On Aug 1, 2014, at 9:38 AM, Jeffrey Schwartz <schwartz.jeffrey@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://science-beta.slashdot.org/story/14/08/01/020230/nasa-tests-microwave-space-drive

Ehhh…maybe not

<http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052>

From the abstract:

"Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the "null" test article).”

Basically their apparatus measured ‘thrust’ for both a ‘functional’ and ‘non-functional’ ‘drive’.

It’s akin to sticking one corvette engine on a dyno, and another on the same dyno but having removed the spark plugs, and getting the same horsepower output.

You do not then announce to the world that you’ve discovered a new way of running a corvette engine without spark plugs; rather you examine your dyno setup.

I do not understand how they could go from ‘Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. ’ to 'Test results indicate that the RF resonant cavity thruster design, which is unique as an electric propulsion device, is producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon’

This essentially means they cannot identify the source of their experimental error, not that they necessarily measured anything real.

--
Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs