Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[mixent]

In reply to  Craig Haynie's message of Sun, 13 Mar 2016 21:08:43 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]

Note the use of the word "acceleration". 

Acceleration produces a force. Force times distance = energy.

>This doesn't make any sense:
>
>"For a given acceleration period, the higher the mean velocity, the 
>longer the distance travelled, hence the higher the energy lost by the 
>engine."
>
>Since we're not talking about relativistic speeds, then the idea that a 
>device will consume more energy, over a given period of time, simply 
>because it's moving, would violate Einstein's Special Relativity which 
>says there's no preferred frame of reference. The moving object cannot 
>be said to be moving at all.
>
>Craig
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:NY Times, "How Saudi Arabia Turned Its Greatest Weapon on Itself"

[a.ashfield]

Axil,
Don't be such a pessimist.  1 - 2 decades is plenty to get LENT in 
vehicles.  I could even be less is the E-Cat X really can produce the 
majority of its output as electricity.

Re: [Vo]:NY Times, "How Saudi Arabia Turned Its Greatest Weapon on Itself"

[Axil Axil]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-economy-employment-idUSKCN0W205X

China expects to lay off 1.8 million workers in coal, steel sectors

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>
>> That opinion is an overreaction. It will take 20 to 30 years before any
>> fraction of transportation is converted over to LENR.
>>
>
> The time it takes to convert is not so important. An economist friend of
> mine explained to me that markets respond to likely future events, either
> short term or long term. If it becomes generally known that over the next
> 30 years most of the market for oil will vanish, that will have an
> immediate effect on the price today. Producers will want to sell off their
> inventory as quickly as as they can while it still has value. When every
> producer does that, the price will plummet.
>
> They will rush to dig more wells to get as much oil out of the ground and
> sold as they can before it becomes worthless. "Rushing" to dig a well means
> you do it in 3 to 5 years. It is a slow business. In the context of
> building an oil extraction infrastructure, 30 years is a fairly short time.
>
> Once the writing is on the wall the price will collapse and never recover.
> I think it is starting to do that with coal, because natural gas, wind and
> solar have taken a large fraction of the coal market, and there is no
> reason to think they will not take the rest of it away over the next 30
> years. They are getting cheaper every day, and there is growing public
> pressure to reduce carbon emissions. The biggest coal producer is China.
> They peaked in 2011 and will soon begin dropping rapidly. See p. 14 here:
>
>
> https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld_Statistics_2015.pdf
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:NY Times, "How Saudi Arabia Turned Its Greatest Weapon on Itself"

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:


> That opinion is an overreaction. It will take 20 to 30 years before any
> fraction of transportation is converted over to LENR.
>

The time it takes to convert is not so important. An economist friend of
mine explained to me that markets respond to likely future events, either
short term or long term. If it becomes generally known that over the next
30 years most of the market for oil will vanish, that will have an
immediate effect on the price today. Producers will want to sell off their
inventory as quickly as as they can while it still has value. When every
producer does that, the price will plummet.

They will rush to dig more wells to get as much oil out of the ground and
sold as they can before it becomes worthless. "Rushing" to dig a well means
you do it in 3 to 5 years. It is a slow business. In the context of
building an oil extraction infrastructure, 30 years is a fairly short time.

Once the writing is on the wall the price will collapse and never recover.
I think it is starting to do that with coal, because natural gas, wind and
solar have taken a large fraction of the coal market, and there is no
reason to think they will not take the rest of it away over the next 30
years. They are getting cheaper every day, and there is growing public
pressure to reduce carbon emissions. The biggest coal producer is China.
They peaked in 2011 and will soon begin dropping rapidly. See p. 14 here:

https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld_Statistics_2015.pdf

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Craig Haynie]

This doesn't make any sense:

"For a given acceleration period, the higher the mean velocity, the 
longer the distance travelled, hence the higher the energy lost by the 
engine."


Since we're not talking about relativistic speeds, then the idea that a 
device will consume more energy, over a given period of time, simply 
because it's moving, would violate Einstein's Special Relativity which 
says there's no preferred frame of reference. The moving object cannot 
be said to be moving at all.


Craig

On 03/13/2016 02:27 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
Shawyer's theory explicitly repect CoE, and it explains that 
acceleration consume energy, through dopler effect and decalibration 
of the cavity...

http://emdrive.com/faq.html
"*6.*

*Q.* /Is the EmDrive a form of perpetual motion machine?/
*A. *The EmDrive obeys the law of conservation of energy and is 
therefore not a perpetual motion machine. Energy must be expended to 
accelerate the EmDrive (see Equation 16 of the theory paper). Once the 
EmDrive is switched off, Newton’s laws ensure that motion is constant 
unless it is acted upon by another force.


*7.*
*Q.* /Why does the thrust decrease as the spacecraft velocity along 
the thrust vector increases?/
*A. *As the spacecraft accelerates along the thrust vector, energy is 
lost by the engine and gained as additional kinetic energy by the 
spacecraft. This energy can be defined as the thrust multiplied by the 
distance through which the thrust acts. For a given acceleration 
period, the higher the mean velocity, the longer the distance 
travelled, hence the higher the energy lost by the engine.
This loss of stored energy from the resonant cavity leads to a 
reduction in Q and hence a reduction of thrust."



I'm not very convinced by Shawyer except that his equations seems to 
work... seems, with the scarce data available...



You can also consider MiHsC theory by McCulloch


this theoreticians is pushing the idea that inside the event horizon 
energy+information+mass is conserved.


http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/one-wave-approximation-of-mihsc.html




2016-03-13 18:28 GMT+01:00 Russ George >:


“And it is this direct implication that Shayer et al have not yet
answered to, so far as I'm aware.  The conversion of input energy
to acceleration would remain constant, at any velocity.  If 1
m/s/kg costs a whopping kJ, it'll ALWAYS cost 1kJ, whether from 0
- 1 m/s or from 999 m/s to 1 km/s, and hence passing a threshold
beyond which energy is being created as observed from an external
frame.”

I thought that was the essence of why Shawyer’s EM Drive has been
described as a ‘warp drive’ not because of the simple notion that
it ‘might’ reach ‘faster than light’ but that if the energy
required for acceleration remains constant it ‘MUST’ be capable of
reaching ftl speeds.

The super conducting version of Shawyer’s drive that he says is
the real goal/gold is surely very near to hand. That sort of tech
is widely in use in a variety of fields and simple adaptations of
on the shelf hardware could be immediately diverted to build such
a drive. It seems likely this is already underway by Shawyer and
his ilk as they are very ‘coy’ on this topic.

Of course using EM Drives to spin an electrical generator shaft is
a logical useful earth bound tech. There seem to be a whole flock
of black swans starting to be heard honking in the distance and
getting louder by the day.

*From:*Vibrator ! [mailto:mrvibrat...@gmail.com
]
*Sent:* Sunday, March 13, 2016 10:14 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com 
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

@Jones - i have no doubt the efficacy of the principle can be
tested in the lab - i'm not talking about an ability to detect thrust.

I use the qualifier "effective" N3 violation in reference to a
system in which mechanical (classical) momentum is not conserved -
quantum or relativistic effects notwithstanding.

An EM drive would be such a system.

And as regards conservation of energy, an effective N3 break, like
a real one, creates free energy from the classical perspective.

KE squares with veloicty, so a 1 m/s/kg acceleration from
stationary only costs 1/2 J.   But the cost of that same 1 m/s/kg
is then subject to compound interest as velocity rises - it costs
9.5 J to get from 9 m/s up to 10 m/s, and 95 J to get from 99 m/s
up to 100 m/s.  In short, acceleration costs more per unit the
faster we go.

And if you consider WHY this cost escalates, it boils down to
Newton's 3rd law, and the need for reaction mass.

