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

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Russ George  wrote:

If you listen to Shawyer speak (find his interview on Youtube) he goes
> overboard on stating how dangerous the microwave radiation is and how great
> care must be taken to avoid it.
>

I think you misunderstood my point.  It was that the power could be
transformed into portions of the EM spectrum that are *not* microwave, and
the thought experiment would still work, provided the output was focused in
one direction.  In this case there would be no microwave radiation
escaping, as claimed.

Have you seen any claim that there is no observable radiation *outside* of
the microwave spectrum?

Eric

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

[Russ George]

If you listen to Shawyer speak (find his interview on Youtube) he goes 
overboard on stating how dangerous the microwave radiation is and how great 
care must be taken to avoid it. Clearly he has a lifetime of professional 
experience with this and thus surely has as perfectly as likely possible 
excluded the possibility of any escaping… It would require world class 
pathological skepticism to suggest this world class microwave expert did a poor 
job, bungled, and missed the escaping waves. The others replicating the EM 
drives also are clearly seen in their experiments to be more than sufficiently 
perfect in technique to make the closed systems needed to be safe and to 
demonstrate the effect. By the way very effective and inexpensive microwave 
detectors are available I have one that cost less than $10 that works like a 
charm seeing leaks of microwaves from my oven door seal… it can see leaks in 
one cm of the seal and not the next cm, that’s very clean signal 
detection/discrimination. So the tech needed to build and certify a perfectly 
sealed EM drive is dead simple!

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 9:46 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Russ George  > wrote:

 

Given the apparent healthy condition of the experimentalists and the presence 
and proximity of the intense microwaves they are convincing living lab rat 
detectors.

 

For the sake of argument, the EM radiation need not exit the device in the 
microwave spectrum. What is needed for the thought experiment is that its 
output be anisotropic.

 

Are you recalling people's statements to the effect that no output has been 
measured, or are you inferring this from the fact that no one has been injured, 
on the assumption that any radiation would be microwave radiation?

 

Eric

 

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

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Russ George  wrote:

Given the apparent healthy condition of the experimentalists and the
> presence and proximity of the intense microwaves they are convincing living
> lab rat detectors.


For the sake of argument, the EM radiation need not exit the device in the
microwave spectrum. What is needed for the thought experiment is that its
output be anisotropic.

Are you recalling people's statements to the effect that no output has been
measured, or are you inferring this from the fact that no one has been
injured, on the assumption that any radiation would be microwave radiation?

Eric

Fwd: [Vo]:Bacteria able to eat plastic bottles discovered by scientists

[Frank Znidarsic]

My plastic detector corrected link.


http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/temp/PlasticDetect.mp4




Frank Znidarsic

Fwd: [Vo]:Bacteria able to eat plastic bottles discovered by scientists

[Frank Znidarsic]

My plastic detector


http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/temp/plasticDetect.mp4


Frank Znidarsic

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

[mixent]

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Mon, 14 Mar 2016 20:56:31 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>Trick question.   All of the energy used by the electric drive could be 
>accounted for from the frame of the car by observing frictional losses, wind 
>movement, heat emissions, etc.  It would not be easy to calculate, but the 
>information should be there.
>
>Dave

Try convincing the driver, that is now in hospital because he drove into a
concrete wall at high speed, that all of the stored energy was lost to wind
resistance and road friction. 

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[mixent]

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Mon, 14 Mar 2016 20:49:21 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>The problem would show up if the space ship then reversed his maneuver and 
>returned back to that original frame.  Both people would again calculate 
>approximately the same mass conversion that occurs due to the force 
>generation.  So at the end of the trip, the ship would be depleted of some of 
>its mass for no net apparent change in velocity or position.  Where did the 
>energy go?

Perhaps like a car with regenerative braking, it's also possible to reverse the
process and store energy?

Try replacing the EM drive vehicle with a perfectly efficient (i.e. loss-less
for the sake of argument) electric car. It starts off expending energy to reach
some speed in a given direction. Coasts the rest of the way around the planet,
until approaching it's starting point where the regenerative braking kicks in
and slows it to halt at exactly it's starting point with the batteries perfectly
recharged. Nothing lost, nothing gained, nothing changed.

In a car with no regenerative breaking, the energy shows up as heat during
breaking, and the batteries don't get recharged.

A different point of view:-

Take an electric car that is traveling at 100 mph with respect to the road,
however in it's own frame of reference, the car is standing still.
Now the driver suddenly applies the breaks, and they get hot. Where did the
energy come from to heat the breaks? Obviously from the road which is rushing
past at 100 mph, until enough energy has been placed into the breaks by the road
to "accelerate" the car to the same velocity as the road. This sounds
ridiculous, but from the point of view of the driver, it's exactly what happens.
In a car with regenerative breaking, the batteries get recharged instead of heat
being created, which is kind of convenient. You apply the breaks and the
universe places energy in your batteries.  

Now imagine a road that is invisible, so that you can't see how fast you are
traveling relative to the road, or in which direction. :)

BTW as an extra thing to think about:- There *is* a special, frame of reference;
one's own frame, in which one is, by definition, always stationary, and hence
it's a completely useless frame of reference.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[Russ George]

By way of speaking about human microwave lab rat detectors in Antarctica in the 
shack to get in from the cold there is a microwave oven, the crew has carved a 
nice piece of plastic that can be inserted into the door lock out so that the 
microwave can be turned on with the door open… 5-10 seconds with your freezing 
hands in the oven brings them nicely back up to warm! Don’t dare leave them in 
longer! One would notice a long exposure :(

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 8:47 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 10:37 PM, Russ George  > wrote:

Alas the paradox of the EM drive thrust is that nothing observable or known 
escapes the sealed system, so no photons leaving…

 

I have little reason to doubt that you are correct. But do other people agree 
that this is an accurate characterization of what is observed with the EM drive?

 

Eric

 

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

[Russ George]

Given the apparent healthy condition of the experimentalists and the presence 
and proximity of the intense microwaves they are convincing living lab rat 
detectors. 

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 8:47 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 10:37 PM, Russ George  > wrote:

Alas the paradox of the EM drive thrust is that nothing observable or known 
escapes the sealed system, so no photons leaving…

 

I have little reason to doubt that you are correct. But do other people agree 
that this is an accurate characterization of what is observed with the EM drive?

 

Eric

 

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

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 10:37 PM, Russ George  wrote:

Alas the paradox of the EM drive thrust is that nothing observable or known
> escapes the sealed system, so no photons leaving…


I have little reason to doubt that you are correct. But do other people
agree that this is an accurate characterization of what is observed with
the EM drive?

