EmDrive test ... somewhat successful Jeffrey Schwartz (01 Aug 2014 16:39 UTC)
RE: [TML] EmDrive test ... somewhat successful Anthony Jackson (01 Aug 2014 18:04 UTC)
Re: [TML] EmDrive test ... somewhat successful Bruce Johnson (01 Aug 2014 18:14 UTC)
Re: [TML] EmDrive test ... somewhat successful Jeffrey Schwartz (01 Aug 2014 19:01 UTC)
Re: [TML] EmDrive test ... somewhat successful Bruce Johnson (01 Aug 2014 20:01 UTC)
Re: [TML] EmDrive test ... somewhat successful shadow@xxxxxx (03 Aug 2014 18:52 UTC)
Re: [TML] EmDrive test ... somewhat successful Tim (04 Aug 2014 05:37 UTC)
Re: [TML] EmDrive test ... somewhat successful Richard Aiken (04 Aug 2014 10:48 UTC)
Re: [TML] EmDrive test ... somewhat successful Ian Whitchurch (04 Aug 2014 22:24 UTC)
Re: [TML] EmDrive test ... somewhat successful Bruce Johnson (04 Aug 2014 22:47 UTC)

Re: [TML] EmDrive test ... somewhat successful Tim 04 Aug 2014 05:36 UTC

On Sun, Aug 03, 2014 at 11:52:30AM -0700, shadow@shadowgard.com wrote:
> Yeah, even though the claim to have not found any error, the fact
> they are getting apparent thrust from *both* test articles argues in
> favor of their theory being wrong.

Yes, very strongly so.  The fact that they ended the report by saying
that the experiment *supported* their theory indicates that they're
one or more of delusional, incompetent, or deliberately misleading.

Also, doing this sort of micronewton-scale experiment *in air* is a
horrible sign right from the start.

- Tim