On 1 Aug 2014 at 20:01, Bruce Johnson wrote:

> Not correct. The only statement regarding the structure of the 'test article' was this:

> "Specifically, one test article contained internal physical
> modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other
> did not (with the latter being referred to as the "null" test
> article). "

Well, they left out an *important* phrase...

"designed to produce thrust ACCORDING TO OUR THEORY"

> This is so nonspecific as to leave it entirely open to speculation.

Truem except that my "qualification" is something that *always*
exists even though it's rarely stated.

Given that, theere are twoi main possibilitities:

Experimental error

thust is produced by some means *different* than what they thought

Yeah, even though the claim to have not found any error, the fact
they are getting apparent thrust from *both* test articles argues in
favor of their theory being wrong.

--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com