Here you can find some information about Prof. Dr. Martin Tajmar and his research:

http://tu-dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/fakultaeten/fakultaet_maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/forschung/folder.2007-08-21.5231434330/ag_raumfahrtantriebe/breakthrough_propulsion_physics  (many papers can be downloaded as PDF-files)

The drive mentioned in the article from The Independent seems to be this one:

Tajmar, M. and Fiedler, G.,
 "Direct Thrust Measurements of an EMDrive and Evaluation of Possible Side-Effects",
 AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference, AIAA-2015-4083, Orlando, July 27-29 (2015)

http://tu-dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/fakultaeten/fakultaet_maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/forschung/folder.2007-08-21.5231434330/ag_raumfahrtantriebe/JPC%20-%20Direct%20Thrust%20Measurements%20of%20an%20EM%20Drive%20and%20Evaluation%20of%20Possible%20Side-Effects.pdf

Does it work? Probably not! If it did work convincingly, the University would make much more noise in order to get funds. It would be big news in Europe.

Greetings, Conrad

@All


Here is the nature of the problem at hand as I see it.


Now I have a rock and a balloon on a table and Mark tells me energy is always conserved and there is nothing I can do to change this fact with respect to the rock and balloon. At which point I say this is true in the sense that if I do nothing then nothing will happen or work in equals work out as it stands... then I say watch this.


At this point I fill the balloon with helium and tie the rock to it and it starts to rise and the wind carries it away and out of sight. Then I say.... what you said is true however the balloon and rock are now interacting with external energy I did not input because I have changed the properties of the system. The force imparted by the wind over a very great distance was not my doing I simply changed the variables and properties to change the result.


So yes Mark is correct and work in equals work out and energy is always conserved when applied in the right context which is constrained. However it does not apply to a change in properties which allows the system to interact with the external environment. My input filling the balloon with helium has no direct relation to the force acting on the balloon over any distance.


As such the simple argument that nothing can happen is false because as always it is dependent on the variables and context in which they are applied. We cannot use the most basic example to explain a more complex one which interacts with the external environment... that is absurd.


The only question we need ask here is ... Is our energy input to change a physical property equivalent to the work which may be performed due to the change in properties as it relates to it's environment?. In the case of the balloon, rock and helium it is not equivalent in which case we might consider other ways in which we could apply this same thought.




AC

@All


Here is the nature of the problem at hand as I see it.


Now I have a rock and a balloon on a table and Mark tells me energy is always conserved and there is nothing I can do to change this fact with respect to the rock and balloon. At which point I say this is true in the sense that if I do nothing then nothing will happen or work in equals work out as it stands... then I say watch this.


At this point I fill the balloon with helium and tie the rock to it and it starts to rise and the wind carries it away and out of sight. Then I say.... what you said is true however the balloon and rock are now interacting with external energy I did not input because I have changed the properties of the system. The force imparted by the wind over a very great distance was not my doing I simply changed the variables and properties to change the result.


So yes Mark is correct and work in equals work out and energy is always conserved when applied in the right context which is constrained. However it does not apply to a change in properties which allows the system to interact with the external environment. My input filling the balloon with helium has no direct relation to the force acting on the balloon over any distance.


As such the simple argument that nothing can happen is false because as always it is dependent on the variables and context in which they are applied. We cannot use the most basic example to explain a more complex one which interacts with the external environment... that is absurd.


The only question we need ask here is ... Is our energy input to change a physical property equivalent to the work which may be performed due to the change in properties as it relates to it's environment?. In the case of the balloon, rock and helium it is not equivalent in which case we might consider other ways in which we could apply this same thought.




AC

Your analogy breaks down unless you can come up with a "momentum wind" that acts on something that does not eject propellant.

I may be wrong but I am fairly sure I read that the actual thrust from one of the devices under discussion was measured as a few hundred millinewtons. It would take several weeks to accelerate a bicycle from 5 mph to 10 mph.

Yes, but not in the open system that is currently being hidden from the public.


Gravock

Gassiot, in the middle of the nineteenth century, made the first unsuccessful attempts to pass electricity through rarefied gases. After him, Plucker invented the tube which was later used by Geissler for his experiments, from which the name "Geissler tubes" is derived.  Other scientists of world fame, like Crookes, also carried out experiments with considerable success, which resulted in considerable progress in the field of physics.