Eric

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

[Russ George]

Alas the paradox of the EM drive thrust is that nothing observable or known 
escapes the sealed system, so no photons leaving… perhaps gravitons or 
Cherenkov magnetons are escaping but that’s tantamount to the propellant being 
dark matter. The latter might not be so far-fetched if one imagines the 
captured and focused microwave photons ricocheting back and forth in the wave 
guide are being sorted so as to be knocking strange matter particles 
preferentially in one direction. Those strange matter propellent particles in 
the wave guide have a character of a near infinite numbers via the 
poly-dimensional aether. The variety of replications and characteristics and 
Shawyers predictions for vast improvement in thrust by improving the rampant 
ricochet of the microwave photons seems to demand a simple Newtonian momentum 
solution that mystery mischugenon particles work nicely to enable. Might a 
swarm of a million tiny gnats make a herd of elephants move in one direction, I 
say yes.  Cherenkov’s particles 
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/articles/4-4/ar.pdf 

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 7:37 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Bob Cook  > wrote:

 

If a pulsed magnetic field is involved in the EM drive it may be that effective 
momentum is sent off into space as a pulsed magnetic field with some effective 
mass associated with the average intensity of the magnetic field pulse—energy 
associated with the pulse.

 

This is along the lines that I was thinking.

 

Consider a simple thought experiment. We have a microwave waveguide with the 
output focused in a single direction sitting out in the middle of space where 
there is little in the way of an external field.  Attached to it is a battery 
sufficient to drive a magnetron at 10 W for some period of time.  We turn on 
the magnetron remotely.  Microwave photons with a total power amounting to 10 J 
per second are now being emitted in a preferred direction.  For the sake of 
argument we will go with the well-accepted assumption that photons have no 
mass.  Nonetheless they have momentum, and in order for the system to conserve 
momentum it will move in a direction opposite the majority of the photons.

 

We have yet not specified what the system is pushing off of, but I don't think 
we need to in order for the thought experiment to work.

 

Eric

 

[Vo]:Rewind

[H LV]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3q2XXeasAA
No machine can do this, but then again must cause and effect respect
mechanical laws?

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Re: Declaration from Eindhoven University of Technology related to M. Yildiz magnet motor

[John Berry]

Including the energy contained in electric, gravitational and magnetic
potential energy?

Including chemical and nuclear energy?

All energy is motion of the vacuum?   In what sense can these types of
energy be motion of the vacuum?

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 3:55 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  John Berry's message of Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:28:55 +1300:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >Maybe energy can be created or destroyed in a net manner by some
> alteration of the vacuum?
>
> All energy comprises vacuum in motion. In order to destroy it, you have to
> remove the local motion from the universe.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Declaration from Eindhoven University of Technology related to M. Yildiz magnet motor

[mixent]

In reply to  John Berry's message of Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:28:55 +1300:
Hi,
[snip]
>Maybe energy can be created or destroyed in a net manner by some alteration of 
>the vacuum?

All energy comprises vacuum in motion. In order to destroy it, you have to
remove the local motion from the universe.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

If a pulsed magnetic field is involved in the EM drive it may be that
> effective momentum is sent off into space as a pulsed magnetic field with
> some effective mass associated with the average intensity of the magnetic
> field pulse—energy associated with the pulse.
>

This is along the lines that I was thinking.

Consider a simple thought experiment. We have a microwave waveguide with
the output focused in a single direction sitting out in the middle of space
where there is little in the way of an external field.  Attached to it is a
battery sufficient to drive a magnetron at 10 W for some period of time.
We turn on the magnetron remotely.  Microwave photons with a total power
amounting to 10 J per second are now being emitted in a preferred
direction.  For the sake of argument we will go with the well-accepted
assumption that photons have no mass.  Nonetheless they have momentum, and
in order for the system to conserve momentum it will move in a direction
opposite the majority of the photons.

We have yet not specified what the system is pushing off of, but I don't
think we need to in order for the thought experiment to work.

Eric

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

[Jed Rothwell]

Ian Walker  wrote:


> So oil will drop to 15% of its expected value from that 2014 high.
>

When the demand for a commodity rapidly drops by 85%, it does not follow
that the value also falls by 85%. In most cases it will fall even more than
that, as sellers become desperate to unload inventory. In some cases there
is a "floor" to how far it can fall. I do not think it is possible for any
country to extract oil for only $1 a barrel. It might as well be $0 (free),
and no country can afford to give away oil for free for long. They cannot
do that because costs them much more than $1 to extract it, plus they would
have no income. Oil is 87% of Saudi Arabia's exports, and 70% of Russia's.



> My understanding is that Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia are all prepared to
> drop oil to the $1 per barrel mark to kill off the majority of their
> competitors.


As I said, I think this would kill themselves off. I doubt that Saudi
Arabia or Iran have a lot of foreign exchange saved up, and I know that
Russia does not. They cannot go for years without income, while they spend
billions extracting oil and giving it away for nothing.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Bob Cook]

If a pulsed magnetic field is involved in the EM drive it may be that effective 
momentum is sent off into space as a pulsed magnetic field with some effective 
mass associated with the average intensity of the magnetic field pulse—energy 
associated with the pulse.  Einstein suggested that all forms of energy are 
equivalent.  After all photons that travel through space can impart momentum to 
object they encounter.  

Bob Cook

From: David Roberson 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 11:44 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

Good argument.  I just wanted to add one thought.

>From the EM drive's point of view the CoE must be violated because as it 
>accelerates in space a portion of it's mass must be converted into energy that 
>is used to power the drive.  When it ceases to use the drive it begins to 
>remain motionless in space from its point of view.   Where did that mass go 
>which was converted into energy that powered the drive?  Did it simply vanish?

This problem does not exist for normal rocket engines that expel a reaction 
mass.  In that case, the energy is accounted for by the mass that is speeding 
rapidly away from the rocket.

Dave




-Original Message-
From: Vibrator ! 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 7:03 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)


Yes, and this is why KE = 1/2 MV^2 - ie., why the acceleration unit cost 
escalates; a given force has to be applied over an ever-greater distance as 
velocity (time rate of change of position) increases.  Alternatively, we could 
hold displacement constant and progressively raise the force magnitude.  


Yet Craig still seems to have a point - without some kind of corporeal reaction 
mass, what is an EM drive's velocity actually relative to?  What's its 
reference frame, if not the thing it's pushing against?


To illustrate the conundrum, suppose i have an EM drive aboard a train, and you 
the observer are standing on the platform as the train passes through the 
station:  I fire the engine, and it accelerates by 1 meter / sec.


Suppose the engine weighs 10 kg.  From my perspective, its KE has increased by 
5 Joules - ie. it's perrformed 5 J of mechanical work, regardless of how much 
more energy may have been wasted to heat.


But if the train was already travelling at 10 m/s, and the drive accelerated in 
the same direction, then from your stationary perspective the drive has 
accelerated up from 10 to 11 m/s - and for a 10 kg mass that's a workload of 
105 J - bringing its KE up from 500 J to 605 J.


