there was alot of scientific hubbub before it was released / resolved, I know NASA has been sealed lips but with theory shattering results I imagine at least one peer reviewer would leak something. Someone more familiar with the peer review process will hopefully set me straight or clarify!Not in this case I wouldn't have thought due to the high interest & controversial nature of the whole topic.
Quote from: Star One on 08/27/2016 07:36 pmQuote from: chucknorris101 on 08/27/2016 07:03 pmI know everyone here is optimistic, but part of science is the negative as well, so the paper could be closing the door. Unless that is not how this paper review process would work? Thinking back to things like the opera ftl neutrinos, there was alot of scientific hubbub before it was released / resolved, I know NASA has been sealed lips but with theory shattering results I imagine at least one peer reviewer would leak something. Someone more familiar with the peer review process will hopefully set me straight or clarify!Not in this case I wouldn't have thought due to the high interest & controversial nature of the whole topic.I agree. It was clear, in my understanding, that the Eaglework paper submitted was showing positive results
It is my understanding that Eaglework's new paper has been today accepted for publication in a peer-review journal, where it will be published. I expect that Eagleworks should receive notification momentarily (it should be in the mail). Note: I have not heard this from anybody employed by NASA.Congratulations to the Eagleworks team !!!!!!!!
While I remain optimistic on the topic... You are probably right. My guess is, they've discovered something but its not scalable and limited in use to something like a cubesat or smaller even.
Roger just emailed me, the SPR web site has been updated:www.emdrive.com
Quote from: TheTraveller on 08/28/2016 11:14 amRoger just emailed me, the SPR web site has been updated:www.emdrive.comVery interesting papers. Some of those papers are even more than 10 years old. Still he speaks there about things this forum consider as the "latests news". I wonder where his work is now.It is good to see that he still cooperates with the UK goverment. That is I guess a reason why I could not find a thing about his current research sigh....
Quote from: Chrochne on 08/28/2016 11:37 amQuote from: TheTraveller on 08/28/2016 11:14 amRoger just emailed me, the SPR web site has been updated:www.emdrive.comVery interesting papers. Some of those papers are even more than 10 years old. Still he speaks there about things this forum consider as the "latests news". I wonder where his work is now.It is good to see that he still cooperates with the UK goverment. That is I guess a reason why I could not find a thing about his current research sigh....The attached will explain.I assume as the 10 year ago time line rolls forward, more papers will be shared.