Talk:EmDrive/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 08:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

---

EmDrive → Microwave thruster – "Microwave thruster" is NASA's terminology for this type of propulsion, which is in the news right now due to a claimed successful test. Moreover, the article currently covers more than just the "EmDrive" design. While I'm mindful that the controversy over the original proposed design ought to be covered, if the successful test is replicated then the original controversy will be a mere footnote. I don't claim to be able to predict the future; I only think we should have the article at the generic, recognizable title. Miscellaneous user (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• I support any move away from the present article title. I have just been looking for the WP:COMMONNAME for this drive, and there seem to be a lot of variants, such as resonant cavity thruster, microwave relativity drive and so on. Abductive (reasoning) 17:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Unless someone presents a stronger argument for retaining the current name. A generic name seems better given the scope of this article.- MrX 17:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Let me explain because actually, I'm not against a good generic rename of the article, but against this particular one. The obvious: microwave thrusters already exist through they do not have a dedicated article in Wikipedia yet, but you will easily find a lot of scientific literature on the subject. Funny enough, Dr. Yang Juan, who investigates the EmDrive at NWPU in China, is also a specialist of those microwave thrusters, as indicated in the list of her selected publications on her personal page on the NWPU web site. Those microwave thrusters are electrothermal plasma thrusters for spacecrafts and satellites, where the fuel is heated and transformed into a plasma by microwaves, then expelled into space through a classical nozzle or a magnetic nozzle. The EmDrive necessarily implies three characteristics: it uses (1) radio frequency (RF) in the microwave spectrum that (2) act inside a closed resonant cavity which (3) is asymmetric (tapered as a frustum, for the most common shape used to date). If we renamed the article "microwave thruster" we would only explain (1) but not (2) nor (3) and we would confuse people with the already existing classical microwave thrusters that eject a plasma. The EmDrive term implies (1), (2) and (3). So alternative naming could be resonant cavity thruster, microwave cavity thruster, microwave resonant thruster, resonant microwave thruster. Tokamac (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I would support a move from a specific patented name to a generic name, since the scope of the article encompasses multiple patented designs. However, I am unconvinced that the generic name is "microwave thruster". The move nominator claims that is the term used by NASA, but the abstract of NASA's "Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum" paper at http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052 instead uses the terms "quantum vacuum plasma thruster" and "RF resonant cavity thruster" (short for "radio frequency resonant cavity thruster") to refer to the device, so I cannot support a move to "microwave thruster" unless the move nominator provides sources showing that as the generic name. —Lowellian (reply) 18:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Buy the paper, for Zeus' sake! It's only $25. I did. In the paper, NASA's researchers did not refer to any "microwave thruster" at all as claimed above in this requested move/rename. Their terminology is either RF resonant cavity thruster or microwave-driven resonant cavity thruster (this one would be a bit long for the name of a device). Tokamac (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
• Noticed after writing my above comment that there already is a "quantum vacuum plasma thruster" article which needs to be merged with this one. —Lowellian (reply) 19:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Here we go again. Harold "Sonny" White's proposal for his quantum vacuum plasma thruster is NOT the Cannae drive nor the EmDrive that he both later respectively tested in 2013 and 2014, that are the basis for the actual paper we are discussing now. He "borrowed" his idea of the Q-thruster from Jim Woodward's Mach Effect Thruster (MET) (see Woodward effect) that he modified to run on DC because is theory of MHD compressible "virtual plasma" from quantum vacuum fluctuations doesn't require AC activation of the thruster. The QVPT is not a tapered microwave resonant cavity, for example. When his test article didn't produced any thrust (except when transients occurred, i.e. when the DC current was switched on then off, mimicking Woodward's AC switching) he moved to other types of exotic drives "available on the market" that he think can all be explained within the quantum vacuum framework. The fact is, we don't know if Sonny's quantum vacuum theory is right and is at work in these drives. It is still a conjecture among others. And I don't think he will recycle the name of his non-working drive (QVPT or Q-drive) to a copy of someone else's drive working on a different principle. Tokamac (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposed name "microwave thruster" would be misleading, suggesting that thrust was being obtained by the emission of microwaves (which would be conventional physics). There is already a page on reactionless drives and simply adding this topic to that list would be more logical. George Dishman (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose When people search Google for "EmDrive" our article is currently the first result returned. The SPR website is the second. If we rename this article as "microwave thruster", we may make it more difficult for people searching for unbiased information on the EMDrive, specifically, to find it, and confuse those who are looking information on conventional microwave plasma thrusters. This rename is a bad idea. EMDrive is the natural title for this article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 13:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose : It's not a microwave thruster (see above) and quantum vacuum plasma thruster presumes a theory, which is not agreed on, even if that were an Emdrive. I could go with the suggestions move this to RF resonant cavity thruster (etc). EmDrive, Cannae Drive (etc) could be linked to the renamed article. Edit: It's mentioned in Reactionless_drive -- but that is too wide-ranging and sci-fi oriented for discussing a claimed-to-be-functioning device. Alanf777 (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose There seems to be enough reliable sources for EmDrive. There is some information on the article that is not related to EmDrive and it should be moved elsewhere. Dmatteng (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • You moved information about Cannae drive without establishing consensus first. So I reverted. Brian Everlasting (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I think the article with a name EmDrive should cover information about EmDrive. Such as, the article about Toyota cars will cover information about Toyota cars, and not about BMW cars. I suggest that information about Cannae drive should be either moved to an article named "Cannae Drive" or to a general article about the technology. Dmatteng (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose any change for the time being, for the reasons given above by Dmatteng, Alanf777 and Derek Ross, and if not "EmDrive", then what? There seems to be no easy consensus to be found for any alternative. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - There is another discussion going on at the other article talk page. Brief paraphrase of my remark there is that these articles discuss two different things. Like two breeds of dogs, two types of automobiles or two species of nearly identical grasses they should be separate articles. If anything there should be a third article or possibly even a category of "things which include properties x and possibly y but not z". I don't pretend expertise nor belief nor skepticism, just telling you the way Wikipedia seems to work. Trilobitealive (talk)

• Oppose this is not an article covering all types of microwave thrusters. It is a very specific type of microwave thruster. This is not about microwave heating of propellants, this is not about microwave light sails, this is not about microwave ionization of amosphere for creating thrust, etc. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems there is a consensus against the merge, and so it can be closed. According to latest votes which I support as well we should move information about Cannae Drive somewhere else. In this article we would like to have information about EmDrive only. Dmatteng (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

NASA testing

According to some recent news, it appears that a NASA test of a US-built prototype of this device seem to show that it actually does work. The original NASA publication is here, though I'm not sure how to integrate this into the article. Would someone be able to assist? Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I was already working on it! Alanf777 (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I can only get to the first page of the NASA paper. They say they tested the Cannae version (as reported by Wired) -- 40 micronewton at 28W , but ALSO a "tapered" version, which is an emDrive -- 91 micronewton at 17W. The latter wasn't reported by Wired. Maybe we should wait until the story's picked up elsewhere. Alanf777 (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. If this is so then it appears that, like Wikipedia, the EmDrive may be one of these things which work in practice but not in theory! -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Just because it's NASA doesn't mean it's true. The signal is small, much smaller than Shawyer's, and a signal that remains at the edge of practical measurement is usually not there in reality. We also don't know how many other groups have tried to replicate this and failed, and not published.

The NASA paper is a primary source. Wikipedia works on secondary sources wherever possible for this reason.GliderMaven (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That's why I included ONLY what Wired UK said, pending further coverage. Alanf777 (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not a true secondary source. A secondary source is a peer-reviewed paper that considers the primary sources in context and draws conclusions about whether effects are real or not.

Another similar piece is here: http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/08/dont-buy-stock-in-impossible-space-drives-just-yet/ and they basically rubbish it whereas the Wired piece is rather credulous on the subject.GliderMaven (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Reading the NASA article I notice "Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not". See http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052

In other words it seems the EmDrive does not generate more thrust then a "fake drive". As far as I can tell news sources are just misquoting NASA.

