-
#2920 by lmbfan on 19 Nov, 2016 05:44
-
Circular polarization helical antennas as described in Shawyer's recent patent do not resonate like quadrifilar or cloverleaf antenna. I can't find any of the familiar TE01x modes using a purely helical antenna.
It looks like you are using spherical end caps. Have you tried with the modified frustum geometry with a flat major diameter end plate and a shaped minor diameter end cap? For modes, would it matter that the flat end is superconducting? -
#2921 by Gilbertdrive on 19 Nov, 2016 06:15
-
Meberb's critique is not invalid. The experimental signal is still smaller than the noise component, and Egleworks has not wholly characterized 100% of the potential error sources.
Eagleworks has not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the effect is real. However, they have substantially raised the bar on what would be required to disprove the effect.
I think it is impossible to characterize 100% of the potential error sources.. Only to test it in space..
I was wander how they tested HAL effect when they first discovered it which is 300 times weaker than of this EM drive according to the: http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/final-version-of-nasa-emdrive-paper.html
This paper says that the Emdrive's thrust is 300 times than other zero propellant propulsion.Quote from: Next Big Futurelight sails, laser propulsion, and photon rockets having thrust-to-power levels in the 3.33–6.67 μN∕kW (or 0.0033–0.0067 mN∕kW) range.
It is not about Hall thrusters. Hall thrusters are not zero propellant thrusters.
also, the conservation of Momentum (CoM) make that, even without mesuring the thrust of a given Hall thruster, we can know that it works, since it ejects matter at high speed. It is standard physics. The same type of proof is not needed than for a New physics device -
#2922 by OnlyMe on 19 Nov, 2016 07:04
-
The definition of an open system is one that interacts with something else. The emDrive as described by Shawyer does not do this, so it is a closed system. Saying "it is an open system" does not magically make it one.
...
Actually, the copper frustum is interacting with "something else". It is interacting with the EM field inside it. This field is NOT trapped inside, it escapes through dissipation. So by definition, it is an open system. It could only be considered a closed system if the energy inside could not escape. Meaning, once stored, it would stay there indefinitely without decaying. That is not the case.
Heat escapes, which is very different to an interaction imparting the thrust levels being measured.
Energy is also lost or disipated as a current through the frustum walls. The interior walls of the frustum act as the ground plane for the MW antenna introducing the resonating EM field and interact with that same interior EM field, as an antenna of sorts, which converts a portion of the EM field back into an electrical current. That interaction returns a portion off the EM energy that began as a current potential at the antenna, back to current and eventually to ground.
The total energy balance is not limited just to a heat loss, but there should be a deficit in the total measurable energy losses, when compared to the initial energy introduced, equal to the energy required to produce whatever measureable thrust there might be.
Under most classical transfers of momentum from magnetic and/or electromagnetic sources, like an electric motor the motor frame is fixed in place usually to earth or a larger mass, so there is an equal and opposite force arrangement we are familiar with, even understanding the force itself is generated electromagnetically. In the case of an EmDrive one might argue that a polarized difference in electrical and/or electromagnetic potential between the field resonating inside the frustum and the polarity of the electric current or even electromagnetic field associated with the current in the frustum walls, provides an unconventional equal and opposite polarity or electromagnetic force arrangement, where only that portion of the resulting momentum transferred to the physical frustum is observable, from the outside.
Think of the frustum essentially simulating a long copper tube, through which a comsentrated electromagentic field travels as a pulse. That would invoke a Lenze force reaction, that would in the abscence of opposing forces or any ridged attachment, result in an observable transfer of momentum to the copper tube, which could be measured as thrust. I don't believe this is really what is happening, because the dynamics seem far more complex, than this simplified example... But it should provide sufficient reason to look closer at the field dynamics that may be at play between the frustum and the EM field within.
Things would get even more complex because even though both the EM field inside the frustum and the current and Em field associated with the frustum walls would share a frequency of say 2.4 GHz, the rate that each updates at, should the frustum move, would be slightly different, by an amount equal to the difference in the velocity of an electrical current through the material of the frustum walls, as compared the speed of light rate that the EM field would update at. -
#2923 by meberbs on 19 Nov, 2016 08:16
-
Shawyer has not said it is a closed system. He has described it as a closed system, and then made an irrelevant statement that he claims means it is an open system. What it really means is that he doesn't know the definition of an open system (or is being deliberately deceptive.) The idea of an open vs closed system (and the direction something moves when a force is applied) should be intuitive, but since he gets it wrong, I'd say his intuition isn't very good either. If the emDrive works, he got very lucky stumbling onto it.
