XPost: rec.arts.sf.misc   
   From: j.clarke.873638@gmail.com   
      
   In article <310720150931549267%YourName@YourISP.com>,   
   YourName@YourISP.com says...   
   >   
   > In article , Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw   
   >  wrote:   
   > > On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:01:39 +1200, Your Name wrote:   
   > > >   
   > > > If this is indeed working, then so much the brainless imbeciles who   
   > > > claim human beings already know everything and they're moronic belief   
   > > > that anything which doesn't stick to what we already know doesn't   
   > > > classify as "science fiction".   
   > > >   
   > > > Even if it doesn't work as a propulsion system, there's still something   
   > > > happening that scientists don't yet understand.   
   > >   
   > > Magnetic fields are quite well understood, (that's the likely cause of   
   > > the tiny amount of thrust seen in this test).   
   >   
   > It's not a "tiny amount of thrust". It's reportedly better than the   
   > standard rockets NASA, etc. currently use, although I don't think it's   
   > any use for actually launching rockets off the surface, only for actual   
   > travel in space.   
      
   So it has produced more than the 705,000 pounds of thrust of the RS-68   
   engine in the Delta IV?  Source?   
      
   Perhaps you mean something other than thrust?   
      
   > > The simple fact that _it keeps working even when intentionally broken_   
   > > should be a clue that there is an unaccounted for effect at play, (just   
   > > like the earlier claim of the EM Drive working actually being a thermal   
   > > effect).   
   >   
   > Nowhere in what I posted did it say anything about "working when   
   > broken". In fact it specifically said it will work continuously   
   > (without needing to carry fuel) *unless* something is broken.   
      
   Perhaps not in anything you posted, but that was the case in previous   
   tests.   
      
   > > Also, the article you quote makes the usual error of confusing "a tiny   
   > > lab at NASA that spends spare time looking into things that almost   
   > > certainly don't work," for NASA as a whole.   
   >   
   > It was a professor at a German university who was running the tests   
   > that showed it produced thrust in some unknown / "impossible" way. NASA   
   > was running their own tests.   
      
   Since that was stipulated, what is your point?   
      
   If this thing actually works it could be wonderful, but so far a   
   convincing demonstration has not been achieved.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)