In a Geissler tube the atmospheric pressure is reduced to between 1 and 3 mm. of mercury. If the tube contains air and the anode and cathode ends of it are put into contact with the positive and negative poles of a high tension electric current, the whole tube lights up with a violet light, with the exception of a space at the cathode end where the light is blue and separated from the remaining violet light by a dark band.


Various effects are brought about by changing the gas pressure inside the tube, such as the appearance of dark bands which are known as Faraday bands; the disintegration of gas molecules, liberating hydrogen; changes in the colour of the light to green, yellow, red, etc. Crookes succeeded in proving the mechanical action of cathode rays by bombarding rotary blades with them and setting them in motion. Similar experiments with spheres painted black produced the same result.


There was, however, one great difficulty which dogged the steps of science: cathode rays could not leave the tube of rarefied air since they were incapable of passing through any substance. The scientists asked themselves what effect cathode rays had on the ordinary atmosphere.


It was then that Lenard, Nobel prize winner in physics in 1905, working on Hertz' previous experiments, made an aluminium "window" on the opposite side to the cathode which projected the rays outside the tube where they could be studied with ease. He proved that these "Lenard rays" could be propagated in the atmosphere as easily as in the rarefied air of the tube, causing atmospheric phenomena of a similar nature. He proved that the passage of electrons through the dense air of the atmosphere appeared to open up a tunnel giving rise to strong ionization of the particles with considerable air turbulence and luminous effects which varied according to the voltage used.


However, he could not completely comprehend the nature of the phenomena as he did not know that they were the result of a disturbance in the atmosphere and ether. The most important thing as far as we are concerned, is to know whether or not ionization causes a drop in atmospheric pressure. It is now well known from meteorology that heavy ions cause low pressure, they often bring about devastating cyclones.


It is known that the emission of a single particle of medium velocity can produce in the first centimeter of its trajectory through the atmosphere as many as 24,400 ions. The number gradually increases as the particle proceeds along its trajectory. Even using a low voltage, the electrons moved through space at a speed of between 25,000 and 50,000 miles per second.


Later it was observed that by using 250,000 volts, the electrons moved at 150,000 miles per second. In one experiment 900,000 volts was used, but the speed of the electron was not noted. It is also well known that the higher the voltage used, the greater is the number of ions produced, sometimes as many as 2 million ions appearing in the first centimeter of the electron's trajectory.


Subsequent experiments showed that the electrons emanating from cathode ray tubes could break down the atmosphere and set free hydrogen which then also became ionized.  It may well be that these rays break the atmosphere down completely, and set free the nuclei, which they subsequently join up with, thus producing the amount of hydrogen that has been observed.


Madame Curie was able to calculate the speed of ions as 1.3 cm. per electron volt in dense atmosphere, and 6.7 cm. per electron volt when the ionic movement took place in pure hydrogen. This shows that a high voltage would result in a higher electron speed and that in the upper atmosphere the speed would be greater.  The vacuum creating effect is, however, not strictly due to the intrinsic speed of the ion, but to the atmosphere's ability to absorb ionized particles.


While negative ions are absorbed by the atmosphere, the positive ones move towards the negatively charged surface of the saucer, at which point the electrons pass into the vacuum.  In an ordinary cathode ray tube the electric current reaches a saturation point which shows that all the atmospheric particles contained within the tube have been ionized. This is due to the limited amount of electrolyte within the confines of the tube. In the case of the flying saucer the electrolyte is made up of the whole atmospheric envelope of the Earth which never reaches saturation point. The ionized "bubble" surrounding the saucer is attracted and absorbed by the surrounding atmosphere with tremendous force and in its place only a vacuum is left, into which the saucer moves, impelled by the atmospheric pressure of 1.033 kg. per cm2.


........continuing


Gravock

If there's low pressure on one side, the other side is subject to the full atmospheric pressure.   With an atmospheric pressure of 1.033 kg. per sq. cm. we can calculate the force operating on a saucer of 20 m. diameter is equal to 3,278,272.8 kg.The cathode rays intersect the anode rays at an angle of 45 degrees. This is achieved by using high voltage and current.  If you wish to go very fast, then use an absolute vacuum.  Use a semi-vacuum to move more slowly. The intensity of the vacuum is proportional to the current used and is controlled by a rheostat. If you want to follow an undulating course, then use a pulsing current.

Gravock

It's amazing how a simple aluminum window can easily convert the EmDrive from a closed system to an open system, just like turning the fan 180^o on the boat with a sail.  By hiding the aluminum window from the public, then it falsely gives the perception that it is a closed system, and then it no longer supports the claims made for the open system with the window.

Gravock