If however our reaction mass can be quantum or relativistic, ie.
non-classical, then we circumvent this limitation of diminishing
returns - the cost per unit of acceleration remains 

Re: [Vo]:NY Times, "How Saudi Arabia Turned Its Greatest Weapon on Itself"

[Che]

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> That opinion is an overreaction. It will take 20 to 30 years before any
> fraction of transportation is converted over to LENR.
>


It would take a lot less than that in wartime.









> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> This article describes the troubles that oil-producing nations are
>> experiencing. These problems be far worse if it becomes generally known
>> that cold fusion is real. That knowledge alone will reduce the price of
>> oil. If cold fusion succeeds these nations will all be bankrupt.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:NY Times, "How Saudi Arabia Turned Its Greatest Weapon on Itself"

[Axil Axil]

That opinion is an overreaction. It will take 20 to 30 years before any
fraction of transportation is converted over to LENR.

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> This article describes the troubles that oil-producing nations are
> experiencing. These problems be far worse if it becomes generally known
> that cold fusion is real. That knowledge alone will reduce the price of
> oil. If cold fusion succeeds these nations will all be bankrupt.
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:NY Times, "How Saudi Arabia Turned Its Greatest Weapon on Itself"

[Jed Rothwell]

This article describes the troubles that oil-producing nations are
experiencing. These problems be far worse if it becomes generally known
that cold fusion is real. That knowledge alone will reduce the price of
oil. If cold fusion succeeds these nations will all be bankrupt.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Bob Cook]

If SPP’s are present at the location where muons are produced, their large 
magnetic field may be sufficient to sap a good deal of energy and effectively 
capture the muon in a helical death spiral, producing more electrons and 
photons on the way to the center of the SPP. 

The time constant for such an event would be interesting to calculate as well 
as the expected magnetic field associated with SPP’s necessary to capture a 
muon.  

Bob Cook

From: Bob Higgins 
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 12:26 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

Muons with less than about 4MeV are not going to escape the reactor.  Cosmic 
muons are average 2GeV.  No magnetic field that I could generate is going to 
significantly deflect either of these.


On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

  @Bob 

  Use a magnetic shield to divert muons and other charged particles.
  I describe it here


  
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2862-A-Simple-LENR-Magnetic-Radiation-Shield/?postID=15183#post15183

[Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Bob Cook]

Dave--

I agree with your comment—note I suggested it SEEMS to happen.  The real issue 
is what happens in a coherent system.  Can a nano particle convert spin—angular 
momentum--- to linear momentum?

Bob Cook

From: David Roberson 
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 10:49 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

Bob, if you take the kid and merry-go-round as a system in free space it can be 
shown that both linear and angular momentum are conserved.  The interaction 
with the Earth makes it less clear.

Dave




-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Mar 13, 2016 11:22 am
Subject: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)


It may be that the intrinsic spin (and angular momentum) of a particle is 
converted preferentially to a particle with linear momentum in the direction of 
a magnetic field.  In this case there would be no apparent conservation of 
linear momentum.  This seems to happen in macroscopic systems—a kid running and 
jumping on a merry-go-round to make it go faster.  It may only require a QM 
coherent system to produce linear momentum from scratch in the EM drive 
devices.  

It’s all about spin...

Bob Cook 

From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 7:12 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:EM Drive(s)

From: Vibrator ! 

Ø  So an EM drive in a lab cannot show an energy asymmetry because it can't 
accelerate anywhere. 

That does not add up logically or scientifically… Despite conflicting claims, 
no one has yet “busted” all of the positive results, which are probably about 
“chirality” more so than any other anomaly. Newton may not apply fully to 
chiral systems and possibly not the Laws of thermodynamics either. That is why 
this field is of great interest to LENR.

Or… based on your ‘handle,’ is this a lead-in to the Mythbuster lesson?  

OK, I’ll bite: here is the reference to the small and large scale analogies of 
violating Newton’s law by “blowing your own sail”  expressed in the Mythbuster 
videos which have a broader message to offer the microwavers (e.g. oscillate 
(vibrate) the magnetron beam, around the axial vector)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKXMTzMQWjo=1

If the EM drive is valid, it can be demonstrated beyond doubt in a Lab model, 
like the sail analogy. It’s probably a cop-out to dream up a lame excuse 
otherwise. The lesson from the sails, which seems to be missing from the failed 
experiments with microwaves - is that you have to find the symmetry break – and 
therefore - need to vector thrust slightly on your virtual sail, prior to 
reflection in a way that maximizes the chiral anomaly. 

Ron Kita may want to expound on this subject, but chirality is the symmetry 
breaking property of some reflected systems which encompasses variation from a 
mirror image- which is the simplified version. LENR can be looked at as a 
reflected system of hydrogen oscillating between dense and ambient states.

The larger question for LENR is this: is the thermal anomaly of Ni-H (as a 
non-fusion reaction) explainable as the impedance gap in the Chiral anomaly (of 
hydrogen oscillating between dense and inflated states around 13.6 eV) … as 
expounded in the first graph of the Cameron paper? 
http://vixra.org/pdf/1408.0109v4.pdf

Or alternatively, does an additional Lamb shift modality of the type that 
Haisch claims also enter into the picture as gain from hydrogen oscillation 
between two asymmetric states?

It’s all about spin…

Re: [Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Axil Axil]

See

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2862-A-Simple-LENR-Magnetic-Radiation-Shield/

and my posts in

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1853-Ask-questions-to-Dr-Sveinn-%C3%93lafsson-Science-Institute-University-of-Iceland/





On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> Axil--
>
> I am interested in the ideas you have put forth below.
>
> It would be nice if you were to add some references to the documents you
> have that substantiate the various ideas.  For example I am not familiar
> with the notion of a magnetic beam.  Magnetic fields are the classical
> notion of what you may be calling a magnetic beam.  Does the beam shine out
> at a certain velocity?  Is the beam made of particles as suggested by the
> term beam?  Are the particles virtual particles in a virtual monopole beam
> since they seem to originate from virtual quarks.  A reference to Twister
> theory would be nice.
>
> Bob Cook
>
> *From:* Axil Axil 
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 12, 2016 8:38 AM
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung experimental note
>
> There is a BIG difference between optical cavities and SPPs in that SPPs
> are spinners and optical cavities are not. The SPP produces a monopole
> magnetic beam. That is a quantum energy pathway into the SPP where nuclear
> energy is transferred into the SPP directly through entanglement. This is
> called energy teleportation. The nuclear energy that is generated in the
> LENR reaction is transferred magnetically between the nucleus and the SPP.
>
> Because the SPP is an analog monopole, it is governed by non-associative
> quantum mechanics. This is difficult stuff to understand and might allow
> the teleportation of neutrons and protons in addition to energy.
>
> IMHO, Twistor theory is involved in LENR. It was first proposed by Roger
> Penrose in 1967. He has been working on this stuff for 50 years and did
> make much progress until he began to use non-associative quantum mechanics.
>
> The protons and neutrons in the nucleus contain quarks and they are
> monopole spinners, When the SPP monopole beam enters the nucleus, it causes
> the protons and neutrons to decay. They decay into mesons. These mesons
> produce on decay all kinds of pions and muons that disrupt nuclear material
> in and around the monopole beam. This is where all those mesons and
> electrons are coming from in Holmlids experiments and Rossi’s XCat.
>
> Also hexagonal crystals get involved such as metalize hydrogen as an SPP
> accumulation and concentration mechanism. The SPP monopole covering makes
> these crystals indestructible. How that magnetic shield works, I do not
> understand yet.
>
> I have documents on all this stuff if you are interested in more detail.
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 6:06 AM, Stephen Cooke  > wrote:
>
>> Many thanks Axil it's a very good paper and both you and Mark in your two
>> responses answered my questions very well.
>>
>> It's very very interesting that Hawking radiation could be generated from
>> plasmons in this way.
>>
>> I still need to study it in detail but I notice that they say that these
>> cavities can work with light of any frequency not just infra red and
>> optical is in normal lasers. Does this literally mean it can absorb high
>> energy gamma as well? Or are they emphasising it can work at other higher
>> frequencies than IR and Optical but not necessarily up to gamma.
>>
>> I'm curious because as far as I can see with normal plasmons the plasma
>> frequency is a few eV 15 eV for Nickel for example. This may be increased
>> slightly if the nickel atoms are heavily ionised some how but still would
>> be In the 10 or low 100s eV maximum. This is due to the sqrt relationship
>> electron density in metals. Even if we take Dirac plasmons into account and
>> the material is generating 2D or 1D electron flow the plasma frequency
>> drops slightly due to a more reduced effect of the electron density. So
>> wouldn't plasmons not absorb photons above the plasma frequency energy?
>>
>> If what I say above is correct then only degenerate materials such as
>> occur in White dwarf stars would have sufficient electron density to have a
>> plasmon frequency in the 1 keV or 10s keV range maybe up to a hundred or so
>> keV range maximum.
>>
>> Interestingly it could be that UDH and UDD with atomic separations of a
>> few pm could maybe have sufficient electron density for this. This might be
>> important to Holmlids. Results if UHD is implicated directly or if it
>> surrounds nano clusters thereby containing  emissions below a few 10s keV
>> within. This could be important for K shell electron stimulation, auger X
>> Ray emission or nucleus stimulation effects.
>>
>> (I wonder if UDH and UDD is in some way a little piece of a white dwarf
>> star! ;) )
>>
>> But if I understand right even degenerate matter would not absorb gamma
>> in the 

[Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Bob Cook]

Axil--

I am interested in the ideas you have put forth below.  

It would be nice if you were to add some references to the documents you have 
that substantiate the various ideas.  For example I am not familiar with the 
notion of a magnetic beam.  Magnetic fields are the classical notion of what 
you may be calling a magnetic beam.  Does the beam shine out at a certain 
velocity?  Is the beam made of particles as suggested by the term beam?  Are 
the particles virtual particles in a virtual monopole beam since they seem to 
originate from virtual quarks.  A reference to Twister theory would be nice. 

Bob Cook

From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 8:38 AM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

There is a BIG difference between optical cavities and SPPs in that SPPs are 
spinners and optical cavities are not. The SPP produces a monopole magnetic 
beam. That is a quantum energy pathway into the SPP where nuclear energy is 
transferred into the SPP directly through entanglement. This is called energy 
teleportation. The nuclear energy that is generated in the LENR reaction is 
transferred magnetically between the nucleus and the SPP.

Because the SPP is an analog monopole, it is governed by non-associative 
quantum mechanics. This is difficult stuff to understand and might allow the 
teleportation of neutrons and protons in addition to energy.

IMHO, Twistor theory is involved in LENR. It was first proposed by Roger 
Penrose in 1967. He has been working on this stuff for 50 years and did make 
much progress until he began to use non-associative quantum mechanics.

The protons and neutrons in the nucleus contain quarks and they are monopole 
spinners, When the SPP monopole beam enters the nucleus, it causes the protons 
and neutrons to decay. They decay into mesons. These mesons produce on decay 
all kinds of pions and muons that disrupt nuclear material in and around the 
monopole beam. This is where all those mesons and electrons are coming from in 
Holmlids experiments and Rossi’s XCat.

Also hexagonal crystals get involved such as metalize hydrogen as an SPP 
accumulation and concentration mechanism. The SPP monopole covering makes these 
crystals indestructible. How that magnetic shield works, I do not understand 
yet.

I have documents on all this stuff if you are interested in more detail. 


On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 6:06 AM, Stephen Cooke  
wrote:

  Many thanks Axil it's a very good paper and both you and Mark in your two 
responses answered my questions very well.

  It's very very interesting that Hawking radiation could be generated from 
plasmons in this way. 

  I still need to study it in detail but I notice that they say that these 
cavities can work with light of any frequency not just infra red and optical is 
in normal lasers. Does this literally mean it can absorb high energy gamma as 
well? Or are they emphasising it can work at other higher frequencies than IR 
and Optical but not necessarily up to gamma.

  I'm curious because as far as I can see with normal plasmons the plasma 
frequency is a few eV 15 eV for Nickel for example. This may be increased 
slightly if the nickel atoms are heavily ionised some how but still would be In 
the 10 or low 100s eV maximum. This is due to the sqrt relationship electron 
density in metals. Even if we take Dirac plasmons into account and the material 
is generating 2D or 1D electron flow the plasma frequency drops slightly due to 
a more reduced effect of the electron density. So wouldn't plasmons not absorb 
photons above the plasma frequency energy?

  If what I say above is correct then only degenerate materials such as occur 
in White dwarf stars would have sufficient electron density to have a plasmon 
frequency in the 1 keV or 10s keV range maybe up to a hundred or so keV range 
maximum.

  Interestingly it could be that UDH and UDD with atomic separations of a few 
pm could maybe have sufficient electron density for this. This might be 
important to Holmlids. Results if UHD is implicated directly or if it surrounds 
nano clusters thereby containing  emissions below a few 10s keV within. This 
could be important for K shell electron stimulation, auger X Ray emission or 
nucleus stimulation effects. 

  (I wonder if UDH and UDD is in some way a little piece of a white dwarf star! 
;) ) 

  But if I understand right even degenerate matter would not absorb gamma in 
the MeV range.

  Is this correct or is the absorption due to another process or is the 
electron density enhanced massively somehow due to cavitation I wonder. Or is 
it only a analogue black hole to light below these plasma frequency 
frequencies? To be fair probably I need to study the paper more to fully 
understand what I am missing.

  Even lower energy plasma frequency and light absorption could be important 
even if it extends only to low energy X-rays or UV. And similar Hawking 
radiation effects could 

Re: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Axil Axil]

Something is getting out of the LENR reactor. The mouse is stimulating the
cat in Rossi's reactor clustering scheme. The some emission of the mouse is
producing the LENR reaction inside the Cat type reactor.

That emission only exits the Mouse when the power to the heater coils of
the Mouse is turned off so that the emission is a some sort of charged
particle.

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> Muons with less than about 4MeV are not going to escape the reactor.
> Cosmic muons are average 2GeV.  No magnetic field that I could generate is
> going to significantly deflect either of these.
>
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> @Bob
>>
>> Use a magnetic shield to divert muons and other charged particles.
>>  I describe it here
>>
>>
>> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2862-A-Simple-LENR-Magnetic-Radiation-Shield/?postID=15183#post15183
>>
>> [image: Inline image 1]
>>
>

Re: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Bob Higgins]

Muons with less than about 4MeV are not going to escape the reactor.
Cosmic muons are average 2GeV.  No magnetic field that I could generate is
going to significantly deflect either of these.

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> @Bob
>
> Use a magnetic shield to divert muons and other charged particles.
>  I describe it here
>
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2862-A-Simple-LENR-Magnetic-Radiation-Shield/?postID=15183#post15183
>
> [image: Inline image 1]
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Alain Sepeda]

Shawyer's theory explicitly repect CoE, and it explains that acceleration
consume energy, through dopler effect and decalibration of the cavity...
http://emdrive.com/faq.html
"*6.*

*Q.* *Is the EmDrive a form of perpetual motion machine?*
*A. *The EmDrive obeys the law of conservation of energy and is therefore
not a perpetual motion machine. Energy must be expended to accelerate the
EmDrive (see Equation 16 of the theory paper). Once the EmDrive is switched
off, Newton’s laws ensure that motion is constant unless it is acted upon
by another force.

