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!

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!

Coal in France is not "base load" power.

It is load following and peak power.

Would be completely idiotic to power down a nuke to produce base load with coal.

The natural gas is probably not split between baseload and peak. Sorry, are you an complete idiot?

France produces over 70% of its power with nukes. And due to its night working reprocessing plants and other night stuff (like heating up household heat reservoirs) it has an extremely high base load of over 60%.

However: all the nukes are far above "base load".

No one is using coal, gas or anything else for "base load" in that situation.

France should convert their hydro from a base load to a peaking source aka as pumped storage. The power stored would come from a combination of both renewables and nuclear.
If Hydro is listed in a report, it is usually "base load" for a reason. Pumped storage is not listed in "energy production by source". The energy needed/used to pump it up is listed instead.

If France had any need for more pumped storage, I assume the "engineers who have a clue" had already initiated such programs :D

BTW: most energy France is importing form Germany is used to refill their pumped storages.

You do not know how grid works. We know it already from your previous idiocy from relevant threads.

As I work for grid and power companies, and have the relevant laws and procedures usually on my desk, I disagree ;D

Renewables that are at risk of losing 100% of their capacity have to have 100% spinning reserve.
Such renewables don't exist.

That is the reality. If you don't, you risk cascade failure across the entire grid.
No it is not, that is an idiotic assumption by idiots like you ;D sorry for being so blunt.

Biggest cut-off issues with wind power are related to too strong winds rather than too weak ones, as that causes near-instant cut-off rather than slow decay of feed in.
Sure ... and when did that happen in the last 30 years? Care to give a reference?

How should it be possible that wind power goes from "normal" to cut off speed in such a short time (and without forcast) that it is impossible to adjust?

Sorry, read a book about the topic and stop pestering me :D Would be appreciated.

I guess you have not even a vague idea how high the wind speed is beyond wind mills are locked down. (But I have a vague idea that there exist in your country no road where you can drive that fast legaly).

Does not matter how you count the 96%.

The ignorant idiot is you ... I give you some links:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/N...

Quote: Enrichment
The vast majority of all nuclear power reactors require 'enriched' uranium fuel in which the proportion of the uranium-235 isotope has been raised from the natural level of 0.7% to about 3.5% to 5%.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

So? Idiot? You figured it?

It does not matter if you talk about U-235 (which might be 96% burned) or if I talk about U-MOX together, as the number: 96% is conincidentally the same.

If you had any clue about the topic you knew that and had saved your post.

Thanx for your attention.