So, has the drive burned 5 J or 105 J?



If i cheated - the drive doesn't really work, and i just gave it a 
surreptitious shove - this same paradox is resolved by a corresponding 
deceleration of the train - ie. if i accelerate a small mass against the 
inertia of a larger mass, the latter is decelerated and net momentum is 
conserved.


Except here, the drive ISN'T pushing against the train.  Yet it still benefits 
from its ambient velocity.  Net momentum is NOT conserved, and neither is 
energy.



And so the question arises, how does the EM drive "know" what its reference 
frame is?  Shawyer claims (or seems to imply) that the unit cost of 
acceleration increases as we would normally expect (distance over which a given 
force is applied keeps rising) - but how does it measure "distance"?  Relative 
to what, exactly?   Without physical reaction mass, such a system has its own 
unique reference frame - from within which, energy may be conserved, but which 
from without, cannot be.


I mean this not as a crtitique against the plausibility of such systems, and 
share the prevailing cautious optimism.  But if they do work, then we also have 
an energy anomaly.


In the many years i've been researching classical symmetry breaks, one thing 
has become clear - the only way to explain away a real symmetry break is to 
invoke another somewhere else up or downstream (it's a standard recourse for 
pseudoskeptics).  As much as i'd welcome free energy, momentum and FTL travel, 
and despite Shawyer's assurances everything's classically consistent, these 
enigmatic implications remain..   for me, at least.


On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:17 AM,  wrote:

  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 

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

[David Roberson]

RF interference is not imaginary.  Simply turning on and off the power might 
work provided you place a shield near the meter to look for changes to the 
reading.  Did he perform that test?  I will watch the video to see how well he 
handled the questionable issues.  I watched an earlier one and it was not 
obvious how the problems were controlled.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Russ George 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 8:45 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)



I think you are ‘over thinking’ watch the Youtube vid 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rbf7735o3hQ and I believe your suggested issues 
are amply set to rest… The same Romanian guy and others have simply turned 
their EM drives upside down and repeated the tests with expected results, 
reversed thrust… Your idea of the magnetron influencing the mass balance is far 
from plausible there is a big difference between imagined issues and plausible 
issues. Ordinarily experimentalists quickly eliminate the impossible imaginable 
issues. For instance weighing a sample on the scale when disconnected from the 
EM drive while the magnetron is switched on and off would instantly prove or 
disprove such an imaginary influence as the magnetron interference with the 
balance readings. 
 
From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 5:30 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
 
I am just pointing out that when wires are attached it is simply too easy for 
outside forces to interfere with the results.   How confident are you that the 
overall force he measures does not have a significant force contribution due to 
the current flowing through the wires?  If not 100%, then you are are skeptical 
as well.  

Unless proof exists that the current does not cause a problem then no one that 
is a true skeptic will accept the experiment as being solid.  The sure way to 
eliminate the problem is to eliminate the wires.

Another issue that is a major concern is RF interference from the high power 
magnetron.  Many if not most meters are greatly influenced by RF leakage from 
sources of much lower power.  I have personally chased several problems caused 
by that type of interference and they can be difficult to handle.  And do not 
be tricked by the appearance of a well shielded cavity since the power leads 
can easily radiate RF at that frequency.

I do not believe that we should avoid asking the important questions by 
assuming that the guy has naturally solved all of the problems facing him as 
you seem to imply.  This is not to suggest that he has not worked long and hard 
on this project, but instead highlighting issues that he should consider 
carefully.  Isn't this what a good skeptic should believe?  I honestly hope he 
has a working model.

Also, it is important for all of us to be skeptical of new ideas until 
sufficient proof has been demonstrated that they are valid.  That has nothing 
to do with puppy mills.

When a device violates physical laws it is important to verify that what is 
claimed is true.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Russ George 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 4:21 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)


Are you saying ‘why doesn’t this experimentalist do his experiment your way?’ 
That’s a bit presumptuous, clearly this guy has put in a lot of effort and 
diligence. His results are consistent with what other diligent experimentalists 
in the field have presented, faithfully matching their experiments though in a 
remarkably simple form. Noone of those others have done what you suggest and 
they seem to be very learned and well equipped and could have done so. The rule 
used to be in science that those with ‘good ideas’ were expected to contribute 
more than the ‘idea’ and do the work as well lest they be simply considered 
gadflies. The dire proliferation of the ‘skeptic’ point of view in science is 
the result of the rampant university puppy mills that have turned out legions 
of people with learning and no place to use it save in virtual realities.

 

The tiny wires and geometry that power the magnetron in the aforementioned 
experiment don’t appear to offer any support to a notion that some sort of 
thrust between the wires is possible… you might of course replicate the 
experiment with just the wires you speak of (leave out all the complex bits) 
and report on being able to produce a facsimile of the thrust reported by the 
differential in the wires push and pull.

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 12:57 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

I would love to see a real EM Drive but it is impossible to believe an 
experiment with external power supply lines attached.   Electric motors operate 
by utilizing the forces that exist between current carrying conductors.  Two 
wires 

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

[H LV]

The description of how the EM drive should move makes me think of a
movie of a rocket played backwards.
The movie-in-reverse-rocket would initially accelerate a lot and then
the rate of acceleration would decrease until it stops accelerating
and is at rest or coasting.
I have also read that the EM drive accelerates in the opposite
direction that is normally expected and a movie-in-reverse-rocket
would behave similarly.
Note: The movie-in-reverse-rocket is a metaphor rather than an analogy
since matter is not literally following into the drive.

CoE is preserved through the conversion of energy into mass. The
second LoT is broken and so is CoM, but how many laws does the
universe need?

Or maybe the measured thrust is only artifact.