*7.*
*Q.* *Why does the thrust decrease as the spacecraft velocity along the
thrust vector increases?*
*A. *As the spacecraft accelerates along the thrust vector, energy is lost
by the engine and gained as additional kinetic energy by the spacecraft.
This energy can be defined as the thrust multiplied by the distance through
which the thrust acts. For a given acceleration period, the higher the mean
velocity, the longer the distance travelled, hence the higher the energy
lost by the engine.
This loss of stored energy from the resonant cavity leads to a reduction in
Q and hence a reduction of thrust."


I'm not very convinced by Shawyer except that his equations seems to
work... seems, with the scarce data available...


You can also consider MiHsC theory by McCulloch


this theoreticians is pushing the idea that inside the event horizon
energy+information+mass is conserved.

http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/one-wave-approximation-of-mihsc.html




2016-03-13 18:28 GMT+01:00 Russ George :

> “And it is this direct implication that Shayer et al have not yet
> answered to, so far as I'm aware.  The conversion of input energy to
> acceleration would remain constant, at any velocity.  If 1 m/s/kg costs a
> whopping kJ, it'll ALWAYS cost 1kJ, whether from 0 - 1 m/s or from 999 m/s
> to 1 km/s, and hence passing a threshold beyond which energy is being
> created as observed from an external frame.”
>
> I thought that was the essence of why Shawyer’s EM Drive has been
> described as a ‘warp drive’ not because of the simple notion that it
> ‘might’ reach ‘faster than light’ but that if the energy required for
> acceleration remains constant it ‘MUST’ be capable of reaching ftl speeds.
>
> The super conducting version of Shawyer’s drive that he says is the real
> goal/gold is surely very near to hand. That sort of tech is widely in use
> in a variety of fields and simple adaptations of on the shelf hardware
> could be immediately diverted to build such a drive. It seems likely this
> is already underway by Shawyer and his ilk as they are very ‘coy’ on this
> topic.
>
> Of course using EM Drives to spin an electrical generator shaft is a
> logical useful earth bound tech. There seem to be a whole flock of black
> swans starting to be heard honking in the distance and getting louder by
> the day.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Vibrator ! [mailto:mrvibrat...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 13, 2016 10:14 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
>
>
>
> @Jones - i have no doubt the efficacy of the principle can be tested in
> the lab - i'm not talking about an ability to detect thrust.
>
> I use the qualifier "effective" N3 violation in reference to a system in
> which mechanical (classical) momentum is not conserved - quantum or
> relativistic effects notwithstanding.
>
> An EM drive would be such a system.
>
> And as regards conservation of energy, an effective N3 break, like a real
> one, creates free energy from the classical perspective.
>
> KE squares with veloicty, so a 1 m/s/kg acceleration from stationary only
> costs 1/2 J.   But the cost of that same 1 m/s/kg is then subject to
> compound interest as velocity rises - it costs 9.5 J to get from 9 m/s up
> to 10 m/s, and 95 J to get from 99 m/s up to 100 m/s.  In short,
> acceleration costs more per unit the faster we go.
>
> And if you consider WHY this cost escalates, it boils down to Newton's 3rd
> law, and the need for reaction mass.
>
> If however our reaction mass can be quantum or relativistic, ie.
> non-classical, then we circumvent this limitation of diminishing returns -
> the cost per unit of acceleration remains constant, regardless of velocity.
>
> Like the magnetic field, or a rotating body, these systems have their own
> independent resting frames.
>
> And it is this direct implication that Shayer et al have not yet answered
> to, so far as i'm aware.  The conversion of input energy to acceleration
> would remain constant, at any velocity.  If 1 m/s/kg costs a whopping kJ,
> it'll ALWAYS cost 1kJ, whether from 0 - 1 m/s or from 999 m/s to 1 km/s,
> and hence passing a threshold beyond which energy is being created as
> observed from an external frame.
>
> This point applies to whatever the exploit - chiralty effects included
> (obviously the force mediator for an EM drive is virtual photons which
> exchange signed (+/-) quantum momentum 

Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Harvey Norris]

Flat Earth and the Gyroscope Myth   https://youtu.be/deoLBQTtXJw  Published on 
Dec 19, 2015 Good synopsis of Foucaults pendulum. This guy actually measured 
the speed of light back in 1864. (12 min into video for Forcault info.) This 
guys you tube video appears to dispute the earlier measurements. He measures no 
gyroscopic precession due to the spin of the earth? Pioneering the Applications 
of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/ 

On Sunday, March 13, 2016 11:22 AM, Bob Cook  
wrote:
 

 #yiv1788453618 #yiv1788453618 -- _filtered #yiv1788453618 
{font-family:Wingdings;panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} _filtered #yiv1788453618 
{font-family:Wingdings;panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} _filtered #yiv1788453618 
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv1788453618 
{font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv1788453618 
#yiv1788453618 p.yiv1788453618MsoNormal, #yiv1788453618 
li.yiv1788453618MsoNormal, #yiv1788453618 div.yiv1788453618MsoNormal 
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv1788453618 a:link, 
#yiv1788453618 span.yiv1788453618MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1788453618 a:visited, #yiv1788453618 
span.yiv1788453618MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1788453618 
p.yiv1788453618MsoListParagraph, #yiv1788453618 
li.yiv1788453618MsoListParagraph, #yiv1788453618 
div.yiv1788453618MsoListParagraph 
{margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv1788453618
 span.yiv1788453618EmailStyle17 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv1788453618 
.yiv1788453618MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv1788453618 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 
1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv1788453618 div.yiv1788453618WordSection1 {}#yiv1788453618 
_filtered #yiv1788453618 {} _filtered #yiv1788453618 
{font-family:Wingdings;color:#1F497D;} _filtered #yiv1788453618 {} _filtered 
#yiv1788453618 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv1788453618 
{font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv1788453618 {} _filtered #yiv1788453618 
{font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv1788453618 {font-family:Symbol;} 
_filtered #yiv1788453618 {} _filtered #yiv1788453618 
{font-family:Wingdings;}#yiv1788453618 ol {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv1788453618 ul 
{margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv1788453618 It may be that the intrinsic spin (and 
angular momentum) of a particle is converted preferentially to a particle with 
linear momentum in the direction of a magnetic field.  In this case there would 
be no apparent conservation of linear momentum.  This seems to happen in 
macroscopic systems—a kid running and jumping on a merry-go-round to make it go 
faster.  It may only require a QM coherent system to produce linear momentum 
from scratch in the EM drive devices.   It’s all about spin... Bob Cook  From: 
Jones Beene Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 7:12 AMTo: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:EM Drive(s) From: Vibrator !    Ø  So an EM drive in a lab 
cannot show an energy asymmetry because it can't accelerate anywhere.    That 
does not add up logically or scientifically… Despite conflicting claims, no one 
has yet “busted” all of the positive results, which are probably about 
“chirality” more so than any other anomaly. Newton may not apply fully to 
chiral systems and possibly not the Laws of thermodynamics either. That is why 
this field is of great interest to LENR.   Or… based on your ‘handle,’ is this 
a lead-in to the Mythbuster lesson?     OK, I’ll bite: here is the reference to 
the small and large scale analogies of violating Newton’s law by “blowing your 
own sail”  expressed in the Mythbuster videos which have a broader message to 
offer the microwavers (e.g. oscillate (vibrate) the magnetron beam, around the 
axial vector) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKXMTzMQWjo=1   If the EM 
drive is valid, it can be demonstrated beyond doubt in a Lab model, like the 
sail analogy. It’s probably a cop-out to dream up a lame excuse otherwise. The 
lesson from the sails, which seems to be missing from the failed experiments 
with microwaves - is that you have to find the symmetry break – and therefore - 
need to vector thrust slightly on your virtual sail, prior to reflection in a 
way that maximizes the chiral anomaly.    Ron Kita may want to expound on this 
subject, but chirality is the symmetry breaking property of some reflected 
systems which encompasses variation from a mirror image- which is the 
simplified version. LENR can be looked at as a reflected system of hydrogen 
oscillating between dense and ambient states.   The larger question for LENR is 
this: is the thermal anomaly of Ni-H (as a non-fusion reaction) explainable as 
the impedance gap in the Chiral anomaly (of hydrogen oscillating between dense 
and inflated states around 13.6 eV) … as expounded in the first graph of the 
Cameron paper?  http://vixra.org/pdf/1408.0109v4.pdf   Or alternatively, does 
an additional Lamb shift modality 

Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[David Roberson]

Bob, if you take the kid and merry-go-round as a system in free space it can be 
shown that both linear and angular momentum are conserved.  The interaction 
with the Earth makes it less clear.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Mar 13, 2016 11:22 am
Subject: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)




It may be that the intrinsic spin (and angular momentum) of a particle is 
converted preferentially to a particle with linear momentum in the direction of 
a magnetic field.  In this case there would be no apparent conservation of 
linear momentum.  This seems to happen in macroscopic systems—a kid running and 
jumping on a merry-go-round to make it go faster.  It may only require a QM 
coherent system to produce linear momentum from scratch in the EM drive 
devices.  
 
It’s all about spin...
 
Bob Cook 

 

From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 7:12 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:EM Drive(s)

 

From: Vibrator ! 
 
Ø  So an EM drive in a lab cannot show an energy asymmetry because it can't 
accelerate anywhere. 
 
That does not add up logically or scientifically… Despite conflicting claims, 
no one has yet “busted” all of the positive results, which are probably about 
“chirality” more so than any other anomaly. Newton may not apply fully to 
chiral systems and possibly not the Laws of thermodynamics either. That is why 
this field is of great interest to LENR.
 
Or… based on your ‘handle,’ is this a lead-in to the Mythbuster lesson?  
 
OK, I’ll bite: here is the reference to the small and large scale analogies of 
violating Newton’s law by “blowing your own sail”  expressed in the Mythbuster 
videos which have a broader message to offer the microwavers (e.g. oscillate 
(vibrate) the magnetron beam, around the axial vector)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKXMTzMQWjo=1
 
If the EM drive is valid, it can be demonstrated beyond doubt in a Lab model, 
like the sail analogy. It’s probably a cop-out to dream up a lame excuse 
otherwise. The lesson from the sails, which seems to be missing from the failed 
experiments with microwaves - is that you have to find the symmetry break – and 
therefore - need to vector thrust slightly on your virtual sail, prior to 
reflection in a way that maximizes the chiral anomaly. 
 
Ron Kita may want to expound on this subject, but chirality is the symmetry 
breaking property of some reflected systems which encompasses variation from a 
mirror image- which is the simplified version. LENR can be looked at as a 
reflected system of hydrogen oscillating between dense and ambient states.
 
The larger question for LENR is this: is the thermal anomaly of Ni-H (as a 
non-fusion reaction) explainable as the impedance gap in the Chiral anomaly (of 
hydrogen oscillating between dense and inflated states around 13.6 eV) … as 
expounded in the first graph of the Cameron paper? 
http://vixra.org/pdf/1408.0109v4.pdf
 
Or alternatively, does an additional Lamb shift modality of the type that 
Haisch claims also enter into the picture as gain from hydrogen oscillation 
between two asymmetric states?
 
It’s all about spin…

Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Frank Znidarsic]

“And it is this direct implication that Shayer et al have not yet answered to, 
so far as I'm aware.  The conversion of input energy to acceleration would 
remain constant, at any velocity.  If 1 m/s/kg costs a whopping kJ, it'll 
ALWAYS cost 1kJ, whether from 0 - 1 m/s or from 999 m/s to 1 km/s, and hence 
passing a threshold beyond which energy is being created as observed from an 
external frame.”




That is where I have problem also.  I also have a problem with, how can 
momentum be conserved without ejecting substance?



In a drive that generates a gravitomagnetic file this field would push of the 
atmosphere.  The mathematics are more conventional.  It is possible to generate 
a strong gravitomagnetic field because the magnetic components of the force 
fields are not conserved.  All that is need is a soft iron equivalent for the 
gravitomatgnetic field.  This soft iron equivalent is a vibrating Bose 
condensate.


Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Axil Axil]

@Bob

Use a magnetic shield to divert muons and other charged particles.
 I describe it here

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2862-A-Simple-LENR-Magnetic-Radiation-Shield/?postID=15183#post15183

[image: Inline image 1]


On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> Muonic decay in the reactor is an interesting prospect that I would like
> to read more about.  However, I don't think the muons, electrons, or
> protons are going to escape the reactor in any large number due to the
> mass/cm^2 they would have to traverse to get out.  Muons are no more likely
> to penetrate the reactor walls than electrons or protons of the same
> energy.  The reason that muons are an issue with the lead in the
> scintillator shield is that the cosmogenic muons have a typical energy of
> 2GeV - probably 1000x that of what could be created inside the reactor.
> The penetration is directly related to the energy of the muon.
>
> Certainly some in-the-cave vs. out-of-the-cave measurements are in order,
> but can't easily be done while the experiment is running.
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> Bob,
>>
>>
>>
>> There is simply too little nickel. If looking for bremsstrahlung, and in
>> the absence of gamma - a possible source of high speed electrons would be
>> muon decay.
>>
>>
>>
>> At least this would be true in a situation like the glow-tube, where
>> dense hydrogen would be expected to form.
>>
>>
>>
>> If the counts are higher inside the lead cave, compared to outside
>> (bare), it is very likely that the source is muonic from the reactor, not
>> cosmic - and the target is lead.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Bob Higgins
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't know if other Vorts thought of this already... but I had a minor
>> epiphany regarding the radiation that MFMP measured in GS5.2.  We
>> identified this radiation tentatively as bremsstrahlung.  This has certain
>> implications.  Bremsstrahlung requires that the high speed electrons impact
>> on a high atomic mass element so as to be accelerated/decelerated quickly
>> to produce the radiation.  It could be that the stainless steel can that
>> contained the fuel was an important component in seeing the
>> bremsstrahlung.  Without the can, there would still be the Ni for the
>> electrons to hit, but the Ni is covered with light atomic mass Li.  If the
>> electrons were to strike alumina (no fuel can present), I don't think there
>> would be nearly as much bremsstrahlung because alumina is comprised of
>> light elements.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thus, the stainless steel can for the fuel may be an important component
>> for seeing the bremsstrahlung.
>>
>> Bob Higgins
>>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Russ George]

“And it is this direct implication that Shayer et al have not yet answered to, 
so far as I'm aware.  The conversion of input energy to acceleration would 
remain constant, at any velocity.  If 1 m/s/kg costs a whopping kJ, it'll 
ALWAYS cost 1kJ, whether from 0 - 1 m/s or from 999 m/s to 1 km/s, and hence 
passing a threshold beyond which energy is being created as observed from an 
external frame.” 

I thought that was the essence of why Shawyer’s EM Drive has been described as 
a ‘warp drive’ not because of the simple notion that it ‘might’ reach ‘faster 
than light’ but that if the energy required for acceleration remains constant 
it ‘MUST’ be capable of reaching ftl speeds.

The super conducting version of Shawyer’s drive that he says is the real 
goal/gold is surely very near to hand. That sort of tech is widely in use in a 
variety of fields and simple adaptations of on the shelf hardware could be 
immediately diverted to build such a drive. It seems likely this is already 
underway by Shawyer and his ilk as they are very ‘coy’ on this topic.

Of course using EM Drives to spin an electrical generator shaft is a logical 
useful earth bound tech. There seem to be a whole flock of black swans starting 
to be heard honking in the distance and getting louder by the day.