Folket (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Apparently this is for the Cannae drive test articles, not the EmDrive. According to the full paper (and here I quote the talk-polywell forum):

"This bothered me enough when I found it a few days ago that I bought their paper on AIAA; and it turns out that the abstract on ntrs.nasa.gov is misleading. The quote you are referencing from the ntrs.nasa.gov abstract is referring to two devices that cannae provided to EagleWorks for their test campaign. One had a set of slots in it and according to Cannae's proposed theory would produce thrust and according to the Eagleworks paper did. While the other device didnt, this is the "null" test article. this null test article was what Cannae though should be a null test article not what EagleWorks thought was a null test article. So in addition Eagleworks included a 50 ohm resistive load to verify no significant systemic effects. So basically the eagleworks testing invalidated what Cannae thought is the reason for the thrust."

Tokamac (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

We now have multiple REFS to the same paper(s), which need to be changed to a named REF. I'll do it tomorrow if nobody else does it. Alanf777 (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It is said here that the test was run at the atmospheric pressure. I was reading the paper and couldn't find any mention of this. This is from NASA's paper:

To simulate the space pressure environment, the test rig is rolled into the test chamber. After sealing the chamber, the test facility vacuum pumps are used to reduce the environmental pressure down as far as 5x10E-6 Torr. Two roughing pumps provide the vacuum required to lower the environment to approximately 10 Torr in less than 30 minutes. Then, two high-speed turbo pumps are used to complete the evacuation to 5x10E-6 Torr, which requires a few additional days. During this final evacuation, a large strip heater (mounted around most of the circumference of the cylindrical chamber) is used to heat the chamber interior sufficiently to emancipate volatile substances that typically coat the chamber interior walls whenever the chamber is at ambient pressure with the chamber door open. During test run data takes at vacuum, the turbo pumps continue to run to maintain the hard vacuum environment. The high-frequency vibrations from the turbo pump have no noticeable effect on the testing seismic environment.

--188.2.82.243 (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the claim that the tests "were performed at about a hundred-millionth of normal atmospheric pressure" because the cited source (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive) got that wrong. While the NASA AIAA paper does go into quite a lot of details of the vacuum chamber setup (see comment above mine), the paper also clearly states at the end "VI. Summary and Forward Work" that tests were conducted at ambient pressure:

Vacuum compatible RF amplifiers with power ranges of up to 125 watts will allow testing at vacuum conditions which was not possible using our current RF amplifiers due to the presence of electrolytic capacitors.

This is already stated clearly in the first paragraph of the section "RF resonant tapered cavity thruster (EmDrive)". PS: I'm totally new to editing Wikipedia, I hope I didn't break anything! ;) Mr. Zet (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You won't break anything. Welcome! __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Stationary?

I realize there's bound to be a bit of sloppy terminology surrounding a subject such as this, but I must ask, What is meant by the phrase "stationary relative to their thrust"? Does the new scientist article illuminate? I couldn't access it. I assume it means "stationary in the direction of the thrust", but then the question becomes "relative to what object?" The Earth? Spiel496 (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Stationary against whatever measurement instruments are recording the thrust, so that the drive and instruments are in the same inertial frame. ChristopherTStone (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

No energy leaves the device, but it requires an energy source? How does that work?

Quite like I misunderstand something, and maybe it's been answered already - but how can the device require an energy source but lose any energy? Where does the energy put into it go?--Cyberman TM (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

If no usable energy is extracted by the system (that is, as work), then the energy will be dissipated as heat. However, this question is beyond the scope of the talkpage. jps (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

How the device works is presently considered pure speculation. In particular Shawyer's explanation concerning the mechanics involved, is thought to make no sense at all. The Chinese have proposed that this device produces an Electro-magnetic effect, whereby they provided a hypothesis and related equations. The Chinese explanation and equations somewhat match observed propulsion rates relative to the electrical input in Watts but not enough so that their explanation is preferred. If the NASA explanation has merit then additional explanations are needed since none of the above explanations address the perceived conservation of momentum problem. IMO few additional speculative explanations will be forthcoming if they also are contrary to modern physics theory, or classical mechanics such as the conservation of momentum. To have an idea of a possible explanation concerning what I am talking about, below is an example of such an explanation that would preserve the conservation of momentum but seemingly would be contrary to Quantum Mechanics and modern physics.

A hypothetical explanation of the mechanics of this engine: As the microwaves would build up inside the tapered chamber their intensity and density would build up within the chamber and their reflecting trajectories would "flatten out" and race around the internal periphery of the device. These high intensity microwaves would accordingly corkscrew toward the big end of the reflection chamber. If these microwaves are interacting with the Zero Point Field as NASA has speculated, then the Zero Point Field (ZPF) could, upon high intensity interaction with the microwaves, be spiraling out of the big end of the device creating a low ZPF pressure inside the device while being replenished by the ZPF flowing inward from the small end of the device. There could be a considerable flow of the ZPF through the device. If there would be such a ZPF flow-through then the conservation of momentum would be maintained and the device would also not be reactionless. The proof that this could be happening would require a test of the Casimir Effect at the big end of the device whereby the two plates or the Casimir test could be pushed together from a greater distance, meaning there would be a greater differential pressure in the ZPF outside the device, pushing the Casimir plates together if the explanation were valid.

From Shawyer's company's writings, and from "Wired" sources which was a witness to the testing of this device, the efficiency of this device was discussed. If valid this device and propulsion would be many factors better than present space craft technologies, potentially reducing costs by factors of 5 to 10, and reducing the time of travel for space flights from 1/2 to 1/5 present requirements for conventional propulsion. My explanation of this efficiency was deleted from my addendum to the main article. Of course it is speculation by "Wired" and by Sawyer himself but it is readily understood based upon an insight into the technology, as I have. I think this potentially great increase in efficiency relating to reduced costs and time of travel concerning space flight, may be the most important aspect of this technology if it is valid, so I think it should be at least mentioned. 11:47, 12 August 2014 (Fn) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forrestnoble (talk • contribs)

But, to get back to Cyberman's question... If light or high-speed matter leaves from one end of a device, you will get propulsion. The "no energy leaves the device" language was to make it clear that the propulsion is not due this technique. Like JPS said, the power being dissipated by losses in the cavity must leave the system as heat. It should be worded better, but I don't see how at the moment. Spiel496 (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

If it's a claim not found in any source it should be taken out. The Sawyer theory paper says The electrical power losses Pe are assumed to be I2R losses, that means heat loss, so I don't see where anyone (inventor or critic) has claimed "no energy leaves the device". I'm going to take that bit out until someone points to a source somewhere that supports it.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It reads pretty clear to me after Elaqueate's edit. The sentence before emphasizes it's a fully enclosed cavity, so I doubt anyone is going to come away thinking that microwaves are blasting out the end. Spiel496 (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

"No energy leaves the device, but it requires an energy source. How does that work? Answering the above question:

The EM radiation being pumped into the system is turned into microwaves which are absorbed as heat by the resonance cavity of the device. At ambient external conditions this heat does not rise more than 30 degrees above ambient temperatures. There is a cooling system device and circulation for some internal components that draws off the heat. It is expected that it conducts and radiates its temperature away so that the temperature does not rise beyond desirable levels. In space I expect the cooling device and circulation system of the device would need to be larger. Also the device itself and a heat sink could be placed behind a shading sun-shield behind solar panels used to generate electricity for satellite propulsion and solar system missions once in space. For heavy-lift Emdrive devices on Earth or Mars, extensive cooling cryogenics are claimed to be needed for much larger superconductive high-voltage and Wattage heavy lift-to-orbit Emdrive devices, according to Shawyer. Once at orbital heights rocket power is thought to be preferable to get the cargo or passengers moving at orbit velocities more quickly than the Emdrive. Once above orbital velocities Emdrive would take over again to get to whatever desired speed is desired since Emdrive would accordingly apply a continuous force until the desired speed is reached. In the same way when approaching a desired destination, Emdrive could slowly decelerate the craft until orbital velocity was reached, then maneuver the craft and land it slowly with comparative ease. The device could take off at low speeds away from a planet without rocket assistance, but it would be less efficient since it could take weeks instead of just hours to reach the escape velocity of a rocket from Earth. Forrestnoble (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't support adding any of that to the article. Spiel496 (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Cannae drive 2011 results

I cleaned up the addition to the article made recently by 208.113.47.50, about early proof-of-concept tests on the Q-drive (Cannae). It now better matches the description in the source. However, I'm not convinced the material belongs in the article. It was published on the company website at one time, but has since been removed. Does that still count as published? Spiel496 (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Cannae drive

Currently there's an entire subsection on NASA test results on the Cannae drive which, while apparently similar to the EmDrive, seems to be something else. Thus that section seems rather off-topic. Dmatteng boldly split it off into a dedicated Cannae drive article (though the quality of the resulting article is debatable, as may be the notability of the Cannae drive itself), but Brian Everlasting reverted the split without giving an explanation for the reversal beyond "lack of consensus". Thoughts? Personally I don't think this article should conflate the EmDrive and the Cannae drive, the latter of which apparently is supposed to work according to a different set of highly speculative physics, and according to the NASA test results even "works" when it's set up not to. Huon (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Several things caused the Cannae drive to appear in the EmDrive article:

- The Cannae drive is, like the EmDrive, a propellantless asymmetric RF resonant cavity thruster.