Harry



On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 2:44 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
> Good argument.  I just wanted to add one thought.
>
> From the EM drive's point of view the CoE must be violated because as it
> accelerates in space a portion of it's mass must be converted into energy
> that is used to power the drive.  When it ceases to use the drive it begins
> to remain motionless in space from its point of view.   Where did that mass
> go which was converted into energy that powered the drive?  Did it simply
> vanish?
>
> This problem does not exist for normal rocket engines that expel a reaction
> mass.  In that case, the energy is accounted for by the mass that is
> speeding rapidly away from the rocket.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Vibrator ! 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 7:03 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
>
> Yes, and this is why KE = 1/2 MV^2 - ie., why the acceleration unit cost
> escalates; a given force has to be applied over an ever-greater distance as
> velocity (time rate of change of position) increases.  Alternatively, we
> could hold displacement constant and progressively raise the force
> magnitude.
>
> Yet Craig still seems to have a point - without some kind of corporeal
> reaction mass, what is an EM drive's velocity actually relative to?  What's
> its reference frame, if not the thing it's pushing against?
>
> To illustrate the conundrum, suppose i have an EM drive aboard a train, and
> you the observer are standing on the platform as the train passes through
> the station:  I fire the engine, and it accelerates by 1 meter / sec.
>
> Suppose the engine weighs 10 kg.  From my perspective, its KE has increased
> by 5 Joules - ie. it's perrformed 5 J of mechanical work, regardless of how
> much more energy may have been wasted to heat.
>
> But if the train was already travelling at 10 m/s, and the drive accelerated
> in the same direction, then from your stationary perspective the drive has
> accelerated up from 10 to 11 m/s - and for a 10 kg mass that's a workload of
> 105 J - bringing its KE up from 500 J to 605 J.
>
> So, has the drive burned 5 J or 105 J?
>
>
> If i cheated - the drive doesn't really work, and i just gave it a
> surreptitious shove - this same paradox is resolved by a corresponding
> deceleration of the train - ie. if i accelerate a small mass against the
> inertia of a larger mass, the latter is decelerated and net momentum is
> conserved.
>
> Except here, the drive ISN'T pushing against the train.  Yet it still
> benefits from its ambient velocity.  Net momentum is NOT conserved, and
> neither is energy.
>
>
> And so the question arises, how does the EM drive "know" what its reference
> frame is?  Shawyer claims (or seems to imply) that the unit cost of
> acceleration increases as we would normally expect (distance over which a
> given force is applied keeps rising) - but how does it measure "distance"?
> Relative to what, exactly?   Without physical reaction mass, such a system
> has its own unique reference frame - from within which, energy may be
> conserved, but which from without, cannot be.
>
> I mean this not as a crtitique against the plausibility of such systems, and
> share the prevailing cautious optimism.  But if they do work, then we also
> have an energy anomaly.
>
> In the many years i've been researching classical symmetry breaks, one thing
> has become clear - the only way to explain away a real symmetry break is to
> invoke another somewhere else up or downstream (it's a standard recourse for
> pseudoskeptics).  As much as i'd welcome free energy, momentum and FTL
> travel, and despite Shawyer's assurances everything's classically
> consistent, these enigmatic implications remain..   for me, at least.
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:17 AM,  wrote:
>>
>> 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 

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

[David Roberson]

Trick question.   All of the energy used by the electric drive could be 
accounted for from the frame of the car by observing frictional losses, wind 
movement, heat emissions, etc.  It would not be easy to calculate, but the 
information should be there.

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: mixent 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 5:15 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:44:33 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>From the EM drive's point of view the CoE must be violated because as it 
>accelerates in space a portion of it's mass must be converted into energy that 
>is used to power the drive.  When it ceases to use the drive it begins to 
>remain motionless in space from its point of view.   Where did that mass go 
>which was converted into energy that powered the drive?  Did it simply vanish?

When a electric car drives down the road, where does the expended energy show up
in the reference frame of the car?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[David Roberson]

But Robin, there is no kinetic energy associated with a moving object in its 
own reference frame.  It will know that it accelerated because it can directly 
sense that operation, but once the drive cuts out it is at rest in its latest 
frame.

I suppose a spaceman on the EM Drive powered ship could calculate the force 
causing his acceleration and thus know how much internal mass he has converted 
into energy to make it happen.  And, someone residing within the space ships 
original frame could likewise make the same calculation.

The problem would show up if the space ship then reversed his maneuver and 
returned back to that original frame.  Both people would again calculate 
approximately the same mass conversion that occurs due to the force generation. 
 So at the end of the trip, the ship would be depleted of some of its mass for 
no net apparent change in velocity or position.  Where did the energy go?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: mixent 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 5:06 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

In reply to  Vibrator !'s message of Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:03:43 +:
Hi,
[snip]
>And so the question arises, how does the EM drive "know" what its reference 
>frame is?  Shawyer claims (or seems to imply) that the unit cost of 
>acceleration increases as we would normally expect (distance over which a 
>given force is applied keeps rising) - but how does it measure "distance"?  
>Relative to what, exactly?   Without physical reaction mass, such a system has 
>its own unique reference frame - from within which, energy may be conserved, 
>but which from without, cannot be.
>
>I mean this not as a crtitique against the plausibility of such systems, and 
>share the prevailing cautious optimism.  But if they do work, then we also 
>have an energy anomaly.
[snip]
Is the energy anomaly resolved if it pushes against the mass of the universe
(i.e. against space-time itself)? In which case it would indeed be just like a
train on rails. In short, momentum is conserved, and all the energy ends up with
the moving object. I suspect that this is the basis of Shawyers argument.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[Russ George]

I think you are ‘over thinking’ watch the Youtube vid  
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rbf7735o3hQ and I believe your suggested issues 
are amply set to rest… The same Romanian guy and others have simply turned 
their EM drives upside down and repeated the tests with expected results, 
reversed thrust… Your idea of the magnetron influencing the mass balance is far 
from plausible there is a big difference between imagined issues and plausible 
issues. Ordinarily experimentalists quickly eliminate the impossible imaginable 
issues. For instance weighing a sample on the scale when disconnected from the 
EM drive while the magnetron is switched on and off would instantly prove or 
disprove such an imaginary influence as the magnetron interference with the 
balance readings. 

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 5:30 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

I am just pointing out that when wires are attached it is simply too easy for 
outside forces to interfere with the results.   How confident are you that the 
overall force he measures does not have a significant force contribution due to 
the current flowing through the wires?  If not 100%, then you are are skeptical 
as well.  

Unless proof exists that the current does not cause a problem then no one that 
is a true skeptic will accept the experiment as being solid.  The sure way to 
eliminate the problem is to eliminate the wires.

Another issue that is a major concern is RF interference from the high power 
magnetron.  Many if not most meters are greatly influenced by RF leakage from 
sources of much lower power.  I have personally chased several problems caused 
by that type of interference and they can be difficult to handle.  And do not 
be tricked by the appearance of a well shielded cavity since the power leads 
can easily radiate RF at that frequency.

I do not believe that we should avoid asking the important questions by 
assuming that the guy has naturally solved all of the problems facing him as 
you seem to imply.  This is not to suggest that he has not worked long and hard 
on this project, but instead highlighting issues that he should consider 
carefully.  Isn't this what a good skeptic should believe?  I honestly hope he 
has a working model.

Also, it is important for all of us to be skeptical of new ideas until 
sufficient proof has been demonstrated that they are valid.  That has nothing 
to do with puppy mills.

