The dummy did produce thrust. They repeated that for emphasis. That ruled out the inventor's idea that the slots were necessary.

They do understand ablation, and have compensated. The next round will double-damned sure eliminate that possibility.

No, fraud would be publishing results that are not valid and claiming that they are. Right now, they are experimenting, and will continue to do so until they have something to publish. You are free to speculate on experimentation you have no access to, but your judgement is ill-advised and unwarranted. No one is claiming anything. All the noise is from non-scientists trying to be scientists and getting it wrong.

1. No.
2. Maybe.

And the author of the article is confusing two different experiments, the EMDrive tests and the Cannae drive investigation, so just discount the entire idiot debate. It all comes from wrong premises. Like the cold fusion debacle, it's mostly about high school lunch table character assassinaton and little about science. The cold fusion mess of the 80s was about a secretive experiment and scientists trying to cash in, not the science. Cold fusion by chemical bond compression is a possiblity, just not realized in experimentation, and it is a damned shame no one can go near it now because of the nattering childishness of human tribal shaming.

He's confusing the EMDrive and the Cannae drive. The former is a virtual particle drive, the second a warp drive, maybe. So the entire article collapses.

So, Forbes fails us once more. Perhaps a tax cut would make it better, as tax cuts solve all problems, no?

The did mount it and move it in any direction to see if it worked. It did. Per the results. Also eliminated magnetic interference, microwave heating of the chamber to produce ions from the lining, thermal effects, and anything else they could think of. Ain't their first rodeo. There may be something no one thought of, and they are aware of that. They are well aware also that messing this up would ruin them. We are reacting to unpublished experimental results, aren't we?

People are listening to other people lose their shit, and then losing their shit, leading to even more shit losing. Sort of like the cold fusion meltdown, or the idiocy surrounding the "failure" of Biosphere 2. No one listens to the actual experimenters - they just jump into the echo chamber. Like high school, really, if you consider high school as a true representation of how humans interact when the brakes are off. Scarey that scientists act like kids jumping the nerd in the locker room.

Indeed, and the next step is to crank up the power and see what it spits out. If they get past the margins of error in a BIG way, then people will sit up and take notice. This (not yet published?) experiment will give impetus to the next step.

EM drive is accelerating virtual particles, not warping space. The Cannae drive is hypothesized to warp space. Two *different subjects*, and we're confusing them into one.

People are confusing two drives undergoing testing, the EMDrive, which is hypothesized to work on virtual particle acceleration, and the Cannae drive, which the inventor hypothesizes is a warp drive.

The scientists involved are well aware of the need for controls, and are eliminating the factors as you indicate. When they are done, they will publish.
New science is not always required if something odd is noticed. Sometimes it comes down to a loophole no one thought of before. Even a loophole that never existed in the universe until bags of carbon, water and minerals twiddled things around a bit. Interferometric telescopy, for instance; when I was a wee sprite, they were talking about the impossibility of super large mirrors to observe planets around other stars. Then someone said, why not put two scopes far from each other and combine the images? No new physics, just a tweak. Gravitational lensing is another; took advantage of a loophole.

They were being cagey, not releasing details about their experiment, instead of publishing as scientists ought to. They were hoping for a big payday. I spoke too soon about patents, and tried to roll it back.

I don't like replying to my own post, but I thought of something that was worth adding. What is happening now to the word "libertarian" is just like what happened to the word "hacker".

If you say "that guy's a hacker" the average person will imagine something nefarious, probably criminal, perhaps something involving identity theft. They aren't likely to picture a hobbyist and technology enthusiast who, by means of skill, manages to get devices (that they legitimately own) to perform creative and useful functions (which harm no one) that were never envisioned by their original makers.

The difference is, "hackers" have gotten so much negative attention in the mass media that the original term is gone and it isn't coming back. The only rational response is to accept this and move on. I don't believe "libertarian" is at that point yet, though it's heading there fast. Is reclaiming a word so important to me? In and of itself, no, not really. What's important to me is for people like you to wake up and realize how easy it is to manipulate you, to prevent you from ever entertaining entire categories of thought and philosophy and thereby to steer your thinking, merely by toying with words. I think that deserves some importance.

The requirements are dynamic. If this doesn't work, they'll morph it into something that does work. This is a process without end.

Reactionary was the word we used to describe this sort of behavior.

A man doesn't need anything but his hands, feet, eyes, and a gun to kill blasphemers. Surveillance is irrelevant. They're making the same damned mistake we did, confusing power and the all-seeing eye with safety. They'll use this to round up Muslims, same as the US does. Innocence or guilt is irrelevant. They'll go into holes for life or get blown up real good.

The questions remains: who will protect us from the people spying on us? The people behind the spy eyes will change over time. The may even become the people who want to shoot you for blasphemy. Ever think of that? In Saudi Arabia, the all-seeing eye will be on the lookout for women driving cars. In North Korea, they'll be looking out for anyone they damned well want to kill. In South America, for anyone challenging the wealthy's control. In America, straight up they're looking for anyone who dares challenge corporate power - no more draconian surveillance was used here than when Occupy managed to gain some attention. The US managed an unprecedented surveillance and pre-crime arrest sweep during Occupy, showing what secret surveillance was really good for: control of the status quo,.

Oh well, freedom was nice while it lasted.