 

 

From: Vibrator ! [mailto:mrvibrat...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 10:14 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

@Jones - i have no doubt the efficacy of the principle can be tested in the lab 
- i'm not talking about an ability to detect thrust.



I use the qualifier "effective" N3 violation in reference to a system in which 
mechanical (classical) momentum is not conserved - quantum or relativistic 
effects notwithstanding.

An EM drive would be such a system.

And as regards conservation of energy, an effective N3 break, like a real one, 
creates free energy from the classical perspective.

KE squares with veloicty, so a 1 m/s/kg acceleration from stationary only costs 
1/2 J.   But the cost of that same 1 m/s/kg is then subject to compound 
interest as velocity rises - it costs 9.5 J to get from 9 m/s up to 10 m/s, and 
95 J to get from 99 m/s up to 100 m/s.  In short, acceleration costs more per 
unit the faster we go.

And if you consider WHY this cost escalates, it boils down to Newton's 3rd law, 
and the need for reaction mass.

If however our reaction mass can be quantum or relativistic, ie. non-classical, 
then we circumvent this limitation of diminishing returns - the cost per unit 
of acceleration remains constant, regardless of velocity.

Like the magnetic field, or a rotating body, these systems have their own 
independent resting frames.  

And it is this direct implication that Shayer et al have not yet answered to, 
so far as i'm aware.  The conversion of input energy to acceleration would 
remain constant, at any velocity.  If 1 m/s/kg costs a whopping kJ, it'll 
ALWAYS cost 1kJ, whether from 0 - 1 m/s or from 999 m/s to 1 km/s, and hence 
passing a threshold beyond which energy is being created as observed from an 
external frame.

This point applies to whatever the exploit - chiralty effects included 
(obviously the force mediator for an EM drive is virtual photons which exchange 
signed (+/-) quantum momentum between moving charges, so a SSB is already 
implicit - albeit more likely an active, rather than passive example).

By its very nature, this I/O energy anomaly requires cummulative acceleration - 
momentum has to be allowed to build up, in order to measure the input energy 
per unit of acceleration as a function of rising velocity... and it is this 
that is difficult to perform in a lab.  Though not impossible - given a long 
enough vacuum chamber, i suppose..

 

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Bob Cook  > wrote:

It may be that the intrinsic spin (and angular momentum) of a particle is 
converted preferentially to a particle with linear momentum in the direction of 
a magnetic field.  In this case there would be no apparent conservation of 
linear momentum.  This seems to happen in macroscopic systems—a kid running and 
jumping on a merry-go-round to make it go faster.  It may only require a QM 
coherent system to produce linear momentum from scratch in the EM drive 
devices.  

 

It’s all about spin...

 

Bob Cook 

 

From: Jones Beene   

Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 7:12 AM

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com   

Subject: RE: [Vo]:EM Drive(s)

 

From: Vibrator ! 

 

*  So an EM drive in a lab cannot show an energy asymmetry because it can't 
accelerate anywhere. 

 

That does not add up logically or scientifically… Despite conflicting claims, 
no one has yet “busted” all of the positive results, which are probably about 
“chirality” more so than any other anomaly. Newton may not apply fully to 
chiral systems and possibly not the Laws of thermodynamics 

[Vo]:350 days test: the ERV's report is interesting, however the Accountant's balanceis decisive

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/03/mar-13-2016-lenrervs-report-is.html

My offer for a Solomonian Solution is here, the ERV can work in peace, and
we weill not die prematurely due to curiosity.
Who can help? I am planning to read the Accountant's Balance tomorrow
evening. Thanks in advance!
Evviva gli buoni i sagi contabili!!!

Peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Vibrator !]

@Jones - i have no doubt the efficacy of the principle can be tested in the
lab - i'm not talking about an ability to detect thrust.


I use the qualifier "effective" N3 violation in reference to a system in
which mechanical (classical) momentum is not conserved - quantum or
relativistic effects notwithstanding.

An EM drive would be such a system.

And as regards conservation of energy, an effective N3 break, like a real
one, creates free energy from the classical perspective.

KE squares with veloicty, so a 1 m/s/kg acceleration from stationary only
costs 1/2 J.   But the cost of that same 1 m/s/kg is then subject to
compound interest as velocity rises - it costs 9.5 J to get from 9 m/s up
to 10 m/s, and 95 J to get from 99 m/s up to 100 m/s.  In short,
acceleration costs more per unit the faster we go.

And if you consider WHY this cost escalates, it boils down to Newton's 3rd
law, and the need for reaction mass.

If however our reaction mass can be quantum or relativistic, ie.
non-classical, then we circumvent this limitation of diminishing returns -
the cost per unit of acceleration remains constant, regardless of velocity.

Like the magnetic field, or a rotating body, these systems have their own
independent resting frames.

And it is this direct implication that Shayer et al have not yet answered
to, so far as i'm aware.  The conversion of input energy to acceleration
would remain constant, at any velocity.  If 1 m/s/kg costs a whopping kJ,
it'll ALWAYS cost 1kJ, whether from 0 - 1 m/s or from 999 m/s to 1 km/s,
and hence passing a threshold beyond which energy is being created as
observed from an external frame.

This point applies to whatever the exploit - chiralty effects included
(obviously the force mediator for an EM drive is virtual photons which
exchange signed (+/-) quantum momentum between moving charges, so a SSB is
already implicit - albeit more likely an active, rather than passive
example).

By its very nature, this I/O energy anomaly requires cummulative
acceleration - momentum has to be allowed to build up, in order to measure
the input energy per unit of acceleration as a function of rising
velocity... and it is this that is difficult to perform in a lab.  Though
not impossible - given a long enough vacuum chamber, i suppose..

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> It may be that the intrinsic spin (and angular momentum) of a particle is
> converted preferentially to a particle with linear momentum in the
> direction of a magnetic field.  In this case there would be no apparent
> conservation of linear momentum.  This seems to happen in macroscopic
> systems—a kid running and jumping on a merry-go-round to make it go
> faster.  It may only require a QM coherent system to produce linear
> momentum from scratch in the EM drive devices.
>
> It’s all about spin...
>
> Bob Cook
>
> *From:* Jones Beene 
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 13, 2016 7:12 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:EM Drive(s)
>
>
> *From:* Vibrator !
>
>
>
> Ø  So an EM drive in a lab cannot show an energy asymmetry because it
> can't accelerate anywhere.
>
>
>
> That does not add up logically or scientifically… Despite conflicting
> claims, no one has yet “busted” all of the positive results, which are
> probably about “chirality” more so than any other anomaly. Newton may not
> apply fully to chiral systems and possibly not the Laws of thermodynamics
> either. That is why this field is of great interest to LENR.
>
>
>
> Or… based on your ‘handle,’ is this a lead-in to the Mythbuster lesson?
>
>
>
> OK, I’ll bite: here is the reference to the small and large scale
> analogies of violating Newton’s law by “blowing your own sail”  expressed
> in the Mythbuster videos which have a broader message to offer the
> microwavers (e.g. oscillate (vibrate) the magnetron beam, around the axial
> vector)
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKXMTzMQWjo=1
>
>
>
> If the EM drive is valid, it can be demonstrated beyond doubt in a Lab
> model, like the sail analogy. It’s probably a cop-out to dream up a lame
> excuse otherwise. The lesson from the sails, which seems to be missing from
> the failed experiments with microwaves - is that you have to find the
> symmetry break – and therefore - need to vector thrust slightly on your
> virtual sail, prior to reflection in a way that maximizes the chiral
> anomaly.
>
>
>
> Ron Kita may want to expound on this subject, but chirality is the
> symmetry breaking property of some reflected systems which encompasses
> variation from a mirror image- which is the simplified version. LENR can be
> looked at as a reflected system of hydrogen oscillating between dense and
> ambient states.
>
>
>
> The larger question for LENR is this: is the thermal anomaly of Ni-H (as a
> non-fusion reaction) explainable as the impedance gap in the Chiral anomaly
> (of hydrogen oscillating between dense and inflated states around 13.6 eV)
> … as 

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive(s)

[Craig Haynie]

One advantage the EMDrive has over LENR, is that it's fairly replicable. 
The amateurs can do it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rbf7735o3hQ

Craig

RE: [Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Jones Beene]

As mentioned to Bob the muons are not slow – they are fast in Holmlid’s theory. 
However, this should be confirmed by him, as I am also basing some of my 
understanding on Stubbs, along with all of Holmlid’s papers, which have evolved 
over the years.