When a device violates physical laws it is important to verify that what is 
claimed is true.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Russ George <  russ.geo...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <  vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 4:21 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

Are you saying ‘why doesn’t this experimentalist do his experiment your way?’ 
That’s a bit presumptuous, clearly this guy has put in a lot of effort and 
diligence. His results are consistent with what other diligent experimentalists 
in the field have presented, faithfully matching their experiments though in a 
remarkably simple form. Noone of those others have done what you suggest and 
they seem to be very learned and well equipped and could have done so. The rule 
used to be in science that those with ‘good ideas’ were expected to contribute 
more than the ‘idea’ and do the work as well lest they be simply considered 
gadflies. The dire proliferation of the ‘skeptic’ point of view in science is 
the result of the rampant university puppy mills that have turned out legions 
of people with learning and no place to use it save in virtual realities.

 

The tiny wires and geometry that power the magnetron in the aforementioned 
experiment don’t appear to offer any support to a notion that some sort of 
thrust between the wires is possible… you might of course replicate the 
experiment with just the wires you speak of (leave out all the complex bits) 
and report on being able to produce a facsimile of the thrust reported by the 
differential in the wires push and pull.

 

From: David Roberson [  mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 12:57 PM
To:   vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

I would love to see a real EM Drive but it is impossible to believe an 
experiment with external power supply lines attached.   Electric motors operate 
by utilizing the forces that exist between current carrying conductors.  Two 
wires will always push or pull against each other when they carry current and 
this effect must be eliminated in order to prove drive force.

Why does the experimenter not use some form of shielded on board battery for 
power?  A short duration test might be possible especially if they wish to 
convince many skeptics.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Russ 

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

[David Roberson]

I am just pointing out that when wires are attached it is simply too easy for 
outside forces to interfere with the results.   How confident are you that the 
overall force he measures does not have a significant force contribution due to 
the current flowing through the wires?  If not 100%, then you are are skeptical 
as well.  

Unless proof exists that the current does not cause a problem then no one that 
is a true skeptic will accept the experiment as being solid.  The sure way to 
eliminate the problem is to eliminate the wires.

Another issue that is a major concern is RF interference from the high power 
magnetron.  Many if not most meters are greatly influenced by RF leakage from 
sources of much lower power.  I have personally chased several problems caused 
by that type of interference and they can be difficult to handle.  And do not 
be tricked by the appearance of a well shielded cavity since the power leads 
can easily radiate RF at that frequency.

I do not believe that we should avoid asking the important questions by 
assuming that the guy has naturally solved all of the problems facing him as 
you seem to imply.  This is not to suggest that he has not worked long and hard 
on this project, but instead highlighting issues that he should consider 
carefully.  Isn't this what a good skeptic should believe?  I honestly hope he 
has a working model.

Also, it is important for all of us to be skeptical of new ideas until 
sufficient proof has been demonstrated that they are valid.  That has nothing 
to do with puppy mills.

When a device violates physical laws it is important to verify that what is 
claimed is true.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Russ George 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 4:21 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)



Are you saying ‘why doesn’t this experimentalist do his experiment your way?’ 
That’s a bit presumptuous, clearly this guy has put in a lot of effort and 
diligence. His results are consistent with what other diligent experimentalists 
in the field have presented, faithfully matching their experiments though in a 
remarkably simple form. Noone of those others have done what you suggest and 
they seem to be very learned and well equipped and could have done so. The rule 
used to be in science that those with ‘good ideas’ were expected to contribute 
more than the ‘idea’ and do the work as well lest they be simply considered 
gadflies. The dire proliferation of the ‘skeptic’ point of view in science is 
the result of the rampant university puppy mills that have turned out legions 
of people with learning and no place to use it save in virtual realities.
 
The tiny wires and geometry that power the magnetron in the aforementioned 
experiment don’t appear to offer any support to a notion that some sort of 
thrust between the wires is possible… you might of course replicate the 
experiment with just the wires you speak of (leave out all the complex bits) 
and report on being able to produce a facsimile of the thrust reported by the 
differential in the wires push and pull.
 
From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 12:57 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
 
I would love to see a real EM Drive but it is impossible to believe an 
experiment with external power supply lines attached.   Electric motors operate 
by utilizing the forces that exist between current carrying conductors.  Two 
wires will always push or pull against each other when they carry current and 
this effect must be eliminated in order to prove drive force.

Why does the experimenter not use some form of shielded on board battery for 
power?  A short duration test might be possible especially if they wish to 
convince many skeptics.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Russ George 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 3:42 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)


Here’s a link to a great EM Drive DIY experiment 
http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/#comment-10348

 

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 12:36 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

I suppose we will have to discover that aether before we can have confidence in 
that possibility.

Would you expect a normal rocket to behave in the same manner if it had to push 
the aether out of its way?   Why would that not require both effects to be 
present thereby changing the reaction mass expelled by the standard rocket?

How would you detect the bow wave or other mass-equivalents to prove they 
exist?  Something must contain the energy that was lost due to operation of the 
drive and it should be measurable.  Then, you will need to modify Special 
Relativity in order to detect the true absolute reference frame of the universe.

Dave


 


 


 


-Original Message-

Re: [Vo]:Re: Declaration from Eindhoven University of Technology related to M. Yildiz magnet motor

[John Berry]

That gives his claim far more credit in my eyes.

Gravitational anomalies (and others) occurring with free energy is common
enough.
And indicates there is something real behind it.

John

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM, H Ucar  wrote:

>
> Hi Robin,
>
> "My comment is that I think it's powered by a resonant connection with
> the cyclotron radiation of the protons of the Van Allen belts. IOW Tesla's
> "wheelwork of nature", but that implies a limited amount of
> energy available world wide."
>
> Mr. Yildiz had mentioned a gravitational anomaly when the motor run at
> excessive speed. I would not enter to details but if it is correct, the
> phenomenon would be even more strange. May flying machines of scifi movies
> would emerge in time.
>

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

[Russ George]

Opps the BBC Two EM Drive program in the 23rd of March not yesterday…. While 
waiting to see it here is a link to an view of the EM Drive future  
https://vimeo.com/108650530 

 

From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of 
Alain Sepeda
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 2:13 PM
To: Vortex List
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

the claim of shawyer is that the energy inside the cavity is destroyed by 
acceleration. he propose something linked to doppler detuning.

 

this is one theory.

 

MiHsC have another vision where vacuum energy, information, horizon and mach 
principle are important factors.

 

CoE, CoM are respected by Newton, Einstein,... They just change on what it 
applies.

 

2016-03-14 19:44 GMT+01:00 David Roberson  >:

Good argument.  I just wanted to add one thought.

>From the EM drive's point of view the CoE must be violated because as it 
>accelerates in space a portion of it's mass must be converted into energy that 
>is used to power the drive.  When it ceases to use the drive it begins to 
>remain motionless in space from its point of view.   Where did that mass go 
>which was converted into energy that powered the drive?  Did it simply vanish?