- The "null test article" fiasco in the media. The unslotted Cannae drive which produced thrust despite lacking inventor's requirement (slots) for thrust, has been incorrectly reported everywhere on the internet 1) as an EmDrive and 2) as a flaw in the whole experiment from NASA. Those articles referred only to the NTRS abstract (and not the paper) where the distinction was not made between NASA's different test articles: one EmDrive, two Cannae drives, and the load control test. As a consequence, the news reported that "an EmDrive modified in a way to not work at all, produced thrust" so that "the whole experiment is screwed-up".

So the distinction was needed between the EmDrive and the Cannae drive because of NASA's misleading NTRS abstract and the treatment in the media, where the two drives and the four experimental results became mixed up. Tokamac (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding NASA's NTRS abstract as misleading, do we have any reliable sources that state so? In my opinion, we need to develop three articles: EmDrive, Cannae Drives (in case we decided it is notable) and a general article on "propellantless asymmetric RF resonant cavity thruster" or whatever the general principle has been used (and called). In any case, since the article about Cannae Drives is debatable, we probably would have to split EmDrive to two articles at this time: an article about EmDrive and the general article, that might include information about all the relevant theories, summarize practical implementations and testing results and probably include information about the Cannae Drive. We should treat EmDrive as an article about specific engine developed by EmDrive and have the information on it in that context. Any editors supporting such a position? Thoughts are welcome. Dmatteng (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I think one article is plenty. It could be either this EmDrive article with sections describing similar ideas or a "propellentless thruster" article that includes EmDrive and other variations. Let's be real here: The most likely scenario is that momentum is still conserved, and the promoters of this idea will eventually figure out their mistake, or at best uncover some interesting natural phenomenon that explains the earlier results. There will be no press announcement as the work fades into obscurity. In the meantime, the role of WP should be to provide a concise description for someone who heard about the device in the media and wants to know more. Spiel496 (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually a consensus not to merge the articles has been already established. EmDrive should be an article about a specific implementation in my opinion as it is notable on it is own, and so is the general article. I doubt we should base our actions on prediction that there is a mistake. NASA's research team is deemed to be one of the most competent on Earth and currently there are 3 validations that there is a thrust vs zero number of research groups that found no thrust. It seems there might be some confusion, not precise mainstream media coverage (for example I still don't understand who claims that it contradicts momentum's conservation, as the inventor of EmDrive says it is not and provides explanation on how it can work without contradicting one) so WP should provide coverage of all relevant aspects per due weight. Dmatteng (talk) 05:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the proposed merge was with the wrong subject. I endorse changing the title of this one to propellentless resonant microwave thruster foo (or whatever), and to Link/Redirect emDrive and Cannae Drive to the combined article. Alanf777 (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The inventor did not provide an explanation on how the EmDrive can work without violating momentum conservation. He stated that it doesn't violate the law and then followed up with a string of words about relativity and reference frames that I couldn't follow. Conservation of momentum is very simple: Unless an external force acts on a system, the velocity of its center of mass can't change. This article should be handled like the one on dowsing. Spiel496 (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Not to take sides, but not being able to follow doesn't mean it's not true. Either way, your definition of conservation of momentum is flawed at the very least. It doesn't address EMR which doesn't have mass but does posses a momentum. Furthermore the meaning of "force acts on a system" is unclear when EMR is considered. 148.177.129.210 (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The EmDrive is an enclosed object which does not emit any radiation (EMR). We can draw an imaginary box around a stationary EmDrive and from which nothing leaves or enters. It doesn't matter what's inside -- EM fields, exotic particles, or unicorns -- momentum conservation says the center of mass cannot move. This is not a controversial statement. Spiel496 (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. One of the nice things about conservation of momentum is that is is guaranteed to hold in any universe, at all times, as long as the physical laws under which that universe operates are invariant under translation—that is, as long as the laws of physics are the same at both ends of the testing room, Shawyer's drive cannot produced a net thrust unless it's leaking something; it doesn't even matter what the specific laws of physics are. Reactionless drives, like perpetual motion machines of the first kind, can be rejected as inconsistent with physical laws without requiring any examination of the proposed mechanism or device. (This is why the Cannae drive guys at least went to the trouble of inventing their invisible magic vacuum plasma; they at least wanted a fig leaf of momentum conservation.) Devices which appear to work are the result of experimental error, or a failure by the 'inventor' to properly keep track of all sources and sinks of momentum and energy. It can sometimes be an entertaining exercise to locate the specific errors in any given experimental setup, but the exercise isn't necessary. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure it doesn't emit any radiation whatsoever? It's actually enough for heat to build up on some part for radiation to be emitted. Unless energy conversion efficiency is 100%, some heat will build up and in turn that will be radiated outwards of the device, which just might satisfy the conservation of momentum. This might be a bit reaching though, as I think the heat build up has to be quite significant to produce meaningful thrust in vacuum. My opinion is that it's much more probable that there's some flaw (in theory or actual device design) and something was left unaccounted for, and in turn the experiments produce the apparently desired effect. However, waving with conservation of momentum argument is unjustified as long as the whole system wasn't identified which actually seems like the case at hand. Doesn't seem like editor's fault though. Max (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I support the IP user. Inability of an editor to follow is not a basis for consideration that the information is necessarily wrong. Dmatteng (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't want to speak for anyone else. Can anyone follow his argument that the device wouldn't violate momentum conservation? That content was deleted from the article, but it only restated Shawyer's assertions. Unless an expert explains it to a publisher in a way that at least someone with a doctorate in physics can understand, it should remain deleted. Spiel496 (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you will agree that the article should be dealt as any other article in which our goal is to present all views on a given topic per their weight based on reliable sources without introducing OR. So, it isn't really relevant if even all of us cannot follow. The best thing we can do here in my opinion is to write with attribution, ie that no physic laws are being broken per the opinion of the EmDrive. Then, we have to check what reliable sources say about his argument that the device wouldn't violate momentum conservation and summarize them. Dmatteng (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree it makes sense to include the inventor's claim that no physical laws are broken. I'm just urging we avoid expanding this family of articles beyond where they are now unless there is more substantial news coverage. And we should avoid false balance. As far as I can tell, the reporters have not gone to the effort of polling multiple reputable physicists. So, even though it sounds like a case of "inventor says yes, another scientist says no" the reality is much less balanced. I think even calling the device "controversial" is misleading. It's like saying that slavery is a controversial labor policy. Spiel496 (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems we might have a consensus re including inventor's claim that no physical laws are broken. Would someone go ahead and implement it? About this family of articles - I would propose to limit them to two articles then. The EmDrive will be just about the specific EmDrive implementation, and we will move Cannae Drive info to the general article. Dmatteng (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

We cannot come to consensus that no physical laws of physics are broken since as the information states, there is no consensus as to how the device works. I think what we can come to consensus on is that it doesn't matter much what the inventors of these related devices say, or what the critics of them say, experimental testing of the devices have been confirmed by many different entities and witnesses a great many number of times. So whether the device works or not is not in question. These devices were not tested within a vacuum chamber because some internal components were vulnerable to damage based upon such a test. These components will be changed according to NASA and others. It was also noted that thrust was reported immediately upon the application of power, and ended immediately upon power disconnect. This did not leave any time for air currents to build up or subside as some criticisms have speculated. Shawyer claims no problems in vacuum testing were observed but independent vacuum testing needs to be conducted and confirmed before larger prototypes are built. The only questions after that, other than how does it work, seems to be how big these devices can be built and still work to produce higher, or very high thrust levels and lift capacity. It has already been noted that at present levels of thrust this device is better than any existing satellite propulsion system. 23 August 2014 (FN)

