EMDrive Still Doesn't Work Because Science has no Patience for Nonsense

More experiments on the much-overhyped EMDrive continue to prove absolutely nothing except that it’s easy to create ambiguous results if you’re sufficiently sloppy with your experimental design.

Illustration for article titled EMDrive Still Doesn't Work Because Science has no Patience for Nonsense

Writing about the EMDrive makes me wonder if this is all an elaborate troll to irritate scientists. The latest research is published in a journal that yet again dodges peer review. The theory continues to be somewhere between nonsensical to non-existent, and the experimental results continue to include so many sources of error I don’t understand why people just don’t burst out in incredulous laughter when reading them. Yet here we are reporting on it again like anything at all has changed to make this catastrophe of nonsensical engineering more plausible.

The latest EMDrive experiments were conducted in a vacuum chamber for a slight improvement in the test setup. Image credit: Tajmar and Fiedler

If you’re going to make extraordinary claims, you need solid, repeatable evidence to back it up. Instead, these experiments are consistently sloppy to create datapoints that are dubious at best. The first few times, I could forgive flaws in the experimental design due to the researchers tentatively exploring the concept. But by now, the researchers have gotten extensive, detailed feedback on how their experimental setup is broken and how to fix it to produce meaningful data, yet they aren’t fixing it. The continuation of flawed experiments pushing past the point of human error or being overeager and verging into the territory of deliberate vagueness to avoid decisive data that would end this charade.

I just want a real, legit experiment to test this thing in a thorough manner so we can either get going on rewriting our understanding of physics, or stop wasting so much time and energy writing about a fictional device.



MessO'Espresso is a noodle-bodied sloth

How is it that people read non-peer-reviewed studies? As a non-scientist, I always looked up to STEM studies because they always seemed to be peer-reviewed and that was what differentiated them from my own (totally correct) musings on FB. I guess that’s not always true. :(