This problem does not exist for normal rocket engines that expel a reaction 
mass.  In that case, the energy is accounted for by the mass that is speeding 
rapidly away from the rocket.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Vibrator !  >
To: vortex-l  >
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 7:03 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

Yes, and this is why KE = 1/2 MV^2 - ie., why the acceleration unit cost 
escalates; a given force has to be applied over an ever-greater distance as 
velocity (time rate of change of position) increases.  Alternatively, we could 
hold displacement constant and progressively raise the force magnitude.  

Yet Craig still seems to have a point - without some kind of corporeal reaction 
mass, what is an EM drive's velocity actually relative to?  What's its 
reference frame, if not the thing it's pushing against?

To illustrate the conundrum, suppose i have an EM drive aboard a train, and you 
the observer are standing on the platform as the train passes through the 
station:  I fire the engine, and it accelerates by 1 meter / sec.

Suppose the engine weighs 10 kg.  From my perspective, its KE has increased by 
5 Joules - ie. it's perrformed 5 J of mechanical work, regardless of how much 
more energy may have been wasted to heat.

But if the train was already travelling at 10 m/s, and the drive accelerated in 
the same direction, then from your stationary perspective the drive has 
accelerated up from 10 to 11 m/s - and for a 10 kg mass that's a workload of 
105 J - bringing its KE up from 500 J to 605 J.

So, has the drive burned 5 J or 105 J?



If i cheated - the drive doesn't really work, and i just gave it a 
surreptitious shove - this same paradox is resolved by a corresponding 
deceleration of the train - ie. if i accelerate a small mass against the 
inertia of a larger mass, the latter is decelerated and net momentum is 
conserved.

Except here, the drive ISN'T pushing against the train.  Yet it still benefits 
from its ambient velocity.  Net momentum is NOT conserved, and neither is 
energy.



And so the question arises, how does the EM drive "know" what its reference 
frame is?  Shawyer claims (or seems to imply) that the unit cost of 
acceleration increases as we would normally expect (distance over which a given 
force is applied keeps rising) - but how does it measure "distance"?  Relative 
to what, exactly?   Without physical reaction mass, such a system has its own 
unique reference frame - from within which, energy may be conserved, but which 
from without, cannot be.

I mean this not as a crtitique against the plausibility of such systems, and 
share the prevailing cautious optimism.  But if they do work, then we also have 
an energy anomaly.

In the many years i've been researching classical symmetry breaks, one thing 
has become clear - the only way to explain away a real symmetry break is to 
invoke another somewhere else up or downstream (it's a standard recourse for 
pseudoskeptics).  As much as i'd welcome free energy, momentum and FTL travel, 
and despite Shawyer's assurances everything's classically consistent, these 
enigmatic implications remain..   for me, at least.

 

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:17 AM,  > wrote:

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 

[Vo]:Re: Declaration from Eindhoven University of Technology related to M. Yildiz magnet motor

[a.ashfield]

I don't know why my original comment appears above the subject.  I 
wouldn't be surprised if this turns up in another thread altogether.


H Ucar,
I remember reading > a year ago that Yildiz was promised a several day 
trial in a specially isolated room, but the university backed off.
That is what is needed, a trial with load for long enough to rule out 
potential energy from the magnets or cheating.  If it doesn't slow down 
after a day it would be pretty good evidence.
Meanwhile it suffers the fate of early cold fusion experimenters. 
Academia thinks it is impossible and so won't look and certainly won't 
fund such an experiment.

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

[Russ George]

Anyone in the UK? Apparently there is, yesterday, BBC broadcast featuring 
Shawyer and his EM Drive… someone could please make it available on YouTube  
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0752f85

 

 

From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of 
Alain Sepeda
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 2:13 PM
To: Vortex List
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

the claim of shawyer is that the energy inside the cavity is destroyed by 
acceleration. he propose something linked to doppler detuning.

 

this is one theory.

 

MiHsC have another vision where vacuum energy, information, horizon and mach 
principle are important factors.

 

CoE, CoM are respected by Newton, Einstein,... They just change on what it 
applies.

 

2016-03-14 19:44 GMT+01:00 David Roberson  >:

Good argument.  I just wanted to add one thought.

>From the EM drive's point of view the CoE must be violated because as it 
>accelerates in space a portion of it's mass must be converted into energy that 
>is used to power the drive.  When it ceases to use the drive it begins to 
>remain motionless in space from its point of view.   Where did that mass go 
>which was converted into energy that powered the drive?  Did it simply vanish?

This problem does not exist for normal rocket engines that expel a reaction 
mass.  In that case, the energy is accounted for by the mass that is speeding 
rapidly away from the rocket.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Vibrator !  >
To: vortex-l  >
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 7:03 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

Yes, and this is why KE = 1/2 MV^2 - ie., why the acceleration unit cost 
escalates; a given force has to be applied over an ever-greater distance as 
velocity (time rate of change of position) increases.  Alternatively, we could 
hold displacement constant and progressively raise the force magnitude.  

Yet Craig still seems to have a point - without some kind of corporeal reaction 
mass, what is an EM drive's velocity actually relative to?  What's its 
reference frame, if not the thing it's pushing against?

To illustrate the conundrum, suppose i have an EM drive aboard a train, and you 
the observer are standing on the platform as the train passes through the 
station:  I fire the engine, and it accelerates by 1 meter / sec.

Suppose the engine weighs 10 kg.  From my perspective, its KE has increased by 
5 Joules - ie. it's perrformed 5 J of mechanical work, regardless of how much 
more energy may have been wasted to heat.

But if the train was already travelling at 10 m/s, and the drive accelerated in 
the same direction, then from your stationary perspective the drive has 
accelerated up from 10 to 11 m/s - and for a 10 kg mass that's a workload of 
105 J - bringing its KE up from 500 J to 605 J.

So, has the drive burned 5 J or 105 J?



If i cheated - the drive doesn't really work, and i just gave it a 
surreptitious shove - this same paradox is resolved by a corresponding 
deceleration of the train - ie. if i accelerate a small mass against the 
inertia of a larger mass, the latter is decelerated and net momentum is 
conserved.

Except here, the drive ISN'T pushing against the train.  Yet it still benefits 
from its ambient velocity.  Net momentum is NOT conserved, and neither is 
energy.



And so the question arises, how does the EM drive "know" what its reference 
frame is?  Shawyer claims (or seems to imply) that the unit cost of 
acceleration increases as we would normally expect (distance over which a given 
force is applied keeps rising) - but how does it measure "distance"?  Relative 
to what, exactly?   Without physical reaction mass, such a system has its own 
unique reference frame - from within which, energy may be conserved, but which 
from without, cannot be.

I mean this not as a crtitique against the plausibility of such systems, and 
share the prevailing cautious optimism.  But if they do work, then we also have 
an energy anomaly.