 

If we follow the Stubbs model of nine equivalent muons per disintegration, most 
of which are effectively serving as “gluons” until the event – and typically 
only 3-4 actual muons are seen per disintegration, then there is available 
about 500 MeV of acceleration energy imparted to the ones which do escape – say 
125 MeV added onto the rest mass of 105 MeV. Cosmic muons are typically 2 GeV. 

 

I can see that most observers –even here - do not appreciate how radical 
Holmlid’s work really is. Fortunately, he is very careful with data and massive 
numbers are detected. I should also add that Holmlid definitely does propose 
that nuclear fusion also occurs at the same time, so it is not either/or. If 
there is excess heat in the reactor, it comes from fusion of UDD, and not from 
nucleon disintegration of UDD. Both reactions are happening and they could be 
linked in some way.

 

Bottom line is this: Holmlid has found a source of potential energy which is 
far more energetic than mere fusion… if only it could be collected. 

 

As of now, it can’t be collected and never has been. 

 

 

From: Bob Cook 

 

I agree with Higgins--

 

“The penetration is directly related to the energy of the muon.”

 

If the muons that are produced in the reactor are slow muons they may  not get 
out in any case before decaying.  All they do is act to catalyze other nuclear 
reactions before decay.  

 

Bob Cook

 

 

RE: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Higgins 

 

Ø  Muonic decay in the reactor is an interesting prospect that I would like to 
read more about. However, I don't think the muons, electrons, or protons are 
going to escape the reactor in any large number due to the mass/cm^2 they would 
have to traverse to get out. Muons are no more likely to penetrate the reactor 
walls than electrons or protons of the same energy.  

Holmlid is communicative, speaks English, and answers his email, so it would be 
wise to pose the questions directly to him. I am pretty certain that he 
believes that almost all muons escape the reactor.

As I understand the situation, your logical error above is to assume that the 
muons formed in the reactor are not relativistic but are of comparable energy 
to fusion. 

This is not the interpretation of Holmlid which I have. The muons from UDD 
disintegration are much more energetic than protons from fusion. The reason the 
reactor does not heat up, commensurate with their energy is because almost all 
of them escape. 

The “decay halo” of fast electrons from muon decay could be a 
probability-sphere which is a hundred meters in diameter around the reactor. At 
any place within this zone, the counts are fairly low, but not inverse square – 
and the falsifiability comes from finding the precise zone where counts are 
much higher, which is far removed from the reactor - corresponding to the peak 
of decay activity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The reason that muons are an issue with the lead in the scintillator shield is 
that the cosmogenic muons have a typical energy of 2GeV - probably 1000x that 
of what could be created inside the reactor.  The penetration is directly 
related to the energy of the muon.

Certainly some in-the-cave vs. out-of-the-cave measurements are in order, but 
can't easily be done while the experiment is running.

 

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

Bob,

 

There is simply too little nickel. If looking for bremsstrahlung, and in the 
absence of gamma - a possible source of high speed electrons would be muon 
decay. 

 

At least this would be true in a situation like the glow-tube, where dense 
hydrogen would be expected to form.

 

If the counts are higher inside the lead cave, compared to outside (bare), it 
is very likely that the source is muonic from the reactor, not cosmic - and the 
target is lead.

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

I don't know if other Vorts thought of this already... but I had a minor 
epiphany regarding the radiation that MFMP measured in GS5.2.  We identified 
this radiation tentatively as bremsstrahlung.  This has certain implications.  
Bremsstrahlung requires that the high speed electrons impact on a high atomic 
mass element so as to be accelerated/decelerated quickly to produce the 
radiation.  It could be that the stainless steel can that contained the fuel 
was an important component in seeing the bremsstrahlung.  Without the can, 
there would still be the Ni for the electrons to hit, but the Ni is covered 
with light atomic mass Li.  If the electrons were to strike alumina (no fuel 
can present), I don't think there would be nearly as much bremsstrahlung 
because alumina is comprised of light elements.  

 

Thus, the stainless steel can for the fuel may be an important component for 
seeing the bremsstrahlung.

Bob Higgins

 

[Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Bob Cook]

I agree with Higgins--

“The penetration is directly related to the energy of the muon.”


If the muons that are produced in the reactor are slow muons they may  not get 
out in any case before decaying.  All they do is act to catalyze other nuclear 
reactions before decay.  

Bob Cook

From: Bob Higgins 
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 7:56 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

Muonic decay in the reactor is an interesting prospect that I would like to 
read more about.  However, I don't think the muons, electrons, or protons are 
going to escape the reactor in any large number due to the mass/cm^2 they would 
have to traverse to get out.  Muons are no more likely to penetrate the reactor 
walls than electrons or protons of the same energy.  The reason that muons are 
an issue with the lead in the scintillator shield is that the cosmogenic muons 
have a typical energy of 2GeV - probably 1000x that of what could be created 
inside the reactor.  The penetration is directly related to the energy of the 
muon.


Certainly some in-the-cave vs. out-of-the-cave measurements are in order, but 
can't easily be done while the experiment is running.


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

  Bob,



  There is simply too little nickel. If looking for bremsstrahlung, and in the 
absence of gamma - a possible source of high speed electrons would be muon 
decay. 



  At least this would be true in a situation like the glow-tube, where dense 
hydrogen would be expected to form.



  If the counts are higher inside the lead cave, compared to outside (bare), it 
is very likely that the source is muonic from the reactor, not cosmic - and the 
target is lead.



  From: Bob Higgins 



  I don't know if other Vorts thought of this already... but I had a minor 
epiphany regarding the radiation that MFMP measured in GS5.2.  We identified 
this radiation tentatively as bremsstrahlung.  This has certain implications.  
Bremsstrahlung requires that the high speed electrons impact on a high atomic 
mass element so as to be accelerated/decelerated quickly to produce the 
radiation.  It could be that the stainless steel can that contained the fuel 
was an important component in seeing the bremsstrahlung.  Without the can, 
there would still be the Ni for the electrons to hit, but the Ni is covered 
with light atomic mass Li.  If the electrons were to strike alumina (no fuel 
can present), I don't think there would be nearly as much bremsstrahlung 
because alumina is comprised of light elements.  



  Thus, the stainless steel can for the fuel may be an important component for 
seeing the bremsstrahlung.

  Bob Higgins

[Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Bob Cook]

It may be that the intrinsic spin (and angular momentum) of a particle is 
converted preferentially to a particle with linear momentum in the direction of 
a magnetic field.  In this case there would be no apparent conservation of 
linear momentum.  This seems to happen in macroscopic systems—a kid running and 
jumping on a merry-go-round to make it go faster.  It may only require a QM 
coherent system to produce linear momentum from scratch in the EM drive 
devices.  

It’s all about spin...

Bob Cook 

From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 7:12 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:EM Drive(s)

From: Vibrator ! 

 

Ø  So an EM drive in a lab cannot show an energy asymmetry because it can't 
accelerate anywhere. 

 

That does not add up logically or scientifically… Despite conflicting claims, 
no one has yet “busted” all of the positive results, which are probably about 
“chirality” more so than any other anomaly. Newton may not apply fully to 
chiral systems and possibly not the Laws of thermodynamics either. That is why 
this field is of great interest to LENR.

 

Or… based on your ‘handle,’ is this a lead-in to the Mythbuster lesson?  

 

OK, I’ll bite: here is the reference to the small and large scale analogies of 
violating Newton’s law by “blowing your own sail”  expressed in the Mythbuster 
videos which have a broader message to offer the microwavers (e.g. oscillate 
(vibrate) the magnetron beam, around the axial vector)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKXMTzMQWjo=1

 

If the EM drive is valid, it can be demonstrated beyond doubt in a Lab model, 
like the sail analogy. It’s probably a cop-out to dream up a lame excuse 
otherwise. The lesson from the sails, which seems to be missing from the failed 
experiments with microwaves - is that you have to find the symmetry break – and 
therefore - need to vector thrust slightly on your virtual sail, prior to 
reflection in a way that maximizes the chiral anomaly. 

 

Ron Kita may want to expound on this subject, but chirality is the symmetry 
breaking property of some reflected systems which encompasses variation from a 
mirror image- which is the simplified version. LENR can be looked at as a 
reflected system of hydrogen oscillating between dense and ambient states.

 

The larger question for LENR is this: is the thermal anomaly of Ni-H (as a 
non-fusion reaction) explainable as the impedance gap in the Chiral anomaly (of 
hydrogen oscillating between dense and inflated states around 13.6 eV) … as 
expounded in the first graph of the Cameron paper? 

http://vixra.org/pdf/1408.0109v4.pdf

 

Or alternatively, does an additional Lamb shift modality of the type that 
Haisch claims also enter into the picture as gain from hydrogen oscillation 
between two asymmetric states?

 

It’s all about spin…

Re: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Bob Higgins]

Muonic decay in the reactor is an interesting prospect that I would like to
read more about.  However, I don't think the muons, electrons, or protons
are going to escape the reactor in any large number due to the mass/cm^2
they would have to traverse to get out.  Muons are no more likely to
penetrate the reactor walls than electrons or protons of the same energy.
The reason that muons are an issue with the lead in the scintillator shield
is that the cosmogenic muons have a typical energy of 2GeV - probably 1000x
that of what could be created inside the reactor.  The penetration is
directly related to the energy of the muon.

Certainly some in-the-cave vs. out-of-the-cave measurements are in order,
but can't easily be done while the experiment is running.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Bob,
>
>
>
> There is simply too little nickel. If looking for bremsstrahlung, and in
> the absence of gamma - a possible source of high speed electrons would be
> muon decay.
>
>
>
> At least this would be true in a situation like the glow-tube, where dense
> hydrogen would be expected to form.
>
>
>
> If the counts are higher inside the lead cave, compared to outside (bare),
> it is very likely that the source is muonic from the reactor, not cosmic -
> and the target is lead.
>
>
>
> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
>
>
> I don't know if other Vorts thought of this already... but I had a minor
> epiphany regarding the radiation that MFMP measured in GS5.2.  We
> identified this radiation tentatively as bremsstrahlung.  This has certain
> implications.  Bremsstrahlung requires that the high speed electrons impact
> on a high atomic mass element so as to be accelerated/decelerated quickly
> to produce the radiation.  It could be that the stainless steel can that
> contained the fuel was an important component in seeing the
> bremsstrahlung.  Without the can, there would still be the Ni for the
> electrons to hit, but the Ni is covered with light atomic mass Li.  If the
> electrons were to strike alumina (no fuel can present), I don't think there
> would be nearly as much bremsstrahlung because alumina is comprised of
> light elements.
>
>
>
> Thus, the stainless steel can for the fuel may be an important component
> for seeing the bremsstrahlung.
>
> Bob Higgins
>

RE: [Vo]:EM Drive(s)

[Jones Beene]

From: Vibrator ! 

 

Ø  So an EM drive in a lab cannot show an energy asymmetry because it can't 
accelerate anywhere. 

 

That does not add up logically or scientifically… Despite conflicting claims, 
no one has yet “busted” all of the positive results, which are probably about 
“chirality” more so than any other anomaly. Newton may not apply fully to 
chiral systems and possibly not the Laws of thermodynamics either. That is why 
this field is of great interest to LENR.

 

Or… based on your ‘handle,’ is this a lead-in to the Mythbuster lesson?  

 

OK, I’ll bite: here is the reference to the small and large scale analogies of 
violating Newton’s law by “blowing your own sail”  expressed in the Mythbuster 
videos which have a broader message to offer the microwavers (e.g. oscillate 
(vibrate) the magnetron beam, around the axial vector)

  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKXMTzMQWjo=1

 

If the EM drive is valid, it can be demonstrated beyond doubt in a Lab model, 
like the sail analogy. It’s probably a cop-out to dream up a lame excuse 
otherwise. The lesson from the sails, which seems to be missing from the failed 
experiments with microwaves - is that you have to find the symmetry break – and 
therefore - need to vector thrust slightly on your virtual sail, prior to 
reflection in a way that maximizes the chiral anomaly. 

 

Ron Kita may want to expound on this subject, but chirality is the symmetry 
breaking property of some reflected systems which encompasses variation from a 
mirror image- which is the simplified version. LENR can be looked at as a 
reflected system of hydrogen oscillating between dense and ambient states.

 

The larger question for LENR is this: is the thermal anomaly of Ni-H (as a 
non-fusion reaction) explainable as the impedance gap in the Chiral anomaly (of 
hydrogen oscillating between dense and inflated states around 13.6 eV) … as 
expounded in the first graph of the Cameron paper? 

  http://vixra.org/pdf/1408.0109v4.pdf

 

Or alternatively, does an additional Lamb shift modality of the type that 
Haisch claims also enter into the picture as gain from hydrogen oscillation 
between two asymmetric states?

 

It’s all about spin…

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive(s)

[Vibrator !]

There were one or two replication attempts on the NASA forums following the
most recent positive, albeit inconclusive, results.  But unfortunately it
suffers from a similar problem as LENR in that few folks have the cahoneys
or resources to play with live magnetrons.  This is lab science, not
desktop science.

I've been following keenly since the New Scientist piece on Shawyer, but
still don't fully understand these systems - a point that never seems to
get mentioned in these discussions is that even IF Shawyer et al are right,
and momentum is conserved, this can only be true from within the inertial
(on-board) reference frame - any effective violation of N3 symmetry
inevitably creates KE as observed from the non-inertial frame.

Such a drive system is velocity-agnostic.  If a 1 m/s acceleration costs,
say, 10 Joules per kg - a measly efficiency - it will nonetheless maintain
that exchange rate across any range of velocity - so from 0 to 1 m/s costs
10 J, but so does 99 to 100 m/s (normal price 95 J) and 999 to 1000 m/s (1
kJ RRP).  What we save on input energy has effectively been "created" in
the form of output KE.

Usually KE = 1/2MV^2, and only momentum P = MV, but an effective N3
violation blurs that distinction - input energy scales linearly from within
the inertial frame, while evolving via the usual 1/2^2 route as observed
from the external frame.  To all intents and purposes, the actual terms and
dimernsions of what is being input is not energy, but raw momentum.

So an EM drive in a lab cannot show an energy asymmetry because it can't
accelerate anywhere.  But if it works, any extended flight test could
really throw the cat amongst the pigeons..

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Russ George  wrote:

> Now that there are lenr kits and bits being sold and as well the Orbo's it
> is time for someone to offer EM Drive kits. Enough of this fantasy about a
> cell phone that needs no battery or an efficient home heater... What is
> really inspiring is making science fiction's most desired fiction a reality
> and seeing tonnes of propellant-less thrust with mere kilowatts of
> electrical power that will surely be an effective space propulsion.  Where
> is the best discussion and details on DIY EM drives to be found?
>
>