This chain of posts is about Shawyer's theory not yours, if your theory works (I need some more time to work though some details), it involves special GR effects that make it an open system. Shawyer's theory does not include those.
The definition of an open system is one that interacts with something else. The emDrive as described by Shawyer does not do this, so it is a closed system. Saying "it is an open system" does not magically make it one.
...
Actually, the copper frustum is interacting with "something else". It is interacting with the EM field inside it. This field is NOT trapped inside, it escapes through dissipation. So by definition, it is an open system. It could only be considered a closed system if the energy inside could not escape. Meaning, once stored, it would stay there indefinitely without decaying. That is not the case.
Heat escapes, which is very different to an interaction imparting the thrust levels being measured.
I never said that heat convection causes the thrust. I've said in numerous posts, it is the gradient in the internal effective potential that gives it a thrust greater than a photon rocket. The fact that internal energy is not stored indefinitely and that heat escapes means, it is not a closed system. The possibility that the dissipation is asymmetrical, allows there to be a gradient in the potential, with which to attract the internal stored equivalent mass to "pull against", before it is dissipated as heat.
Please stop pulling this out of context and changing the subject.
I was responding to a different user who replied to me. However, I don't recall reading anywhere that Shawyer said it is a closed system. I do recall reading where he said that the energy stored inside as the Q, decreases as the energy is converted into thrust. This is not a closed system. In a closed system, the energy could not escape at all, and I think he's said it is an open system, for which he is correct. His math is flawed, his words are confusing, and he has confounded experimental data, but when "I" read between the lines of what he really means by those words, he is describing my theory. The mass inside accelerates toward the rear, and the frustum moves forward to conserve momentum. That is what he's saying, as best he knows how.
It seems bassackwards but it's not, once you realize it's not a closed system and there is a potential difference between the frustum and the energy inside it, because that energy is leaving the cavity and heating the copper asymmetrically forming a potential gradient.
Personally, I feel sorry for the guy. It's a complicated problem, unlike anything anyone has ever seen before since Newton, whose mind wasn't clouded with preconceptions. Shawyer has proposed an incorrect mathematical theory, but his intuition is correct. He understands how it works, he just doesn't know how to do the math.
What you are describing again is your theory, which still doesn't make sense to me, but if I have time I will look at it closer this weekend. While you did reply to someone else, this whole chain started with my post about Shawyer's theory, but you have responded each time in a way that reads as if your theory somehow justifies Shawyer's mistakes. -
#2924 by Star One on 19 Nov, 2016 08:31
-
Is new talk of interstellar drive too good to be true?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2113253-is-new-talk-of-interstellar-drive-too-good-to-be-true/
Final NASA Eagleworks Paper Confirms Promising EMDrive Results, Proposes Theoretical Model
https://hacked.com/final-nasa-eagleworks-paper-confirms-promising-emdrive-results-proposes-theoretical-model/
Final version of NASA EMdrive paper confirms 1.2 millinewtons per kw of thrust which is 300 times better than other zero propellent propulsion
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/final-version-of-nasa-emdrive-paper.html?m=1
The second story is mine, thanks for sharing.
The first story (New Scientist) ends with: "In truth, until there is real scientific evidence on the table for others to pore over, critique, test and reproduce, the vast majority care little about the claims of interstellar revolutions. And for those who are not scientists, but who dream of interstellar flight and galactic colonisation, and wonder what to make of all of this, remember the old adage: 'If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.'"
The thing is, real scientific evidence that EmDrive works IS on the table, and has been there for quite some time. The NS writer is making, perhaps intentionally, some confusion between EmDrive and "warp-drives," FTL and all that. But even if we are talking of "magic" FTL propulsion, the conclusion is defeatist. I would add a few words to the conclusion:
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is, but we should do our f## best to find out.