In the many years i've been researching classical symmetry breaks, one thing 
has become clear - the only way to explain away a real symmetry break is to 
invoke another somewhere else up or downstream (it's a standard recourse for 
pseudoskeptics).  As much as i'd welcome free energy, momentum and FTL travel, 
and despite Shawyer's assurances everything's classically consistent, these 
enigmatic implications remain..   for me, at least.

 

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:17 AM,  > wrote:

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 

[Vo]:Re: Declaration from Eindhoven University of Technology related to M. Yildiz magnet motor

[H Ucar]

Hi Robin,
"My comment is that I think it's powered by a resonant connection with the 
cyclotron radiation of the protons of the Van Allen belts. IOW Tesla's 
"wheelwork of nature", but that implies a limited amount of energy available 
world wide."

Mr. Yildiz had mentioned a gravitational anomaly when the motor run at 
excessive speed. I would not enter to details but if it is correct, the 
phenomenon would be even more strange. May flying machines of scifi movies 
would emerge in time.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Declaration from Eindhoven University of Technology related to M. Yildiz magnet motor

[John Berry]

It is easy to establish how much energy is in a magnetic field.

Just see how much energy would need to be used up to establish such a
magnetic field with a superconductor coil.

Even a superconductor coil requires a voltage to establish a current due to
the impedance involved.
As such there is a very real amount of energy invested in and recovered
from a magnetic field as it collapses inducing a voltage in a coil.

I doubt there is enough to turn a motor with a load for very long, but of
course that depends on the load and how many magnets and how strongly they
are magnetized.

There should be a calculator for establishing the energy in a magnetic
field floating around the internet somewhere.

John

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:15 AM, H Ucar  wrote:

> a.ashfield wrote:
>
> "With known science the only way it could work is by using up the
> potential energy of the permanent magnets"
>
> I think the energy related to permanent magnets are overstated. A NdFeB
> magnet can be demagnetized easily by heating without a spectacular energy
> outcome. From entropic view this process could be even endothermic, the
> energy stored in magnet could be negative.
>
> We may ask such a question in physics stackexchange.
>
> I expect a detailed report from TU/e soon which contain power and energy
> figures.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Declaration from Eindhoven University of Technology related to M. Yildiz magnet motor

[John Berry]

Can anyone really argue though that the conservation of energy is not
merely a general observation and a philosophical concept.

It is fine to say "I can't see how it could be done" given the assumption
that there is symmetry in the underlying mechanics of simultaneous creation
of one energy and the destruction of another which is generally called
transfer of energy.

But that is not the same as it being actually IMPOSSIBLE to create or
destroy energy!

It's just an idea. A presumption.
Much like the observation that entropy increases over time is known to only
be generally true, but false in special circumstances (low power LED's can
gain energy from the vacuum).

Maybe energy can be created or destroyed in a net manner by some alteration
of the vacuum?

Sure, you don't have to believe that this is possible, but can anyone
genuinely say they know absoluetly enough about the universe to say it
isn't?

How could you know it is not possible?

If god existed, could he both known everything and know that he knows
everything?
How would he know that there was something that was outside of his
knowledge except for mere arrogance?

So unless any of you somehow known more that an otherwise omnisciently god
is, then you don't really know if energy can be created or destroyed.

All you have is observation and theory/philosophy/religion (whatever you
want to call it) to inform you.

We don't know how everything we know about works, and we have no ability to
speak of that which is outside our knowledge.

Some things are logically impossible (continual compression beyond random
data), but creation/destruction of energy is not one of them.

John


On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:57 AM,  wrote:

> In reply to  H Ucar's message of Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:34:25 +0200:
> Hi Hamdi,
> [snip]
> >I did not expected that this issue would be totally ignored here. So
> reciprocally, don't blame acedemic community for their own ignorances.
>
> My comment is that I think it's powered by a resonant connection with the
> cyclotron radiation of the protons of the Van Allen belts.
> IOW Tesla's "wheelwork of nature", but that implies a limited amount of
> energy
> available world wide.
>
> An alternative might be enhanced radioactive decay of long lived
> radioisotopes
> in the magnets, where the decay is triggered by changing magnetic fields,
> as
> magnets move relative to one another.
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

[Vo]:Re: Declaration from Eindhoven University of Technology related to M. Yildiz magnet motor

[H Ucar]

a.ashfield wrote:

"With known science the only way it could work is by using up the potential 
energy of the permanent magnets"

I think the energy related to permanent magnets are overstated. A NdFeB magnet 
can be demagnetized easily by heating without a spectacular energy outcome. 
From entropic view this process could be even endothermic, the energy stored in 
magnet could be negative.
We may ask such a question in physics stackexchange.
I expect a detailed report from TU/e soon which contain power and energy 
figures.

RE: [Vo]:Bacteria able to eat plastic bottles discovered by scientists

[Russ George]

What? You have a problem with making plastic more digestible to slime… I used 
to keep a stack of petri dishes of pet slime molds, it was known as the tower 
of slime. Towers are popular with slime.

 

From: John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 2:47 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bacteria able to eat plastic bottles discovered by scientists

 

I think the word "Trumps" is one that people might find a bit disconcerting at 
this juncture.

 

Unless by "trumping" you mean to attract racists and incite violence.

 

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Russ George  > wrote:

Far better to just start replacing all of the polyethylene with polylacticacid 
PLA plastic which all bacteria find delicious. All of the worlds PLA plastic 
needs could be met using a sustainable harvest of a small fraction of the 
sargassum seaweed that fills the Sargasso Sea! Just take care of the ocean 
pastures that cover 72% of this Blue Planet and we can make the planet great 
again! This trumps other ideas with ease ;)

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com  
] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 1:59 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com  
Subject: [Vo]:Bacteria able to eat plastic bottles discovered by scientists

 

By the way, here is some other news about plastics that has been widely 
reported in Japan. This is good news for once.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/bacteria-able-to-eat-plastic-bottles-discovered-by-scientists-a6927636.html

 

- Jed

 

 

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

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

I wrote a report about this back in 2012 and revised it several times and
was permitted to make part of it public in 2013 a substantial proportion of
the report in a rough edited version was made available on Sifferkol's
website last year:
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/a-must-read-guest-post-by-ian-walker-the-end-of-the-fossil-fuel-age/

A couple of things to take away in relation to the above discussion:
1) the advice to Saudi Arabia was to move to a market decline strategy and
to lower the price of oil both to kill off their competitors by stacking it
high and selling cheap thus gaining the same profits by moving from high
margins on low volume to low margins on high volume.
2) To slow the uptake of LENR by dropping the price to a level that made
the cost of switching to LENR less attractive.

On another matter out of what will oil be worth without using oil as a
fossil fuel, do a Google search for "What is in a Barrel of Oil"

Looking through those you can see oil will still have a residual value for
things such as Lubricants, Asphalt, petrochemical feedstock for plastics
etc about 7% to 15% of a barrel of oil is not used for fuel, and in fact
several new markets may be possible due to LENR enabling new technologies
and markets. So oil will drop to 15% of its expected value from that 2014
high.

