With all positive respect Sir Im afraid youre going to be disappointed by the way of thinking here First some very active editors will always say that all EmDrive theoretical explanations violate conservation of momentum and they may be right But when you bring a possible explanation that does not violate conservation of momentum a Mach effect or a MiHsC effect for example your edit is reverted as fringe stuff or original research with a claim that this is not peerreviewed Next when you reference peerreviewed explanations Minotti  McCulloch  your edit is also reverted because the academic journal are not good enough  and if you ask specifically why some sort of judgement about the impact factor of those journals being too low is always hand waved yes it appear there is a limit between acceptable and nonacceptable impact factor and good peerreview journals but it depends on the article evidently As a result a true imbalance arises with only explanations of the critics showcased CoM and CoE broken in the Theory section even when they are discutable and coming from nonpeerreviewed personal blogs as for Costella he wrote personal attacks on Shawyer constituting an offense and it has been showed that Egan only accounted for standing waves and disregarded travelling waves and the energy input by the antennawaveguide It is truly amazing that some people here managed to highlight those kind of blog explanations while at the same time preventing any peerreviewed paper stating otherwise to appear in the article As a consequence the neutrality of the Theory section has been compromised by this undermining