I am hoping people will write in and say stuff like that, they do have a letters page for rebuttals and other opinions. I don't feel sufficiently scientifically competent in all this to venture this kind of opinion. -
#2925 by flux_capacitor on 19 Nov, 2016 09:46
-
However, I don't recall reading anywhere that Shawyer said it is a closed system. I do recall reading where he said that the energy stored inside as the Q, decreases as the energy is converted into thrust. This is not a closed system. In a closed system, the energy could not escape at all, and I think he's said it is an open system, for which he is correct. His math is flawed, his words are confusing, and he has confounded experimental data, but when "I" read between the lines of what he really means by those words, he is describing my theory. The mass inside accelerates toward the rear, and the frustum moves forward to conserve momentum. That is what he's saying, as best he knows how.
It seems bassackwards but it's not, once you realize it's not a closed system and there is a potential difference between the frustum and the energy inside it, because that energy is leaving the cavity and heating the copper asymmetrically forming a potential gradient.
Personally, I feel sorry for the guy. It's a complicated problem, unlike anything anyone has ever seen before since Newton, whose mind wasn't clouded with preconceptions. Shawyer has proposed an incorrect mathematical theory, but his intuition is correct. He understands how it works, he just doesn't know how to do the math.
That's exactly how I see things too. Shawyer describes a shift in the momentum of EM waves as they travel back and forth in a tapered cavity (as McCulloch also does with a different theoretical framework involving quantised inertia). Then the frustum accelerates in the opposite direction to conserve momentum. While doing this work, the EM energy decays due to the momentum exchange with the cavity and power dissipation (ohmic loss) through walls, then Q drops, and so does thrust. Energy must be continuously added from an RF power source to maintain this conversion and the resulting thrust. Actually not continuous but pulsed power, to allow the travelling EM wavefront to do its work and decay before injecting a new pulse of RF power into the cavity, and so forth.
While all this can be extracted from Shawyer's theory when one reads, as you said, "between the lines", I really don't understand why he tries to explain the force only by the radiation pressure imbalance on the two end plates, which in my opinion is just a consequence of the increased inertial mass of photons travelling backwards and of the momentum exchange between those travelling EM waves and the cavity; i.e. the increased radiation pressure on the big end plate is not directly the cause of the cavity's forward acceleration.
To me the "Shawyer effect" as TheTraveller likes to call it, really is the photon momentum variation, hence the movement of the EM wave inertial center of mass (as in your theory Todd) inside a tapered resonant cavity (between the two end plates and not upon them), that causes a reaction force to appear, satisfying conservation of momentum. The cavity accelerates forwards while the momentum of photons is increased when they travel backwards (or, if you prefer as you explain it slightly differently, while the EM wave inertial center of mass is continuously shifted backwards).
Anyway, it is true that Shawyer manages to predict accurately the thrust magnitude using the radiation pressure on end plates. But to me, it is not because the radiation pressure imbalance is the cause of thrust. It is because the radiation pressure is a collateral effect directly proportional to the real cause of thrust: the dynamic photon momentum fluctuation and EM wave inertial center of mass displacement in a tapered resonant cavity.
Of course this hypothesis has to be tested thoroughly, mathematically and experimentally.While you did reply to someone else, this whole chain started with my post about Shawyer's theory, but you have responded each time in a way that reads as if your theory somehow justifies Shawyer's mistakes.
It could be seen like this. Although being different, I too see there is a possible connection between the underlying principles presented by Roger Shawyer, Mike McCulloch, notsosureofit and Todd Desiato (even with Jim Woodward's Mach effect transient mass fluctuation). It is a matter of how we see things through different pairs of glasses. -
#2926 by Star One on 19 Nov, 2016 10:17
-
http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-nasa-s-peer-reviewed-em-drive-paper-has-finally-been-published
Interestingly there seems to be an implied criticism of the EM drive subreddit for deleting an article in this one. -
#2927 by sghill on 19 Nov, 2016 11:44
-
Hey mods,
With the paper's official release last night (and approaching half a million reads on this thread) how about starting a new thread today so we can pick up with discussion from a good page-turning point.
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120
Thanks!
We may need a party thread too! :> -
#2928 by Monomorphic on 19 Nov, 2016 13:08
-
Circular polarization helical antennas as described in Shawyer's recent patent do not resonate like quadrifilar or cloverleaf antenna. I can't find any of the familiar TE01x modes using a purely helical antenna.
It looks like you are using spherical end caps. Have you tried with the modified frustum geometry with a flat major diameter end plate and a shaped minor diameter end cap? For modes, would it matter that the flat end is superconducting?