So IMO the only question is whether we can develop a functional Emdrive propulsion system without undue delays caused by naysayers that cannot understand how it works, and accordingly we need no flag at the beginning of the article concerning the validity of what is being said in this article Does anyone disagree? If not the flag should be dropped. The other flag for clarity seems appropriate, at least for a month of two longer. 23 August 2014 (FN)

I stated re consensus *including inventor's claim*. I wasn't talking about a consensus that the device is working and/or laws broken. Dmatteng (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think WP should aim to answer such question, since right now it's pure speculation. WP's role in it is simple (on paper at least), make experiment results and research papers (peer reviewed) available to the reader in a manner that not only a specialist can understand it. Right now it proves to be quite difficult because of the lack of in depth peer reviewed theory which doesn't leave anything of importance unaccounted for, while independent experiments weren't conducted in a fully unambiguous manner. Right now even conveying Shawyer's own paper to the general public isn't so simple, while no independent researcher made a really in depth review of it. A g+ post which denies possibility of operation doesn't count when at least a seeming confirmation (even if somewhat flawed) of the device working is present. Max (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Let us discuss then how to improve the article per the available reliable sources. Dmatteng (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"Theory"

That section has nothing about theory or development. It's more talk about the controversy. Kortoso (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

That is why I have recommended a general cleanup, and perhaps rewriting is required. Cannae Drive info should be moved from here into a general article. Dmatteng (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Fringe theories

I suggest people familiarize themselves with WP:FRIND, and WP:FRINGE generally. Article content can not be based on primary sources, particularly the vast volumes that were present in this article (also WP:OR). Second Quantization (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

So basically, you call peer review papers published in scientific journals "dubious", you come on this article to mass delete those sources, that yet were here to show IV&V of the sole primary source (i.e. Shawyer), whereas you let this sole primary source and the non-peer-review work in the remaining article (!) reverting the article to its prehistoric state with no independent replication sources. I'd rather call this vandalism. So if you delete peer review from independent researchers all around the world invoking WP:OR, what will you do next when only Shawyer's experiments will remain in the article? Ask for deletion of the whole article invoking again WP:OR? Tokamac (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Second Quantization, can you please explain your massive deletion, especially the following:

- Why British engineer Roger Shawyer is not a primary source whereas Chinese peer reviewed independent replication of Shawyer's work is a primary source that had to be deleted?

- Why do you consider Chinese replication as a dubious primary source and deleted all references to it, while you consider another replication made by NASA not as a primary source and kept their reference in the article?

- Why do you consider Fernando Minotti's theoretical proposal involving a scalar-tensor theory, peer reviewed in Gravitation and Cosmology as a primary source and deleted it, while you consider Harold Sonny White's conjecture about quantum vacuum plasma fluctuations (never peer reviewed) not as a primary source and thus kept his proposal alive in the article?

To recap: how did you arbitrary select and why did you delete all peer-reviewed independent scientific references and let similar ones or even pointless comments in the article? Tokamac (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I was about to make a grammatical fix when I discovered the section no longer existed. From my reading I'm not ready to call this fringe science, and had no problem with the content of the article. It's also my understanding that at least some of the deleted content was secondary sources.Danielkwinsor (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

If this were to be categorized as fringe science then most experiments currently happening around the world would also have to be categorized as such.Cameronarndt (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

If this article left you with the impression that the EmDrive is as mainstream as "most experiments currently happening around the world" then the article is presenting an overly-optimistic point of view. The device is supposed to create a force without an equal an opposite reaction force. That is a fringe idea if there ever was one. Spiel496 (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

That would be impossible and I haven't seen that anyone is making that claim. Ascribing a claim to them that they're not making doesn't prove anything or help the article.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly the claim they are making. The emdrive.com website says "no propellent is used" to convert electrical energy into thrust. So, EmDrive experiences a force without having to push back on anything that leaves the system. Spiel496 (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, the inventor's claim is also that no (microwave) radiation leaves the cavity of the "thruster"—so this isn't supposed to be a photon rocket, either. He just isn't conserving momentum, no matter how much gobbledygook he spouts about relativity, all he's shown is that he's bad at math. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No, they're saying the machine doesn't require the addition of the traditional propellants used in satellites, because it is pushing off other material (in the NASA discussions and others, the material does leave the system). The actual wild and unproven part is whether the device can push off virtual particles that exist in the vacuum, not that there is no "pushing off" anything else. It's still a completely speculative and novel claim, but it's not based on "not pushing" or "absolute closed systems". It's not anti-Newton. It's a falsifiable and unproven hypothesis, and it includes a momentum-transfer. If they can create a EM shape (think submarine propeller in water) that kicks against the virtual particles that exist even in the vacuum, then it will move. If they can't create the conditions to push against those particles, then it won't. But none of it denies conservation of momentum. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the rough idea is that EM can push against virtual particles, and that they're attempting to use the cavity to create a shape of EM that will push off of the particles already present in the vacuum. No microwaves leave the cavity, in the same way that no metal leaves a metal submarine propeller, but the propeller still pushes off the water that surrounds it, pushing it off in a wake. It's not a closed-system idea.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You're confusing the EmDrive with the Cannae drive, I think. The EmDrive guy, I thought, based his model entirely on mathematical errors; the Cannae group, on the other hand, at least had the sense to realize they needed to make up some nonsense about virtual particles for a momentum conservation fig leaf. To use your submarine analogy, the EmDrive supposedly works by crew members pushing on the inside of the hull ([1]). They're both bullshit, of course, but the Cannae group at least is using a better grade of bullshit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not my analogy; it's the analogy from NASA. The microwaves stay in the cavity; what the microwaves act on are supposed to leave the cavity. It still involves an extraordinary hypothesis, but not the one people are complaining about here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

(And crew members, of course, don't normally reside inside the propeller. Maybe you don't understand the analogy.) __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

If there's something leaving the cavity, carrying the necessary momentum, then it is a rocket. That's no longer a fringe idea, but it is also no longer notable. But if that something is "virtual particles" or "unicorn tears" or any other undetectable substance, then it is pseudoscience. Spiel496 (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

"Virtual particles" represent a bigger discussion than I'll have here, but they're clearly a part of more accepted-as-non-fraudulently-intended scientific theories than "unicorn tears". __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Analysis

Reference 11 in the article provides a clear statement of the fundamental error that is at the heart of this problem: "For electromagnetic wave, energy of quantum is transferred at the group velocity vg, its momentum is p=mvg=hfvg/c2". The entire hypothesis of the EmDrive is built on this assumption, which is simply untrue. First, the assumption is made that radiation pressure is the result of the Lorentz Force acting on electrons in the surface of reflection. This is ably refuted by Rothman and Boughn ( http://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310v5.pdf ), and indeed the Wikipedia article on radiation pressure supports this. Second, quantum energy is transferred at the phase velocity, not the group velocity. These concepts are clearly explained in the linked Wikipedia articles Radiation pressure is unrelated to group velocity, which is really a rate of propagation of information rather than energy. The group velocity does vary but the phase velocity is constant throughout the frustum resonator, consequently there are no unbalanced forces.Danwoodard (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC).

Can someone edit the analysis page, it was blatently written by someone who hasn't read either the New Scientist article or the more recent Eureka article. It doesn't violate either the conservation of momentum or energy, as it uses energy!

Every article on it specifically states that when the equipment accelerates it loses thrust. If anyone would like to check, this happens with every form of propultion and just because it doesn't spew matter out of it doesn't make it reactionless.

If it violated the conservation of energy, why would it take kilowatts of energy to run. If it actually violated the conservation of energy (like has never been claimed, and refuted in every article) it wouldn't take energy to run as you would be getting more energy out than in and at that point I doubt he'd need grants as he'd be able to make free energy and become the richest person on the planet after undercutting the prices of every power company.

