I'm looking at you, Macbook Pro!

Cmd + up/down arrows. Not the best solution, but it works, and after a while, you get used to it!

Gizmodo had an article a while back on this topic.

Is It OK to Shoot Down Your Neighbor's Drone?

Basically, under the law, the drone is the same as a full-fledged aircraft. Now, the other side of the equation is that you only own ~100 feet above your property. If it was flying higher, then it is legal.

If it was lower, then it's a different story. In any event, the most prudent course is to call the cops - anything else would just be an overkill, and even if you were in the right, it's just a pain.

You could probably still be subjected to civil suits and what not.

For you Greyfox, for you!

I will run around with a sign around my neck: wasn't me!

2) Yes, it sounds like a free energy machine. If a given amount of electrical power produces a given thrust, constantly, without consuming any fuel, then you can generate unlimited energy by attaching this thing to a flywheel or rotor arm that drives a generator and it will produce more energy than it requires to drive the thruster. Some of the current theories about this thing claim that it won't do that, that its efficiency will go down the faster it's moving (relative to a given frame of reference).

This is complete nonsense. Why would that be the case in your opinion?
How does the generator know it is driven by an EM Drive versus by a horse? Why should it generate "free energy" in the first case and need lots of horse food in the second?
You make no sense.

You do know that a reactionless drive means not only that momentum is not conserved.
No, it does not mean that. Why should it?

But that the laws of physics are different in different places.
Oh, you did not know that this basically is the case in fact? Yes, we use counter constants to wear that effects out and "fix" the formulas so we get universal valid formulas.

Simple example, clocks run with different speeds when accelerated close or not so close to the speed of light.

Obviously after Einstein (and LORENZ!) we know now how to put that into a formula.

Before them, if we only had observed that effect, we had assumed different speeds (more precisely accelerations) ... and that is similar to different places in the universe, yield different laws of how time is flowing. And as time is a very fundamental thing: it would touch everything.

This drive is just the same. We have ideas how it works! After all it was not discovered by accident but is an attempt to "craft" something for which already a rudimentary idea how it could work exists!

The EM drive and other new drive variants violate nothing.

In this whole thread/article no one was able to point out a single classical physical phenomena/law or what ever that was violated.

You all are only writing sentences like "it violates newtons law of conservation of momentum". However to fail to explain: why and how it violates it.

While this new thing violates 400 years of experiments and results.
Care to show a single such experiment?

Well, your post is wrong from top to bottom, but this beats it:

the device would produce thrust without reaction mass, violating conservation of momentum.

Why? Why should thrust without use of a reaction mass violate the law of conversation of momentum?

Sorry, your claim simply makes no sense. But feel free to educate us.

Pffft ...

Care to explain which law of physics is challenged by the EM drive?

Oh, you don't know any, yeah so do I!

As a pilot, I cannot agree more. Some of the cockpit controls out there are downright obnoxious, especially for rotary wing.

I have a friend who is a Harrier jet pilot, and I have heard some horror stories on landing those on aircraft carriers.

Usually, we are told what *not* to do, and so unless explicitly forbidden (e.g., do not do X before this time), we will assume it will be alright. This is clearly an engineering and a documentation/training failure.

It's easy to blame the pilot, but if anything, he's a tragic victim of poor design.

The EM drive creates a momentum by pushing virtual particles one way and "moving itself" the other way.

It works exactly as a classical rocket engine.

Your idea is bollocks.

You should have listened in school.

Rocket drives don't push against anything.

Sorry, your post is complete nonsense.

EM dive "theory" is a "forward theory".

Some guy thought: "it should work like that", and now experiments are confirming: "it seems to work like that.

There is no The classic physics mechanism simply shouldn't work.

Actually the drive works exactly according classic physics ... as state before (in other posts): I have no clue why the /. crowd disagrees.

However I'm looking forward for a formula showing that the EM drive can't work.

The crowd here is skeptical because they either don't care to read the relevant (an usually linked) papers or simply lack the physic knowledge to understand them.

So the first thing they always shout is: newtons law and thermodynamics.

Sorry, you plus 5 insightful in less than 10 minutes simply show that 99% of the people here, emphasize moderators have no clue at all about the simplest laws of physics!

How retarded is that?

Most SUNs I work on are SPARC, actually all SUNs I have worked with during the last 15 years where SPARCs.

Did they run Linux? Debian? No! Obviously they ran Sun Solaris. And still do. But I guess there are plenty of shops that abuse big iron to run plenty of virtual machines.

The Debian stance might make sense (for them). Their explanation does not, though.

I second that.
The /. crowd in our days calls everything new a scam ... pretty retarded!