I'm working on trying it using the new frustum geometry but I am having trouble understanding what the last two columns in this table mean. They aren't referenced anywhere in the paper. What could R3 error be referring to?
I can simulate the major end as a perfect conductor and the rest silver per the patent, however none of the special superconducting properties such as Meissner effect are calculated, only the conductivity.
-
#2929 by giulioprisco on 19 Nov, 2016 13:22
-
http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-nasa-s-peer-reviewed-em-drive-paper-has-finally-been-published
Interestingly there seems to be an implied criticism of the EM drive subreddit for deleting an article in this one.
Not the EmDrive subreddit, the Physics subreddit. The article deleted was:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fact-and-fiction-of-the-nasa-emdrive-paper-leak
I shared the article to r/Physics. The mods deleted it and messaged me: "Sorry. But we consider the EM-Drive to be unscientific."
I guess if EmDrive research gets a Nobel Prize in Physics, some professional skeptics will still be saying things like that... -
#2930 by Star One on 19 Nov, 2016 14:01
-
http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-nasa-s-peer-reviewed-em-drive-paper-has-finally-been-published
Interestingly there seems to be an implied criticism of the EM drive subreddit for deleting an article in this one.
Not the EmDrive subreddit, the Physics subreddit. The article deleted was:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fact-and-fiction-of-the-nasa-emdrive-paper-leak
I shared the article to r/Physics. The mods deleted it and messaged me: "Sorry. But we consider the EM-Drive to be unscientific."
I guess if EmDrive research gets a Nobel Prize in Physics, some professional skeptics will still be saying things like that...
Thanks for the clarification. Should a mod really be deleting things like that? -
#2931 by OnlyMe on 19 Nov, 2016 14:18
-
http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-nasa-s-peer-reviewed-em-drive-paper-has-finally-been-published
Interestingly there seems to be an implied criticism of the EM drive subreddit for deleting an article in this one.
Not the EmDrive subreddit, the Physics subreddit. The article deleted was:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fact-and-fiction-of-the-nasa-emdrive-paper-leak
I shared the article to r/Physics. The mods deleted it and messaged me: "Sorry. But we consider the EM-Drive to be unscientific."
I guess if EmDrive research gets a Nobel Prize in Physics, some professional skeptics will still be saying things like that...
What does unscientific mean?... To you?
An engineering success can remain unscientific for a significant period of time, until a successful scientific model of description, prediction and/or the underlying mechanism(s) is presented and published by a reputable journal. So far there are a number of theoretical models, some of which might be argued as mutually exclusive and none of which are entirely without persistent demands of "take this part on blind faith" or "trust me (us)" on this.
Notice that the EW paper wound up with the "theory" stripped out and published as in essence as documentation of the data accumulated and conclusions, drawn from testing. Even so it likely would not have made to publication had the data not confirmed a repeatable annomolus thrust in a vacuum chamber.
The data EW recorded is solid and repeatable. The race for a successful theory is still underway. One is a matter of engineering. The other science. The science will never be accepted until it is either based enitirely on an existing understanding of the laws of physics or establishes a realistic means to test and confirm or refute whatever model/theory is being presented. -
#2932 by giulioprisco on 19 Nov, 2016 14:39
-
http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-nasa-s-peer-reviewed-em-drive-paper-has-finally-been-published
Interestingly there seems to be an implied criticism of the EM drive subreddit for deleting an article in this one.
Not the EmDrive subreddit, the Physics subreddit. The article deleted was:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fact-and-fiction-of-the-nasa-emdrive-paper-leak
I shared the article to r/Physics. The mods deleted it and messaged me: "Sorry. But we consider the EM-Drive to be unscientific."
I guess if EmDrive research gets a Nobel Prize in Physics, some professional skeptics will still be saying things like that...
Thanks for the clarification. Should a mod really be deleting things like that?
No, but "politically" biased mods, militant protectors of mainstream "consensus" against the highly imaginative "fringes," do delete things like that all the time. Max Plank said that science advances one funeral at a time, and he was right. -
#2933 by flux_capacitor on 19 Nov, 2016 15:16
-
I'm working on trying it using the new frustum geometry but I am having trouble understanding what the last two columns in this table mean. They aren't referenced anywhere in the paper. What could R3 error be referring to?
