As physics: emdrive breaks conservation of momentum, and has nothing to do with baryons. it could perhaps relate to some modified version of GR. It uses energy and distance scales which don't make quantum corrections look likely.
But does the EM Drive have something to do with leptons (namely, neutrinos)? Can this be ruled out at this point? If not, then the conclusion about breaking of conservation of momentum is premature. 
You see - and I downvoted you from the very same reason. I don't like vague OT posts which raise more questions than answers. If you have an idea, how the EMDrive and LENR can be related, why not write it right here? But if you don't have such an idea, why to post about it here? You've been downvoted for it and you'll be also downvoted for it next time. That's the deal.
It sounds like we're in agreement — we can continue in this manner if you like.
I discussed how the two phenomena might be related here; perhaps you missed the post?
Why not - but you should also agree, it's my freedom to use voting according to my free will - and not just for avoidance the jealous retaliations of harmed egos.
Deal?
Not a deal. As a moderator, I am trying to encourage you out of your obnoxious behavior. You are free to interpret this as jealous retaliation of a harmed ego. In interpreting things this way, I think you will have missed the point.
But you didn't want them to write down them here bellow your remark? You expected only possitive reactions? Sorry but it doesn't work so.
This is a strawman argument.
You are at liberty to reply to any remarks that are found in forum threads. You choose whether your remarks are on- or off-topic. In this case you chose to take a topic off course by replying tangentially to an on-topic remark. This is of course something that you are at liberty to do, and AlainCo was at liberty to split off this thread. You have choice over your actions.
But from the same reason I don't ask you not to downvote me.
Zephir_AWT, let me repeat my suggestion: don't downvote because you disagree with someone. Downvote to discourage trolling. If you and I can agree on this, I will stop downvoting you when I disagree with something you say.
Wel, you just connected two areas of research, which are related in very broad and general way only. The explanation of that way and its limits cannot be very different after then.
BTW What did you actually intend to initiate by your brief and vague remark? Did you just want to have it unnoticed? Why to post it after then? Or to promote further thoughts? You did it. To raise discussions? You also did it.
I connected two poorly-known areas of research that might be intrinsically related. I am allowed a vague comment here or there. I have explained elsewhere in this thread one way that they might be connected in concrete terms. Perhaps you do not like it, which is fine.
What I intended by my remark was to get people to think a little more about their assumptions underlying these two areas of research. In this I think I have succeeded. I'm very glad to have made my remark!
I don't understand why. So that your claim, that "mechanism underlying the EM Drive and what is going on in LENR are related" is exactly on-topic and my explanation how it possibly could be so already isn't?
You've taken it one step beyond the topic with your attempted explanation. My comment was a small, innocuous, single-line comment on the thread announcing a new forum for following the EM Drive news. The comment was obviously pertinent both to the new EM Drive forum and to LENR Forum. The comment in no way distracted from the topic of the thread; indeed, it was precisely about the topic of the thread. Your misplaced attempt to show theoretically why my comment had to be wrong was arguably quite off-topic. No matter. We have our new thread.
Actually I downvoted you, because you were off-topic (well, again...) and after then Allan understood and he did move your post into a separate thread.
As I have explained, my comment was exactly on-topic. It was your fanciful theoretical excursions which sent the thread off-topic. Really you should be downvoting yourself.
Isn't the downvoting without further arguments exactly what this feature is all about?
In a forum with as wide-ranging a set of discussions and quality of forum participation as this one, it makes little sense to use downvoting for disagreeing with someone. Really it should be used only very rarely, and reserved for discouraging trolling.
BTW The whinning about abuse of downvoting is the most reliable way how to get downvoted at most public forums. Not to say about threatening the other posters in similar way - your karma would get downvoted into oblivion with such an attitude at Reddit and elsewhere.
Have it your way.
Zephyr_AWT: just a personal suggestion to you to stop downvoting posts simply because you disagree with them. I am considering beginning to downvote any posts of yours that I find a disagreement with as well, which I have refrained from doing up to now.
It should be moved to the new forum, sure, but both are not connected...
I wonder how both our forum can cross-polinize...
Allow me to assert counter to your assertion that LENR and the EM Drive are not connected, with an equally unfounded confidence, that the two are connected.
If electron capture or beta decay are occurring within the EM Drive, high-momentum neutrinos will be exiting the cavity, possibly in a preferential direction, giving the drive a propellant, and making it incorrect to call it propellantless. You must now assert (1) that electron capture and beta decay are not pertinent to the EM Drive; and/or (2) electron capture and beta decay are not pertinent to LENR, to support your argument that the two topics are not connected. There is lots of fancy-sounding stuff that is trotted out both in connection with LENR and with the EM Drive which might seem to contradict this possibility, but one can safely ignore or at least discount much of what people suggest on these two topics.
The new EM Drive forum is now created, and my intention isn't to disparage it. I do wonder where discussions that touch on both topics should now occur.
About off-topic, it is only off-topic relative to the thread, ( just talking of theory instead of cheering the new forum).
My reaction is just to sort the discussions for both concerns not to be disrupted ... (maybe I forget an orphan post ?)
Ah, I see. Yes, that makes sense. You had placed the moderation comment seemingly in connection with my post, which was a point of confusion.
AlainCo, perhaps you will agree that the suggestion that the EM Drive and LENR are related is relevant to the topic of the new forum about the EM Drive, in that they both are germain to the EM Drive? This is as off-topic as pointing out that 4He is sometimes found in PdD LENR in a thread about PdD LENR, which is to say that the point is exactly on-topic, which is diametrically opposite of off-topic.
