I admit that I too am disheartened by the lack of details in the paper.
1) where are the structural plans for the test article, as even the placement of one of the rivets in the copper could upset an experiment with thrust measurements this low? How can other labs seriously attempt replication without them?
2) I understand that academic theft is a thing, but seriously-- yes, please publish the q-thruster excitation predictive model. The model itself can be strongly tested against any number of test articles besides ones assumed to be propelled by unicorn farts. (A pair of metal plates to measure changes in cassimir effect pressure near an excited test item to see if the proposed mechanism actually has an impact being a good one, IMO.) It is essential to vet the model before trusting any predictions it may make, and keeping it secret is not how you do science. If your model is mature enough to make predictions for experiments, it is mature enough for peer review. Peer review gives you free of charge, improvements and enhancements to your model, assuming it works, of course.
3) If you want to use peer review correctly, the above two things need to be provided so that the experiment can be independently replicated and either verified or refuted. This is especially true when no proven model for action is provided. The purpose of peer review is for other scientists to verify your findings through independent experiment. Give the people what they need to do that. The quality of your paper is insufficient in that regard.
Those genuine criticisms aside, the article is too dismissive, and stinks of bias. One of the main objections to the paper is that the authors did not give a definite mechanism for action, even though the opening of the paper asserts that they do not have one, and do not know, and can only speculate-- which is why they focus on the thrust produced instead. That's a bullshit cheap shot, and I dont appreciate it, nor will I give it a free pass.
Author
Topic: Space Thread (Read 366269 times)