The nice wholely verbose and highly infantile argument by 'Dr. John P. Costella' shows just how little attention he paid to the articles. He forgets fundamental facts of science, claiming he's disproved it by using particles to explain how a tapered WAVEguide won't work. Almost a century of physics was spent figuring out if light was a wave or a particle, and people won nobel prizes for proving both right.

He insults Shawyer, the absolute worst thing you can do when criticizing someone, all it screams is that Costella is incompitent and can't get enough evidence to prove his own point.

Costella is worse than a fraud, he's blatently ignorant.

Simply looking at the quantum theory of momentum disproves Costella, as it's based on waves not particles. He also completely ignores the conservation of four-momentum, which brings energy into the equation. As the equipment is storing aprox 17MW of energy, that should equate to the system gaining 0.002 grams in mass. However, there's no mention of basic theories that the EMdrive relies on.

Costella would have had a perfectly valid argument, without research, saying that Shawyers' apparatus could not gain more than 0.002 grams of thrust in any direction. Yet no, this Ph.D does zero research even though he claims to have gone on the 'net' to even look for something to disclaim Shawyer. This only serves to prove that Ph.D's are useless and can't even research after they've spent near a decade of their lives researching to get a Ph.D.

I don't have a Ph.D and it took me a few minutes to find a resonable basis for an argument AGAINST my point of view. So please, someone edit it before I delete the whole damn portion as being useless and bias as it's not an analysis at this point it's plain criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.68.79 (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it violates conservation of momentum. It can be shown that if it violates that, then it inevitably violates conservation of energy as well, due to relativity considerations, in at least some inertial frames of reference. Shawyer tried to avoid that by asserting conservation of energy in his derivation, but because of lack of conservation of momentum, his derivation only holds in one reference frame, unlike Newtonian mechanics or Special Relativity, where it holds in all.WolfKeeper 02:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The esoteric General Relativistic effect of asymmetric frame drag allows a very small force. It appears only in relation to the drag itself and not the energy expended. I have said before that Shaywer's theory is likely incorrect, but the effect he sees is a real esoteric frame drag. He postulates increasing efficiency to make cars float, for example. This is in error as it follows a failed theory. I predicted a five pound force as a sun probe. Near earth a small mass drag is far less. It does violate as with all drag. A photon has an odd property making only radiowave/light/etc. cause true asymmetry.

--74.9.129.85 (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The creator asserts it does not violate the conservation of momentum or energy, the Wikipedia article asserts indirectly that it does by labeling it a reactionless drive (which the creator also disputes) and proceeding with criticism on that front without any citation of analysis of the actual drive or mathematics itself. That is why this section is original research, that is why this section is biased POV, that is why the Analysis section should be removed. If someone wants this information so badly, they should find some analyses of the drive and its theoretical underpinnings and write a wikipedia article on the controversy directly and actually cite it. Unless someone here can create a detailed analysis based on actual information and post it on their own site, they are playing armchair science critic and that's POV. This isn't even about whether or not the drive even works theoretically.

Whatever Costella's credentials and background, he is entirely correct and this Wiki entry should be deleted as being an 'accessory before the fact' in a blatant fraud. Moreover, it is a very sad modern trend that those with no knowledge of physics (but a great fondness for philosophical double-talk) defend crackpots in a knee-jerk manner and simultaneously accuse experts of - in effect - being brainwashed by their own expertise. Defenders of the concept should ask themselves how the situation differs from the old kindergarten puzzle about whether one can reduce the postage on a package of bees by stirring them into flight before putting it onto the scales. It doesn't: microwaves are not 'magic', and relativistic arguments change nothing. Also, those who cite quantum mechanics should check out what the 'correspondence principle' implies. Magazines such as New Scientist and Wired should be censured for even mentioning Shawyer; his only proper place is in the pages of Fortean Times or some ufology fanzine. Above all, (more) questions should be asked in Parliament about the quarter of a million pounds of public money which has already been squandered on this nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.128.77 (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

151.148.122.100 (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree that the entry should be deleted, as it is widely noted in the lay press. Rather the flaws in the idea should be carefully identified to refute it. I've tried to do this isn the theory section.Danwoodard (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Could someone institute automated archiving?

This talk page has over forty topics, is over 190,000 bytes, and contains discussions that are seven years old. Do other people agree it is time for some automated archiving, per H:ARC? Archiving is generally supposed to happen after about ten topics and the page being 75k....__ E L A Q U E A T E 12:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done. It looks like the bot will probably run in about eight hours. It should be able to handle archiving some material to the /1 we already have and creating /2 for more of it on the same run. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggested explanation

I have published a paper suggesting an explanation for the emdrive results. It agrees quite well with the data. I added it to this page and it was deleted. Please can we discuss this? http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2015/PP-40-15.PDF 81.156.122.132 (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It was removed by MrX With this explanation: This does not seem to be widely-respected source. Please discuss this addition, on the talk page. I would suggest you show why your paper would be considered a wp:reliable source (RS). I left a welcome message on your 81.156.122.132 talk page. Jim1138 (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome tea. Much appreciated! I've checked the wp definition of reliability. My paper has been peer-reviewed & published in a journal. Of course, I can't comment on what others think of the journal, but I support it, and please note that most of the other references in this wp page were not published in journals at all. What do you think? 81.156.122.132 (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

That looks like a very iffy journal. If you look at the "Books" section http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/books.html of the journal website, you'll find that it's mostly the journal's editor-in-chief and associate editors flogging some very non-standard physics texts—which they coauthored. (Basic Elementary Concepts of Geopathogenic Radiations and Neutrosophic Methods in General Relativity seem particularly...striking.) Absent some fairly compelling evidence that Progress in Physics is actually a reasonably widely-read, -cited, and -respected journal, I would be very reluctant to treat it like a conventional peer-reviewed publication. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

(I found this article through a LinkedIn thread....) I agree with TenOfAllTrades on reliability of Progress in Physics, but the same can be said for the sources of existing claims that the thing works at all, or that it's not a weird photon drive, with the photons not being properly detected. It doesn't appear that New Scientist (the only potentially reliable source which is at all favorable) actually claims that it works, but only that Shawyer says that it works. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Warp drive?

An article appeared on IGN today, saying that NASA has found some of the beams of light they fired into this thing appear to have travelled faster than (the usual) speed of light. This seems like it should be incorporated into the WP article somehow? The IGN article is here. Xmoogle (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I keep seeing this; everybody getting it wrong. What the Eagleworks lab at NASA observed was some of the laser pulses seemingly traveling slower than expected. The team's theorizing (which remains to be repeated in vacuum) that perhaps it took longer because space inside was warped. Some reading for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White%E2%80%93Juday_warp-field_interferometer#Interferometer_experiment_with_an_EmDrive

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/

CrinklyCrunk (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

In general sites online are calling this a "warp drive" when it is not, it is simply a propulsion drive if it works. "Warp drive" is just a Star Trek-ish sounding term to catch reader's attention. It warps nothing, it does not deal with going faster than light.--Varkman (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

So, this article says the NASA experiment was repeated in a vacuum:

http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/30/8521691/nasa-seemingly-impossible-space-drive-test-succeeds — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ ([[User talk:|talk]]) 19:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2015

 Change   " with a greater area at the large end of the device"  ( redundant )
                                                     to
                               " with a greater area at the far end of the device" 
                                             

99.35.153.179 (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done, but I changed "far end" to "one end". Far end is relative to a hypothetical near end that has not yet been described.- MrX 00:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm been reverted by the user GliderMaven

I will to love reach consensus regarding my edits Quantanew (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Revert your edits now, or I will report you and you will be blocked.GliderMaven (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Your edits are non consensus and are not based on WP:RELIABLE sources. Reliable sources have been through a peer review process, and should be secondary sources. The conference proceedings are primary sources and have not been peer reviewed. NASAWATCH articles have not. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL ball.GliderMaven (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I have heard this argument neither I or you are going to define this, let a consensus be reached Quantanew (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

No, you have 10 minutes to self revert, or you'll be on the 3RR noticeboard, and you will be blocked. We can discuss it after that. You're 4RR right now.GliderMaven (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Your threat of report while a discussion is been made will constitute Wikipedia:TROLL.Quantanew (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no deadline and we need a third opinion all of this according to: Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule Quantanew (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Time's up, enjoy your block.GliderMaven (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not how it works, please allow time to reach a consensus. Thanks.Quantanew (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Some comments:

1. By my count, both Quantanew and Glidermaven are at three reverts right now.
2. None of the sources used by Quantanew look like reliable references to me.

