Centauri Dream: Close Look at Recent EmDrive Paper

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Centauri Dream: Close Look at Recent EmDrive Paper

      <r>After Nasa EagleWorks (paul March, Harold White, & al) paper publication<br/>
      <URL url="http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120">http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120</URL><br/>
      there have been many articles, emphatic or crittics<br/>
      latest article by Centauri Dreams is very interesting in that it heavily criticize the conclusion<br/>
      <URL url="http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=36890">http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=36890</URL>
      </s>In addition to mechanical and related considerations, the authors’ methods of analysis of sensor data to derive thrusts rests on untenable grounds. Not only is there an assumption of the presence of only a “true” impulse signal as well as a thermal signal, there is an assumption that the observed signal can be broken down into just these 2 components and amplitudes can be calculated based on an idealized superposition assumption. Therefore, until more control tests are performed allowing a more accurate method for estimation of thrusts, no faith can be placed in the thrust magnitudes reported in the paper.<e>

      The good point is that it push for serious examination, and to stop trying to do the job with shoestring....<br/>
      I share both his point of view, that nothing is yet definitive, and this have to be professionally explored.<br/>
      What I expect, as a test, is that such critics are submitted to the journal and considered seriously, to be rejected, acknowledged, and why not to specify a next batch of tests or of publications.</r>
      “Only puny secrets need keeping. The biggest secrets are kept by public incredulity.” (Marshall McLuhan)
      See my raw tech-watch on scoop.it/u/alain-coetmeur & twitter.com/alain_co