Talk:EmDrive

The Daily Mail raves about the EmDrive
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3912828/Impossible-fuel-free-engine-humans-Mars-10-weeks-DOES-work-claim-leaked-Nasa-papers.html Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

New leaked pre-publication paper..
I'm referring to this one. My take on it, in a picture. I picked one of the representative graphs where they don't have any weird glitches in RF power on start up; all other ones look as bad or worse. Feel free to use said picture however you want. Basically, their calibration shows that the pendulum responds to a force with full deflection in ~3.7 seconds (followed by a slight overshoot due to it being slightly under-damped), while their "impulsive thrust" takes about 19 seconds to warm up, quite literally. They yammer about a slower response of a more loaded pendulum in the paper, but don't mention at any point that they do have data on exactly how quick the response is, when calibrating, and that the response to their "impulsive thrust" is well over 5x slower than that. Dmytry (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Added timespan marks for extra clarity. Dmytry (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

They still claim that it's pushing on the quantum vacuum, and that the quantum vacuum can have momentum, but now they're trying to work pilot-wave theory into it. Published text version — 00:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Layman tackles "can't move the box while inside it" thought experiment (or not)
Layman interpretation of the "can't move box while standing inside it" thought experiment. Interesting to see how non-experienced people think of this; also interesting to see the more-experienced comments below. 16:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Emdrive Wiki
http://emdrive.wiki/Main_Page

Unabashedly pro-EmDrive, features pages like this. 13:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

In a nutshell

 * PBS SpaceTime has done a great video discussing the latest, peer-reviewed EM Drive paper (which got incredible media hype, sending various cranks racing to certain RW talkpages raving that we were fools for doubting this physics-defying microwave oven):
 * As part of my pledge to resist as best I can — and because it really is quite a pedagogical video for anyone who isn't a physics student (and honestly; because the EM Drive inventor appears to be an utter crank — flying cars, really?) — I've decided to link you guys to Thunderfart's debunking video as well:
 * While this exact video from TF takes a most valid skeptical angle to the EM Drive, and while it (perhaps uniquely) explains the specific physics involved in terms that anyone can understand... Steer clear of the comment field like the plague. But do watch it if you're interested in the EM Drive and/or just need to bone up on the relevant fundamentals of physics in the skeptical sense.    And, for the love of goat, because nuance is an intrinsic good.    Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If the EmDrive has an impulse so f*** low, I don't see at all its usefulness for spacecraft propulsion. Maybe (just maybe) a toy to see where that impulse comes from and if there's not something unexplained going on but that's all. --Panzerfaust (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Proponents say that superconductivity will massively multiply the impulse. Or something. Ithaca8 (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Or something" being the key phrase here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Proponents say that superconductivity will massively multiply the impulse. Or something. Ithaca8 (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Or something" being the key phrase here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

No Laws are violated - existing laws are not widely understood
The em drive is no more than an application of the Sagnac effect, exploited daily in every ring laser or fibre-optic gyro, which would similarly be considered impossible by the flat-earthers 'debunking' the EM drive. The difference is that ring laser gyros have been used in inertial navigation for the past forty years. The bottom line is that it is not 'reactionless' but it reacts against inertial space itself, just as said gyro will yield the rotation with respect to inertial space. Any attempt to explain it with quantum theory will inevitably fail because the constancy of the velocity of light is not inherent in quantum theory. All the controversy demonstrates is how few physicists actually understand their subject; mathematical prowess having been so often mistaken for actual insight. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 86.155.242.62 / talk