The fourth change may be out of context, as 'tangible results' could mean a lot of things, not necessarily what is being implied by this sentence. Though it could be added elsewhere in the article. Mary-Ann Russon has also published many EM drive articles, including speculation about Em drive as a possible solution to the the world's energy needs and interstellar travel." as singling out authors is not generally something that is done in the lede as it isn't really important to the topic. For the third addition, I have no problem with it, but have a big problem with the other stuff that you had put in the lede right after it (" For example, David Hambling has written a number of articles highly charitable to the device's claims. Also, best to avoid the term 'scientific consensus' altogether, as this device has really seen only sporadic coverage and is far from being on the mainstream radar of most physics scientists. For the second one I feel like this wording is a too strong per WP:NPOV. Forbes72 ( talk) 23:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Reply For the first listed change, I prefer the current way the lede paragraph is structured, and am not entirely sure if your 'synopsis' accurately represents all theories that have been used to describe the theoretical action of these drives, best to keep it brand broad in the lede IMO. Let me know what the specific issues words or phrase you have in mind here are. I did my best to summarize the basic point of this response. The article explicitly references several popular articles and criticizes their coverage. not WP:SYN) The title of the response "Did NASA Validate an "Impossible" Space Drive? In a Word, No." is clearly a direct response to the article "Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive". This is a fairly harsh criticism, but it's explicitly made in the source.(i.e.
Claims made in these and similar articles that NASA has 'proved the drive works', stand in contrast to NASA's official statement that the drive "has not yet shown any tangible results.”.This is a significant source of publicity around the drive, and popular knowledge of its existence. Writers in the popular press have written speculative articles concerning the applications/merits of the drive. This is a summary of what follows in the next two sentences. "The device has been the subject of some coverage in the general media, often speculating on the possibilities if the inventors' claims are taken at face value.".Perhaps you have some questions of tone here, or you may wish to put the inventors claims and the response in separate sentences. "if the EmDrive actually works, it would violate known physics." from the Forbes article. (including the two I cited) "The design instantly violates the principle of conservation of momentum." from the Ars Technica article. All the expert coverage I've come across disagrees with this assessment. The inventor of the drive apparently claims in several articles, (not just the one I cited) the device doesn't violate the laws of Newton. Despite the inventor's claims to the contrary, this mechanism is a clear violation of the conservation of momentum, and the scientific consensus is that the device's theory of operation directly contradicts mainstream understandings of physics.
I think it's important to put the basic mechanism of action up front, rather than getting bogged down in the details early. The current article states the drive is 1.) elecotromagnetic and 2.) rectionless, but fails to give details of how that would work. The idea is a one-sentence synopsis of how the device works. A radio frequency (RF) resonant cavity thruster is a proposed type of electromagnetic thruster in which electromagnetic radiation is confined to a microwave cavity, and pushes the cavity in a particular direction as the radiation reflects off the cavity walls.".Diego ( talk) 12:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Reply Sure. Let's work together to solve any concerns with the old lede section and improve it. User Forbes72, please discuss your changes here in the Talk page and introduce them one by one your proposed version has severe problems in tone, undue weight and synthesis.
0 kommentar(er)