I don't understand neither. Perhaps the last two columns refer to the real dimensions of a physical engineered small reflector that had to be manually corrected to some extent? -
#2934 by WarpTech on 19 Nov, 2016 15:22
-
It seems to me that the TE013 mode looks very similar to a cylinder, but instead of having 3 "identical" amplitude envelopes of the same frequency, we have 3 different ones "at the same frequency". What I mean is, the mode along the z-axis has 3 different frequencies that increase in frequency from small end to big end. The mode radial from the z-axis also has 3 different frequencies that decrease in frequency from small end to big end, such that the sum of the square give the "same" resonant frequency.
ω2 = ω2mn + ω2p
ω2 = ω201 + ω23
Does this imply that energy is being exchanged between the two modes? This would only be a slight modification to @Notsosureofit's theory. Both of us have assumed the frequency as a whole shifts, but perhaps we need to break this down into the vector components to see the frequency shifts. -
#2935 by Monomorphic on 19 Nov, 2016 15:27
-
I'm working on trying it using the new frustum geometry but I am having trouble understanding what the last two columns in this table mean. They aren't referenced anywhere in the paper. What could R3 error be referring to?
I don't understand neither. Perhaps the last two columns refer to the real dimensions of a physical engineered small reflector that had to be manually corrected to some extent?
That was my guess too. If that is the case, then I only need the first 4 columns. It all seems to work out geometrically without the error and correction. With the tolerances being so small I will need to make the mesh very dense. This will make processing times much longer...
-
#2936 by Bob012345 on 19 Nov, 2016 15:28
-
Ideally, a round, cylindrical, square or rectangular cavity or any combination of the aforementioned could satisfy some, but not all skeptics I would assume. But we know there would be those asking for additional mechanical variations. I look at this as one paper with strong enough evidence that it should encourage further research, pro or con. Evidence comes from mulletron and zellerium that rectangular and/or circular cavities provided no measurable thrust. I could see a limited budget curtailing multi-cavity construction. Just don't think this is a deal breaker. Force was measured.My friend made the argument that Eagleworks' results are invalid because they did not account for error sources in their own apparatus by swapping out the test frustum and replace it with a cylinder that resonates at the same frequency with the same mode. Is this a reasonable argument?
Seems like that argument has made the rounds with the exception of maintaining mode. In a perfect world, dozens of equal mass cavities all resonating at TM212 would likely not satisfy skeptics. RF loads are a classic RF termination and thermal absorption component. In effect, energy and heat are contained in a relatively small space.
The slippery slope of standard cavities involves more than shape, it's mass, material, thermal and electrical properties all needing to be identical to the original test article. Not as simple as one might think.
They're rather adamant that it just needs to replicate TM212 and be comparable in mass, otherwise Eagleworks has no adequate control on the apparatus itself, with the 50 ohm load being an insufficient test to demonstrate a divergent result.
The problem isn't satisfying skeptics. The criticism is that it's an insufficiently rigorous test to be considered a fundamentally valid scientific experiment. It doesn't matter that force was measured, because they haven't shown divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry - which means they haven't proven that the conical cavity geometry uniquely affects more than the resonance mode, frequency, etc in their experiment.
Do everything they say and they will invent yet another criticism and make more demands. If one has limited resources, should one take the NASA results and try and optimize them or listen to critics and do more and more basic tests first. I say ignore the critics, they can organize their own experiments if they wish, and build on the NASA results. -
#2937 by Bob012345 on 19 Nov, 2016 15:36
-
Meberb's critique is not invalid. The experimental signal is still smaller than the noise component, and Egleworks has not wholly characterized 100% of the potential error sources.
Eagleworks has not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the effect is real. However, they have substantially raised the bar on what would be required to disprove the effect.
I think it is impossible to characterize 100% of the potential error sources.. Only to test it in space..
I was wander how they tested HAL effect when they first discovered it which is 300 times weaker than of this EM drive according to the: http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/final-version-of-nasa-emdrive-paper.html
Even testing it I space and assuming it goes, the critics will not be satisfied. They will try and argue if you accounted for all possible interactions between currents and the earths magnetic field or something along those lines. -
#2938 by OnlyMe on 19 Nov, 2016 15:37
-
http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-nasa-s-peer-reviewed-em-drive-paper-has-finally-been-published
Interestingly there seems to be an implied criticism of the EM drive subreddit for deleting an article in this one.