From current theories and evidences, there seems to be no relation.
EmDrive theories involves relativistic effects, quantum vacuum/energy, cosmology...
LENR involves quantum coherence and emerging pseudo-particles, better approximation of QM computation in atom, new/replacing QM theory...
Michael McCulloch would like to connect both...
anyway I'm conservative, so most disruptime theories are not on my list.
Here I believe you're speaking beyond your knowledge, perhaps without knowing that you are?
Hi Mike — interesting ideas. The flames looked like burning off-gas, and not simply a plasma of ions, e.g., like you would see in glow discharge. Take a look at the videos and see if you agree. One thing that is curious to me, though, is that a hydrogen flame is more or less invisible (and for this reason dangerous), whereas the flames in the videos were orange.
My suspicion is that the mechanism underlying the EM Drive and what is going on in LENR are related.
Zephir_AWT, thanks again for the interesting links. Btw, several of the links are broken, and at least one passage comes unattributed from this source.
Regarding the Kanzius device, which splits salt water using radio waves:
IMO it actually doesn't matter, I'd would just avoid the iron, chromium steel or some other less noble metals, the precipitate of which fouls and expands the pores of reverse osmosis membranes and thus destroying them.
We could only conclude that the electrode composition in the reverse-osmosis device doesn't matter, or that avoiding iron, chromium steel or other less noble metals is important, if we had prior theoretical biases about what must be going on in the system. But at any rate a replicator will need this information to do a careful replication.
People who don't like LENR being a fact are as welcome here as people who like LENR being a fact. If they have a non-crazy argument, they can make it, and it will be considered on its merits.
@Zephir_AWT, I couldn't find in your description what the electrodes are made of. Do you know offhand?
Would be interesting to see MFMP or LFH attempt an exact replication.
Mary, just to be clear, Abd's situation is entirely different from that of K's, who has been a flagrant troll. Forum warriors such as you who have been in the trenches of forum wars for years will see K the way you do — as harmless and funny. People who are not accustomed to such nonsense but who do have relevant knowledge to bring to discussions here will often find such behavior both noxious and entirely preventable. We have more forum warriors here than we could ever hope for, on all sides of all issues. What are needed to advance the conversations here are people with specialized expertise. Those people will often have little appetite for avoidable nonsense, and it is those people we hope to make this place inviting for.
IHFB, if your inference is correct, presumably we'll then see the IH-Cats in the next few years. If this is the correct reading I do not see how such a strategy could succeed legally. But I guess there's a wide range of outcomes that are possible. To me the matter seems rather more straightforward: Rossi wanted out of his contract with IH, he then became a loose cannon, and then when things didn't go the way he was hoping he launched a frivolous lawsuit. Time will tell. We've been waiting years for the full truth to come out; I suppose we might need to wait one or two more years.
Can I suggest that Mods need to hold back on the hammer. Perma-bans should be used very very sparingly. Smart-bans and with a 2 day (cool off) types of bans, can be just as effective.
Thanks
Individuals here are welcome and invited to block users they find annoying. I had K and several others blocked for many weeks. Most of the people I had blocked occasionally had interesting comments and were not flagrant trolls. Often it came down to me just not finding value in their posts. K and one or two others have been flagrant trolls, persistently engaging in innuendo and ad hom, and have poisoned the waters here a little bit.
I recently took all of the blocks off because I wanted to see the stuff I had been ignoring. As THH points out, there are many guests and new users who do not know about or have access to the blocking feature. If they come to LENR Forum and see a lot of spammy, catty insults, they will correctly take away the impression that LENR Forum is not being properly moderated. A small number who join and stick around will justifiably get the impression that that kind of behavior is tolerated, normal and ok. Some of the best forums (PhysicsForums, StackExchange) are ruthlessly moderated: if you misbehave you will be warned and then unsentimentally tossed out. That approach keeps those places sane if a bit stuffy. I'm just one mod on a team here that already has its own style and preferences, so it's not for me to try to move LENR Forum to that kind of approach, even if I thought it was the right one for this place, which I don't. I've been on Vortex for some time now, and I like how the moderation there is very light. Bill Beaty, the list admin, is off doing other things and usually only responds after receiving requests. There have been several points in time on Vortex, however, when a flagrant troll came along and tried to bend the group to his own will, making it extremely unpleasant to follow the list. It would have been nice for Bill to step in many weeks earlier in such cases. Those were flagrant trolls, easy to spot from early on. (Here I'm not thinking of Yugo or Cude, who were also tossed out for different reasons, but were not attacking forum members.)
People whose only contribution here is to be obnoxious and toxic should definitely worry about being perma-banned. I will do it again if the need arises. People who have something interesting to say but are obnoxious part of the time do not need to worry about being perma-banned by me (although I cannot speak for the other mods), which is not to say that something more measured won't be done in specific cases. People who see all kinds of interesting technical and legal details to be mentioned, sorted out and debated dispassionately on their merits and without bringing in other forum personalities into the discussion are the kind of people we want here.
Not exactly sure how to describe the newest document (doc. 95), but the plaintiffs have filed a motion for leave to file their Answer and Affirmative Defenses, over the objections of IH's counsel. I gather (1) that there was some confusion about submission deadlines when IH submitted their third amended answer and counterclaims; (2) that the plaintiffs were late in filing their answer; (3) that in such a case it looks like it might be necessary to obtain the consent of the opposing counsel for a late filing; and that (4) IH's counsel objected to this. Not sure if this is correct, or if it is, what the implications might be.
