21–30 of 98 posts
From the article: > Mike McDonald, an aerospace engineer at the Naval Research Laboratory in Maryland, will be among the first [attempt to replicate their results]. He leads an internal program for independently testing advanced propulsion systems, which has previously shot down promising results from the EmDrive.
So much hate in the comments. Have some hope, people.
People don't like to see quack science take funding from legitimate science. I am not qualified to judge whether or not this is quack science, but it certainly reeks of the same claims as previously documented quack science.
So much hate in the comments. Have some hope, people.
People don't like to see quack science take funding from legitimate science. I am not qualified to judge whether or not this is quack science, but it certainly reeks of the same claims as previously documented quack science.
I do understand that others might think differently. I like moonshots.
Wiki: (...) Woodward states there is no violation of momentum conservation in Mach effects: If we produce a fluctuating mass in an object, we can, at least in principle, use it to produce a stationary force on the object, thereby producing a propulsive force thereon without having to expel propellant from the object. We simply push on the object when it is more massive, and pull back when it is less massive. The reac…
How does Lorentz invariance guarantees that no conservation law is broken?
(Noether's theorem)
This sounds, like the EM drive, too much like trying to move your car by sitting inside and pushing on the dashboard.... Still, a "vacuum propeller" would be a massive revolution (no pun intended) if it is at all possible.
It is because the payoffs would be so enormous that business like this and "overunity motors" continue to gain attention. All of those other elixirs were shams, but this one will work! Finally, immortality! The enormity of the reward causes the payout matrix to lead people astray. Don't get me wrong, I see a vacuum chamber, which is light years ahead of most of these enterprises, but I would not spend a dime on it un…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_mugging
That said, Woodward does not seem to be an actual charlatan, so I don't have a problem with funding him. At least he might turn up something fun and/or interesting, even if I don't think it's going to usher in a new space age.
From the article: > Mike McDonald, an aerospace engineer at the Naval Research Laboratory in Maryland, will be among the first [attempt to replicate their results]. He leads an internal program for independently testing advanced propulsion systems, which has previously shot down promising results from the EmDrive.
There might be such a place, although it’s more likely they’re trying to refer to the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People don't like to see quack science take funding from legitimate science. I am not qualified to judge whether or not this is quack science, but it certainly reeks of the same claims as previously documented quack science.
I believe a total of $620,000 over a span of several decades. I am personally quite happy to fund one-off random projects like this. The amount of money is a trivial rounding error. Funding 100,000 failures at this level would be worth it if one, just one, worked. I do understand that others might think differently. I like moonshots.