Cardamon (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted him 3 times, he's made the same edit 4 times. That's 4RR.

Reliable sources are secondary, peer reviewed sources. Often you can get away with far lower quality sources, but if they have been challenged, as here, then you need proper sourcing, he hasn't got that; it doesn't even exist.

It's far, far too early to be having half the article speculating about flying to the outer planets using a drive that hasn't flown even a micron.GliderMaven (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to add the current sources on the whole article are not peer-reviewed sources. It was put on delete and the consensus was not to delete the article, obviously other editors considers this article important. This article is already in the category of fringe physics and hypothetical technology and with that in mind I just enumerate the potential applications of the technology, all of this cited by the current team a NASA JSC Eagleworks working on the device.Quantanew (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment - first, the AfD was in 2006, making it almost entirely irrelevant to the current status of the article. Second, GliderMaven makes valid points w.r.t. the validity of the sources. The conference paper (which was almost exclusively used in the new additions) is not the best of reliable sources, nor is the information from the NASA forum. If good sources can be found, I see no issues with adding in this new information, but at the moment it's all simply hearsay. Primefac (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You reverted my edits without first reaching consensus. If we apply this to the whole article, the whole article has to be deleted.Quantanew (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we should avoid claims that the EmDrive might make FTL travel possible until such time as peer reviewed science journals report such.- MrX 01:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, if the article was deleted it wouldn't bother me right now; but we'd never get consensus for that. But we do seem to have consensus that it's premature to be having significant parts of the article about starflight, or travelling to the moon within 4 hours, or trips around the world in just over a couple of hours when nothing has flown even a millimetre, and there's no generally agreed proof that the drive produces any real thrust at all.GliderMaven (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

My two cents (for what it's worth). This subject has garnered significant third-party coverage, hence, at a cultural level, the article's subject is notable. From what I've read, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong (as I am very much out of my area of expertise), is that a) there have been strong objections made to the theoretical underpinnings of this device and b) it is a minority view among physicists that this device is capable of generating thrust and c) there is some experimental support for the device, but still inconclusive, and that none of those experiments have been submitted to peer review. In addition, it appears that Eagleworks is planning on eventually submitting it's findings to peer review. In light of the above, I suggest the following: due to the popular interest in the device, a short blurb describing the implications of the device (should it be feasible) be included, but that at no time should Wikipedia's voice be used to assert that this device does function according to the principles advanced by it's designers. Wikipedia's voice should emphasize that the jury is still out, and that since consensus appears to be weakly against the arguments of the designers. As much as the fanboy in me wants to start screaming "born just in time to explore the galaxy", we have to remember that this is an encyclopedia, and that our duty is to the truth. In summation, subject is relevant due to pop culture, however it remains a fringe theory, and will remain so until proven conclusively to the contrary. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 20:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we could strengthen this sentence in the lede: "If proven to work as claimed, this technology could be used to propel vehicles intended for all forms of travel including ground travel, marine travel, sub-marine travel, airflight and spaceflight." How does this sound?: "If proven to work as claimed, this technology could be applied to all forms of transportation. In particular, it could revolutionize space travel." Spiel496 (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the jury metaphor I have this to say: The jury will always be out. When the proponents figure out where the theory is wrong, or when they eliminate whatever caused the spurious experimental results, there will be no report in the press. No physics journal or newspaper is going to waste effort proclaiming that Newton's Third Law still has no counterexamples. Take a look at Steorn. Spiel496 (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Luckily the deletion doesn't depend on you them and again there is no fairness in judging just this part and not the whole article. Quantanew (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Notes On EmDrive Controversy

As will be seen below claims made for the EmDrive not requiring any reaction mass as fuel (Wikipedia article EmDrive) and any claims of generating motion without propellant (Reactionless drive and Reactionless_drive#Modern_approaches) are at best suspect due to one of the main components in the drive, namely the magnetron (EmDrive), requiring electric current to operate that will not be present until one thing occurs, this being the application of some form of energy on the input side of a transducer to cause the movement of electrons in sufficient quantity and with sufficient EMF on the transducer’s output side to power the magnetron.

First consider such substances as liquid hydrogen, oxygen or kerosene, regarded as reaction mass in rockets, sharing one characteristic with coal, natural gas and yes even uranium this having BTU content or the ability to release energy in the form of heat. See Energy Content in Common Energy Sources [2], Fuel Gases – Heating Values [3] and Heat Values of various fuels [4] as well as GJ to BTU conversion [5]

Second, Electricity_generation#Methods_of_generating_electricity and Electricity_generation#Turbines covers the process and the fuels (reaction mass) used to convert liquid phase water into gas phase water or steam to rotate a mechanism (turbine) turning a device utilizing electromagnetic induction to cause an electric current which ultimately powers the magnetron in the EmDrive at least here on the ground. The transducer in this case is the device driven by the turbine using electromagnetic induction to cause the electric current to flow to the magnetron.

Third, Since the use of fuels for the intermediate purpose of rotating mechanisms as above described is, it is hoped, obvious by its sheer bulk and weight unusable in space craft it falls to the form factor and internal design of the RTG on the Voyager spacecraft [6] from Voyager The Interstellar Mission and [7] from Radio Isotope Power Systems to provide a clue as to how furnish electrical power for the EmDrive’s magnetron in a space craft. As the total output of Voyager’s 3 RTGs [8] at the beginning of its mission might have been sufficient to drive the 300W magnetron sited in EmDrive#Second_device_and_New_Scientist_article the 800W magnetron in EmDrive#DTI_grant_and_first_device would have been out of the question. This raises the possibility of having to conduct studies into the feasibility of scaling up RTGs or whether an actual small uranium fueled reactor would be needed for a sufficient number of thermopiles (transducers converting heat into electricity) to even provide power for the 2,500 W input power magnetron sited in EmDrive#Chinese_Northwestern_Polytechnical_University_.28NWPU.29

History of rocket engines Rocket_engine#History_of_rocket_engines records a statement to the effect that the 13th century may have seen the first examples of rockets, albeit solid fuel, as we now know them. Liquid or solid fuel the operating principal is the same. The reaction mass (fuel) is directly converted into the force or high velocity exhaust that moves the vehicle.

With the EmDrive this 800-year-old direct model no longer applies. Instead there is an intermediate step, the transducer, that converts the thermal or heat energy of a fuel (reaction mass) into the electric current required for the magnetron to generate thrust in a resonant cavity.

VPR-80 (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup

I cleaned this up a bit. Including an example of a discussion of resonant plasma thrusters from the 1990s, and more balanced coverage of EmDrive and other trademarked implementations of the idea. The title should probably be "RF resonant cavity thruster" to be inclusive. [If one or the other takes off, it may deserve its own article; for now they can all be sections here.] – SJ + 19:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Now renamed to the more general term. Yang, et al's 2008-2014 experiments called it a microwave resonant cavity thruster - and those are the most extensive tests to date - so that title also redirects here. RF encompasses microwaves, so until the field settles on an umbrella term of art, this can cover both microwave and lower-frequency experiments.– SJ + 19:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I also modified the first sentence in the leading section, since EmDrive or Cannae drive is more like a trade name. I also remove the template of neutrality since certain criticisms by J. Baez and S. Carroll had already been mentioned. --Kasuga (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Static Thrust

