[steve86]

You appear to be framing this as a Newton’s third law sort of engine, which it is NOT. It is reactionless and everyone involved agrees it appears to violate physics, as currently understood.

[higgmeister]

You appear to be framing this as a Newton’s third law sort of engine, which it is NOT. It is reactionless and everyone involved agrees it appears to violate physics, as currently understood.

Totally right. Resonant cavities were invented over a hundred years ago. Klystrons have been used in electronic applications for eighty years. Now suddenly, Roger Shawyer has found a resonant cavity use in propulsion?

From Wikipedia:

New Scientist also published a letter from the former technical director of EADS Astrium, who stated: "I reviewed Roger’s work and concluded that both theory and experiment were fatally flawed. Roger was advised that the company had no interest in the device, did not wish to seek patent coverage and in fact did not wish to be associated with it in any way",[26] and a letter from physicist Paul Friedlander, who stated

As I read it, I, like the thousands of other physicists who will have read it, immediately realised that this was impossible as described. Physicists are trained to use certain fundamental principles to analyse a problem and this claim clearly flouted one of them ... The Shawyer drive is as impossible as perpetual motion. Relativistic conservation of momentum has been understood for a century and dictates that if nothing emerges from Shawyer’s device then its centre of mass will not accelerate. It is likely that Shawyer has used an approximation somewhere in his calculations that would have been reasonable if he hadn’t then multiplied the result by 50,000. The reason physicists value principles such as conservation of momentum is that they act as a reality check against errors of this kind.[27]

Bull at its best. Where is the in home fuel cell, or the feasible fusion reactor as promised by 2016?

[Campion]

Not so fast my friend! The engine may not be “reactionless” if the photons it produces are the “reaction mass”. It just doesn’t generate reaction mass by burning fuel, so it doesn’t need to carry that reaction mass along with it in a tank.

[Go_Raiders]

You appear to be taking into account only Newton’s third law, which believe it or not does not constitute the entirety of the laws of physics, which in this case applies the Theory of Special Relativity.

http://emdrive.com/principle.html Apparently your use of the term “Everyone” doesn’t take into account the design team actually building the thing.

There is a reaction that takes place in this device due to radiation pressure, which comes from the photons produced by a magnetron.