Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by thearn4 3453 days ago
I know Marc Millis, let me know if anyone has any questions and I can try to get his feedback here.
4 comments

He did so partially in this article, but I would love to see a detailed explanation of a valid experimental setup to test the EmDrive effect. What would an experiment look like where, if thrust were observed, then we could really start to say there might be something here?
There is a list of improvements in the article under "Latest Paper".

Its mainly the need to carefully characterize and document all the test equipment and EM Drive support equipment to make sure its not caused by the test setup. This would involve testing with a dummy load so things like interactions with chamber wall can be ruled out or if there are, the effect can be mitigated or accounted for.

Basically they proved their test setup produces thrust, but haven't proven the thrust was a direct result of the EM Drive. They need to more rigor to prove its only the EM Drive and not a setup error (eg: something like the FTL neutrinos turning out to be a poorly tightened connector).

Cool, I read all of the BPP pages a while back. I wonder what happened to them, they seem to have been down for a while.

I had always wondered about something there, though it isn't related to the EM Drive. The original pages posted a few numbers claiming that even with a Fusion rocket-based propulsion system, interstellar travel was still wildly impractical, like thousands of supertankers of propellant to send a Space Shuttle-sized capsule past the nearest star system in 900 years without stopping. Yet many Sci-Fi and semi-scientific sources make it seem as if nuclear rockets are a viable interstellar propulsion. I always wonder who's right, and if I can find some more detailed numbers to back it up either way. Thought about it enough that I might actually try and calculate it myself one of these days.

I remember him from the Nasa BPP page, that was a very nice work.
He gets bonus points for mentioning "extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims" twice in the article!