I'd like to modify the static thrust section to convey the notion that the specific thrust (in N/W) is not a constant, but really "rapidly decreases if the EmDrive is used to accelerate the vehicle along the thrust vector" [9]. Specifically, that decrease seems to negate the claim that the EmDrive could "lift a large car". In Earth's gravity, even hovering a car means the EmDrive would be providing an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2. Or does "accelerate the vehicle along the thrust vector" really mean "there is velocity along the thrust vector"? Any other sources clearer about this? Or am I trying to decipher bullshit written about bullshit, so I should just give up? Spiel496 (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I would wait until there is some more reliable overview written about this; not worth deciphering in too much detail yet. Everything published so far has been extremely preliminary. – SJ + 19:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. On a related note, can anyone explain what "static thrust" means? It seems ill-defined. Static relative to what? I don't like having the term in a WP article if it doesn't have a real meaning. Never mind. It appears to be a common term, meaning static with respect to the surrounding atmosphere. Spiel496 (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Criticism

A "Criticism" section is missing from the article. Here is a first draft, feel free to contribute:

None of the tests were conducted inside Helmholtz coil to completely cancel Earth's magnetic field, thus all tests are susceptible to EMF (Electromotive Force) between currents running in the test setup and Earth's magnetic field. In the typical test setup, 10 Amps magnetron supply running on 1 meter wire under Earth's magnetic field exerts a force of more than 100 µN on the wire, which is in the same order of magnitude as the measured anomalous thrust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.215.196 (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@85.250.215.196: That's an interesting analysis, do you have a reliable source to support it? Unfortunately, we cannot accept original research on Wikipedia. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

A criticism section is definitely needed and missing (though cited to the many reliable critical sources). Also, a more detailed discussion of the chinese tests, and criticism in chinese-language science journals. – SJ + 05:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

A quick check of the above from first principles: the Lorentz force law is F = I l B, where I is current, l is length and B the magnetic flux density. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there is this sort of length of wire carrying that current, without a balancing reverse current along the same path. The magnetic flux density of the Earth's magnetic field is typically somewhere between 20 and 70 microtesla, let's call it 40 microtesla for the purposes of this argument, so for I = 10 A, and l = 1 meter, you get 400 micronewtons if the current is oriented optimally relative to the field. If it isn't, the force will be less than this -- so 100 µN, to within an order of magnitude. is probably the sort of force you would expect to see from this effect alone.

All this is WP:OR, or course, so we can't put it in the article, and you'd hope that experimenters would have both designed their experiment to eliminate the possibility of such a force being generated in their experiment, and also found a way to check that they had done so correctly, but it does show how difficult it is to do experiments involving these sorts of tiny forces.

Here's another example of how easy it is to think up mechanisms for experimental error: if I was an experimenter, I'd also want to investigate the possibility that unforseen parasitic RF rectification processes within the apparatus were not creating stray DC currents inside it, which would also interact with the Earth's magnetic field, possibly to generate forces of a similar magnitude. One way to check for this general class of effect would be to deliberately increase or decrease the magnetic field around the apparatus, and see if that caused the measured effect to change. Easy enough to arrange if the apparatus is already in a Helmholtz coil. -- The Anome (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

As of July 2015, none of the EM-drive papers mention earth's magnetic field. None of EM-drive papers mention Helmholtz Coils or other method to cancel of earth's magnetic field. This is standard practice when testing ion micro-thrusters. That's a problem... 85.250.62.87 (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I strongly support the existence of this article, but until the EM-drive is accepted by the general physics community as a valid effect, I believe the onus of providing "reliable source" is on the proponents of the technology, and not on the opponents of the technology.

Canceling earth's magnetic field using Helmholtz coils is a standard practice for measuring very low forces, search for "micro thruster" and "Helmholtz", for example [[10]] and [[11]]. Eletromagnetic forces are a significant source of errors in such tests, quote from second paper: "For example, a FEEP thruster has high voltage cables which may create electromagnetic forces disturbing the measurements".

Right now the article is all roses and promises, and missing any kind of "criticism" section, which is jarring.85.250.62.87 (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

See my comment below. -- The Anome (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps all the criticism should be grouped in one section instead of interspersing it throughout the article? 85.250.62.87 (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Possible way

This drive, em drive, is actually the old system began to study Soviet Russia, when its scientists received some documents from Tesla's Library in Belgrade. This plant shown here is only a pale copy of their operation, which was developed from the torsion theories scientists Akimov (theory of torsion fields) later thrown and lost. The theory was later developed by eng. elt. & Ph.D. phy. Milos Corlomanovic in his work "torsion fields and impacts on them," 2013 y. In this theory, he explains how the torsional field changes the density of the vacuum, creating thrust that comes from the environment. This is now implemented collapses in its program PAK-TA M (PAK-modified TA) aircraft, air cosmic forces, who will be able, with certain modifications to fly around the universe.

References: ^ "Torsion fields and impacts on them"; 17.5.2013 y. — Preceding Виктор Рубильов comment added by 93.86.146.205 (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

That's classed as pseudoscience, but it may offer an explanation (which is missing elsewise) as to what drove the investigator to perform his initial experiments. In other words, what was the hypothesis that drove his initial work? Kortoso (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hype over "propellant-less"

I suggest that the part where it mentions the revolutionary possibilities of a propellant-less engine is removed. There are plenty of propellant-less drive concepts out there that have been proven to work under existing laws of physics, such as solar sails, laser propulsion, electromagnetic tether,etc. it seems like this might be possibly relevant to the idea behind a solar sail, where the "reaction" is provided by a change in momentum of photons, although this is just speculation on my part. All in all though, I think hailing this for using no propellant is just engaging in blatant sensationalism Ingebot (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It is the fact that it would be propellentless AND wouldn't need an outside force working on it that would make it revolutionary (if it ever turned out to work).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what's specifically revolutionary about this. It uses a hell lot of energy for a very small force output, just like what happens if you fire a laser backwards to propell your craft forward. Both can work anywhere in the universe so long as you give it a huge source of power. In any case, the part where it talks about how great it is this uses no propellant doesn't make it come across as the way you put it, with no mention of "no outside force" in that part. Ingebot (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The sources say that it would be revolutionary if it turned out to be true, to support your change you would need to put forth a source saying that even if it turned out to be true it would not be revolutionary, we follow what the sources say, not our own opinions or research.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I vaguely recall the forces originally claimed are larger than you get with laser propulsion. In the unlikely event physics does indeed allow you to push against the virtual warp field quantum force hyperspace false-vacuum unruh plasma, it would presumably also be likely that once you figured out the nature and dynamics of the force you could engineer something more efficient. So the statement "Although generally considered implausible, if they are found to work as claimed, providing thrust without consuming a propellant would revolutionise many propulsion applications, particularly spaceflight" seems accurate and reasonably uncontroversial. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should say it won't be revolutionary, just avoid mentioning this, or put this more into context. Ingebot (talk) 08:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The sources, particularly the Wired source, clearly go into great detail about why it would be revolutionary, (if it turns out to work). I don't see why we would avoid reporting this just because you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not using an emotional argument. Ingebot (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, the 'revolutionary' aspect of this (fictional) drive isn't that it's 'propellant-less' or exhaust-less but rather that it's reaction-less. It differs from, e.g., the photon rocket in that the photons don't leave the device. Indeed, nothing with momentum leaves the drive—and violating the law of conservation of momentum would be a very big deal.

Now, the vast majority of scientists recognize this sort of claim as nonsense just because conservation of momentum is a fundamental building block of physics. Not just known physics, but physics in general. (Any theoretical framework that allows violation of conservation of momentum also permits the creation of perpetual motion machines of the first kind. Worse still, any theoretical device that violates the law of conservation of momentum actually requires that the laws of physics – not just the physical conditions, but the underlying physical laws themselves – vary between different points in space. (This is a consequence of Noether's theorem, which is so astonishingly powerful because the mathematics apply no matter what those physical laws are: Newtonian or relativistic, flat or curved space, classical fields or quantum particles, even something completely different and as-yet-undiscovered.)

This is why the slightly-cleverer followers of this device have resorted to 'explaining' the drive by suggesting that it pushes on various invisible, implausible, and generally undetectable phenomena, like "quantum vacuum virtual plasma" or a mysteriously reduced speed of light existing only inside the drive. This resolves the gross impossibility by wrapping it with a mathematically-tolerable but entirely-unsupported-by-evidence layer of new physics.