Not the EmDrive subreddit, the Physics subreddit. The article deleted was:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fact-and-fiction-of-the-nasa-emdrive-paper-leak
I shared the article to r/Physics. The mods deleted it and messaged me: "Sorry. But we consider the EM-Drive to be unscientific."
I guess if EmDrive research gets a Nobel Prize in Physics, some professional skeptics will still be saying things like that...
I took a look at the linked articles and some of the links within those and find some of the statements and conclusions to be problematic.
Take the following;
The problem is that while the existence of the quantum vacuum has been experimentally proven to exist,
A statement made without reference. There are experiments were the results and conclusions are attributed to one or another characterization of the quantum vacuum or zero point energy/field, but none that I have seen that prove the existence of the whatever definition of vacuum energy, quantum vacuum or the composition of any zero point filed.., is.... And to be honest the same seems to be the case for Woodward's Mach Effect.
Virtual particles are called virtual for a reason.., though they are useful components within the larger context of quantum theory, they are inherently unmeasurable. That same applies to much of the EM spectrum associated with the quantum vacuum.., though an argument could be made that the very real detectable background EM radiation the universe offers up, is at least a component of vacuum energy... And where the Mach Effect is involved until there is some consensus defining the mechanism(s) of inertia and gravitation as a functional component of the Mach Effect, it again is an untested.., and perhaps untestable model.
The brass ring in science has come to be so closely associated with a focus on the theoretical side of the process of advancement, that connecting the theory/model to some direct experimentally provable test, seems often forgotten and the underlying assumptions along with any engineering success assumed, accepted as proof of theory. That is the same mistake it seems, from where I sit, that Shawyer has made. His error just seems more obvious because he began from an engineering standpoint rather than, an interpretation of established science... Or so it seems.
I am not here trying to say or even imply that the theoretical models presented by either of the primaries involved are not accurate theoretical descriptions, just asserting that what I have seen, does to me seem to rise to the level of proving the underlying model.
A theoretical model can be a useful and successful tool in the design and development of a successful engineering model, without the theoretical model itself being an accurate description of reality (nature).
For the time being and especially where DIYs with limited budgets and physical resources are concerned, it would seem far more productive to chase the engineering, than attempt to design for the purposes of testing one or another theoretical/model. Once any experimenter developers an EmDrive system that generates thrust sufficiently above the noise, systemic and experimental error, there will be time enough to chase down the underlying mechanism. A task made far easier given data supporting an indisputable thrust.
And all of this rambling from one who has always been more interested in the theory and theoretical physics than the dirty work of experiment and practical applications. A dreamer of sorts rather than a builder, at least where science is concerned. -
#2939 by Bob012345 on 19 Nov, 2016 15:55
-
Is new talk of interstellar drive too good to be true?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2113253-is-new-talk-of-interstellar-drive-too-good-to-be-true/
Final NASA Eagleworks Paper Confirms Promising EMDrive Results, Proposes Theoretical Model
https://hacked.com/final-nasa-eagleworks-paper-confirms-promising-emdrive-results-proposes-theoretical-model/
Final version of NASA EMdrive paper confirms 1.2 millinewtons per kw of thrust which is 300 times better than other zero propellent propulsion
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/final-version-of-nasa-emdrive-paper.html?m=1
The second story is mine, thanks for sharing.
The first story (New Scientist) ends with: "In truth, until there is real scientific evidence on the table for others to pore over, critique, test and reproduce, the vast majority care little about the claims of interstellar revolutions. And for those who are not scientists, but who dream of interstellar flight and galactic colonisation, and wonder what to make of all of this, remember the old adage: 'If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.'"
The thing is, real scientific evidence that EmDrive works IS on the table, and has been there for quite some time. The NS writer is making, perhaps intentionally, some confusion between EmDrive and "warp-drives," FTL and all that. But even if we are talking of "magic" FTL propulsion, the conclusion is defeatist. I would add a few words to the conclusion:
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is, but we should do our f## best to find out.
That old adage is really a matter of perspective. Nobody ever explains why getting thrust from microwaves in a cavity is more "too good to be true" than pumping energy out of the ground or getting it free from the sun or any number of other things we take for granted. Someone famous once said "nothing is too good to be true".
