A scientist with "a long history of experimentally testing (and debunking ) breakthrough propulsion systems" has replicated the Eagleworks results- 2
0 micronewtons thrust for 700W input. He can't explain it either.
However, his experimental setup has some of the same problems as the orig inals like poor temperature management, systematic irregularities, and ina dequate instrumentation.
"I noted in [the study's] conclusion paragraphs that [Tajmar's] apparatus w as producing hundreds of micro-Newtons of thrust when it got very hot and t hat his measuring instrumentation is not very accurate when the apparatus b ecomes hot... He also stated that he was still recording thrust signals eve n after the electrical power was turned off which is a huge key clue that h is thrust measurements are all systematic artifact false positive thrust si gnals."
"The experiment is quite detailed but no theoretical account for momentum v iolation is given by him, which will cause peer reviews and technical journ al editors to reject his paper should it be submitted to any of the peer-re view physics and aerospace journals,"
His paper is here:
It's paywalled but the first page, with abstract, is readable.
One thing that really bothers me is that his cavity Q, like the originals , is about 50. That's a measly *fifty*, when I can solder up something with a Q in the hundreds out of cut-up coffee cans in minutes. Superconducting cavities used in particle accelerators get up into the single-digit exponen ts of ten regularly.
It's almost as if they're just not trying to optimize their systems to se e a definitive effect one way or the other.
Mark L. Fergerson