Unfortunately, what we're really seeing here is the effect of measurement errors, likely resulting from high magnetic and electric fields in close proximity to sensitive strain gauges, coupled with wishful thinking. (Compare and contrast with the faster-than-light neutrino anomaly. CERN scientists botched an experiment and got some strange results because a single cable was loose. Instead of immediately declaring that they had developed faster-than-light communication, they spent months systematically tracking down all the sources of error in the experiment—and they compared their results to other experiments which tested the same principles but with different people, equipment, and techniques.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

OK? WP:TRUTH applies well here though, and as editors we rely on what the published sources say, not our own opinions. As far as I've read, NASA has and continues to experiment with the damn thing and no matter how much they try to remove sources of error, they can't seem to stop the damn thing from producing thrust. They have actually tested a new version of the drive in a vacuum with magnetic dampers (to cut down on magnetic effects and Lorenz force interactions, and they still got thrust readings), so the stray magnetic error hypothesis seems to be out. source.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I Call Bullshit!

This, right here, is bullshit:

Shawyer's patent claims the thrust is generated in a closed cavity such that one end of the cavity receives a larger force than the opposite end. Electric heat turns liquid coolant into vapor, contributing to the force balance. Shawyer claims that a standing wave interference pattern is created by geometry, operating frequency and equal path lengths for all segments of the microwave. Shawyer claims that stress energy of space is altered inside the microwave cavity by addition of the interference pattern in which nearly all of the electric and magnetic components are canceled out by two microwaves approaching each other with equal intensity on the same path and most of the Poynting vectors are also canceled out. Puthoff's patent shows how a small but detectable curl free potential can be created from interference patterns passing through shielded barriers. Otherwise if all of the microwaves remain inside the cavity and there is no net interaction with the vacuum, then there is no established theory to give external thrust to the device.[citation needed]

I don't know the 1st thing about physics, but I know what bullshit smells like and this is bullshit. Smells like bullshit. All that's missing is the "trans-flux capacitor" and the "super-heterodyne geronomator". Also stop calling "it" a "drive" or an "engine". There's no "it", and engines make things GO. This idea hasn't made anything "go". The .02 newtons claimed were conveniently unverifiable because the magnetron "burned up". That's how bullshit starts. Someone claims something, then claims the proof is unavailable, then a bunch of people ignore the fact that it's bullshit, and all bullshit starts out like this, and pretty soon everyone is talking about bullshit like it's not bullshit.

But it's bullshit. This quoted passage here, is pure bullshit. The whole article is bullshit, actually, as it makes no attempt at conveying the simple facts and ideas in layman's terms; instead it goes straight to the big-words and high-minded concepts, which is how bullshit, and bullshitters, avoid scrutiny and condemnation. It's bullshit, and I'm condemning it as such.66.25.171.16 (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss the topic. This is wholly inappropriate talk page content. We use secondary sources to build articles and our personal opinions should not enter into the discussion.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It's true that this is not the place to express personal opinions. It is appropriate the to discuss what is needed to improve the article w.r.t. references, what is missing, how to better word the writing, and in that regard it is appropriate to discuss the subject here. It is correct to ask questions that might prompt making the article more complete. It is appropriate to declare "bullshit" as the editor suggested and to demand references, but not to go over-the-top with a passionate rant. The quality of the references should rise as the claims become more extraordinary. I didn't see a reference for that paragraph so it is appropriate to delete it. Zedshort (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Insert may be correct about the Talk page rules, but 66.25.171.16's rant was thoroughly enjoyable. Spiel496 (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Quit saying this drive violates Newton's 3rd law!

The highly technical part of the article is fine, but there's a problem with the impression a novice might get. In the context you use, this can't work because it violates Newton - but Einstein violates Newton too! The article needs to be couched differently, exploring both sides of this topic. We could be looking at farce that violates basic principles, or we could be looking at something new and different. Scientists went to their deathbeds exclaiming that Einstein is wrong because it violates Newton, but depending on the problem, Newton or Einstein or BOTH may be applied. Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Einstein's stuff doesn't violate Newton's third William M. Connolley (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Stop shouting please. General relativity has exact local momentum conservation, and for every system here momentum is conserved globally as well. --mfb (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Possible new hypothesis

According to the MIT Technology Review, there is a new hypothesis that resolves most objections, although at the cost of introducting photonic inertial mass and changes to the speed of light in the cavity. See https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601299/the-curious-link-between-the-fly-by-anomaly-and-the-impossible-emdrive-thruster/#/set/id/601302/ . Do the SMEs think the hypothesis section will require a re-write? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Sound's like it might be worth a mention for sure. unless widely accepted it won't necessitate a rewrite though. Time will tell.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  09:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The Hypothesis section might benefit from subdivision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.185 (talk) 09:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not new, it already had a sentence in the article, and as far as I can tell Mike McCullough's quantised intertia theory and ostensible calculations don't appear to be taken seriously be any actual practicing physicists. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It is new, the paper was put up on arxiv on the 6th of april. I don't see how the MIT tech review carries no weight, certainly reliable enough to merit a mention, but not any kind of rewrite.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Good questions, all. To dispel confusion, the April 2016 arxiv upload is the same paper as the [1 October 2015 http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/111/60005/meta] EPL publication. EPL specializes in "findings that merit rapid publication" and is WP:PRIMARY and is being ignored by the rest of the community, but it is peer-reviewed so IMHO it's a judgement call on whether to include it at all. Personally I'm fine with keeping the brief one-sentence mention of the paper. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I got both praised and reverted (!) for adding detail on this. Happy to resolve the question here. Lfstevens (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lfstevens: Welcome to editing contentious topics!  InsertCleverPhraseHere  09:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Insert, The MIT Tech Review is considered a highly credible publication per Wikipedia standard. If it doesn't carry weight, what does? Diego (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The MIT Technology Review has a [c. Fact-checking and editing. MIT Technology Review's features, reviews, and some infographic stories enjoy the thorough fact-checking and multiple edits traditional to magazine journalism. Directories, charts, graphs, and similar data-rich elements are also thoroughly fact-checked. News, news-analysis, opinions, and shorter stories receive the abbreviated fact-checking and editing common to news journalism. Our events cannot, practically, be fact-checked, although we invite only authoritative, responsible speakers. If we are told a speaker has been inaccurate, we correct the record. published editorial policy for news and short stories] (see point 3c), so it's a reliable source - even if it's published in blog (see WP:NEWSBLOG). The article should therefore explain a few details of how McCulloch explains the thrust effect through Unruh radiation, at the cost of making the speed of light not constant. Diego (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the ping that you want is @Rolf h nelson:. I never had any problem with the inclusion of the MIT TR in the article. A major rewrite (as suggested), seems a little over the top just yet, as this is still WP:RECENTISM. It is still worth including and I'm not sure how Rolf h nelson justified his reverts with WP:WEIGHT.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  13:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking about this edit which eliminated the description of the Unruh effect; you're right that Rolf is the one who removed the detail. I'm not defending a section rewrite, but that sentence was descriptive and summarized the MIT review post, so it was a good addition. Diego (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I undid Rolfs reversion as it contained useful copy edits as well, but removed the MIT tech review section until he has a chance to speak as to why he removed it in the first place. I will revert this removal in 24 hours if we don't hear from him.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

If it appears in the print edition, I agree it carries moderate WP:WEIGHT (although I would say the MIT Tech Review is moderately, rather than highly, credible). But as far as I can tell the citation is just a blog, although the Tech Review's layout makes it (deliberately?) hard to tell. WP:NEWSBLOG seems to say the exact opposite of what you want: "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." Looking at the source, the writer of the confusingly-named "arXiv blog" (not actually endorsed or associated with arXiv) is pseudonymous, may not even be a professional, and probably isn't fact-checked. So my personal judgement is no, the whole Unruh angle doesn't yet merit more than the current sentence. It's quite possible that additional coverage will occur, at which point it may merit inclusion. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rolf h nelson: Additional coverage seems to be flooding in.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2016/04/21/the-theoretical-dream-of-the-emdrive/#1407cb31ad9f

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/21/em_drive_theory_why/

There is also an article at the examiner as well, but it won't let me link to that site due to "spam blacklist" (not sure about the reliability of that source but that seems weird). In any case the Forbes article seems reason enough to restore the removed material.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I restored the Unruh Theory section and MIT tech review ref, as well as adding the Forbes reference and the main conclusons contained within it.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)