Once it is shown that this is a real thrust force that can be used in space, and that the cord makes no difference of course at that point people would not object to the use of the cord. The first problem is showing that the anomalous force is real thrust that can be used in space. The controversy with the EM Drive is whether the anomalous force is real. When testing the F-1, there was no question that it would be able to achieve lift-off. Precisely ! I like the way you bring this back to reality.ĮM Drive experimenters like to quote early experimenters like Goddard, Von Braun, the Wright Brothers.Ī huge difference is that all of them: the Wright Brothers, Goddard, Von Braun, and even Project Orion (explosive driven spacecrafts) achieved FLIGHT or LIFT-OFF, while EM Drive experiments are giving microNewtons or milliNewtons, hence they cannot be compared to the Wright Brothers, Goddard, von Braun or Project Orion, because there is no flight and no lift-off in the experiments.
, well, then it is on your shoulders to show the audience that your cord is not moving the spoon (not on the shoulders of the audience that are asked to disregard that there is a cord attached to the spoon) Somebody will say, but, but, but I cannot use the same testing method because. Same story as in the tests that were nullified by Yang: when Yang did not use batteries and no polymer insert, she also obtained "thrust", when she used batteries, she obtained no thrust. Hence, the purported "no need for polymer inserts" for Cannae's superconducting "tests" is due to the different testing method.ĭifferent testing methods => different results. In other words the same testing method is not used for Cannae's superconducting "tests" which purport to use no polymer insert as the tests with normal conductors that use polymer inserts. 1) the torsional pendulum is not used for Cannae's superconducting "tests"Ģ) batteries are not used for Cannae's superconducting "tests"ģ) vacuum chamber is not used for Cannae's superconducting "tests"