I have of course, as has Sifferkol; made it clear that the Markets have
already largely discounted oil on the threat of LENR. My understanding is
that Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia are all prepared to drop oil to the $1
per barrel mark to kill off the majority of their competitors. Then they
will be all the remaining 15% of the oil market.

Kind Regards walker

On 14 March 2016 at 20:50, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> David Roberson  wrote:
>
> I suspect that the transportation of oil as well as its production cost
>> would make it desirable to find local sources for the elements needed in
>> those related products.
>
>
> As far as I know, the only thing you want in plastic feedstock is "pure
> hydrocarbon polymers." Hydrogen and carbon. Anything else is contamination.
> That's what I have read, anyway. I expect that it will eventually be
> possible to synthesize pure hydrocarbons from water and carbon rather than
> refining oil, which is rather dirty stuff. Coal may be a good source of
> carbon if there is not enough organic garbage or recycled plastic, or if it
> is not convenient to extract carbon from atmospheric CO2. There are still
> mountains of coal left. A small fraction of the coal mined today would
> suffice.
>
> Here is one source for the "pure" part:
>
> http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/hamman1/
>
> Energy for plastic
>
> . . . To begin, not all plastics are chiefly composed of hydrogen and
> carbon like polyethylene. For example, PET is about 33% oxygen by mass
> while PVC is about 57% chlorine by mass. [13] These additives come from
> non-hydrocarbon feedstocks. To account for the hydrocarbon feedstock
> energy, observe that three of the five most widely produced plastics,
> namely polyethylene, polypropylene and polystyrene, together account for
> nearly 60% of all plastics production. [4,5] Both polypropylene and
> polystyrene are pure hydrocarbon polymers with similar heats of combustion
> as their feedstock counterparts and polyethylene. . . .
>
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Declaration from Eindhoven University of Technology related to M. Yildiz magnet motor

[mixent]

In reply to  H Ucar's message of Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:34:25 +0200:
Hi Hamdi,
[snip]
>I did not expected that this issue would be totally ignored here. So 
>reciprocally, don't blame acedemic community for their own ignorances.

My comment is that I think it's powered by a resonant connection with the
cyclotron radiation of the protons of the Van Allen belts.
IOW Tesla's "wheelwork of nature", but that implies a limited amount of energy
available world wide.

An alternative might be enhanced radioactive decay of long lived radioisotopes
in the magnets, where the decay is triggered by changing magnetic fields, as
magnets move relative to one another.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

RE: [Vo]:Bacteria able to eat plastic bottles discovered by scientists

[Russ George]

PLA has a very good lifetime in use 'on the shelf' it doesn't begin to
breakdown until it is kept in the warm, wet, and dark though it has a
relatively short lifetime in the direct sun of some many months so you would
not want to make an inflatable back yard wading pool for your children... on
the other hand it would likely last the summer splashing season then fall to
pieces :)

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 2:47 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bacteria able to eat plastic bottles discovered by
scientists

In reply to  Russ George's message of Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:36:03 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Far better to just start replacing all of the polyethylene with
polylacticacid PLA plastic which all bacteria find delicious. All of the
worlds PLA plastic needs could be met using a sustainable harvest of a small
fraction of the sargassum seaweed that fills the Sargasso Sea! Just take
care of the ocean pastures that cover 72% of this Blue Planet and we can
make the planet great again! This trumps other ideas with ease ;)

Yes, but how long will the plastic last on the pantry shelf?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:back to #12 even at the higher price

[Frank Znidarsic]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/digital-text/159789011/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_kstore_1_6_last

Re: [Vo]:Bacteria able to eat plastic bottles discovered by scientists

[mixent]

In reply to  Russ George's message of Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:36:03 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Far better to just start replacing all of the polyethylene with polylacticacid 
>PLA plastic which all bacteria find delicious. All of the worlds PLA plastic 
>needs could be met using a sustainable harvest of a small fraction of the 
>sargassum seaweed that fills the Sargasso Sea! Just take care of the ocean 
>pastures that cover 72% of this Blue Planet and we can make the planet great 
>again! This trumps other ideas with ease ;)

Yes, but how long will the plastic last on the pantry shelf?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Bacteria able to eat plastic bottles discovered by scientists

[John Berry]

I think the word "Trumps" is one that people might find a bit disconcerting
at this juncture.

Unless by "trumping" you mean to attract racists and incite violence.

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Russ George  wrote:

> Far better to just start replacing all of the polyethylene with
> polylacticacid PLA plastic which all bacteria find delicious. All of the
> worlds PLA plastic needs could be met using a sustainable harvest of a
> small fraction of the sargassum seaweed that fills the Sargasso Sea! Just
> take care of the ocean pastures that cover 72% of this Blue Planet and we
> can make the planet great again! This trumps other ideas with ease ;)
>
>
>
> *From:* Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, March 14, 2016 1:59 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* [Vo]:Bacteria able to eat plastic bottles discovered by
> scientists
>
>
>
> By the way, here is some other news about plastics that has been widely
> reported in Japan. This is good news for once.
>
>
>
>
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/bacteria-able-to-eat-plastic-bottles-discovered-by-scientists-a6927636.html
>
>
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Bacteria able to eat plastic bottles discovered by scientists

[Russ George]

Far better to just start replacing all of the polyethylene with polylacticacid 
PLA plastic which all bacteria find delicious. All of the worlds PLA plastic 
needs could be met using a sustainable harvest of a small fraction of the 
sargassum seaweed that fills the Sargasso Sea! Just take care of the ocean 
pastures that cover 72% of this Blue Planet and we can make the planet great 
again! This trumps other ideas with ease ;)

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 1:59 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Bacteria able to eat plastic bottles discovered by scientists

 

By the way, here is some other news about plastics that has been widely 
reported in Japan. This is good news for once.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/bacteria-able-to-eat-plastic-bottles-discovered-by-scientists-a6927636.html

 

- Jed

 

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

[Russ George]

We can adore Shawyer for his engineering, that doesn’t mean we have to love his 
physics ;)

 

From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of 
Alain Sepeda
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 2:13 PM
To: Vortex List
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

the claim of shawyer is that the energy inside the cavity is destroyed by 
acceleration. he propose something linked to doppler detuning.

 

this is one theory.

 

MiHsC have another vision where vacuum energy, information, horizon and mach 
principle are important factors.

 

CoE, CoM are respected by Newton, Einstein,... They just change on what it 
applies.

 

2016-03-14 19:44 GMT+01:00 David Roberson  >:

Good argument.  I just wanted to add one thought.

>From the EM drive's point of view the CoE must be violated because as it 
>accelerates in space a portion of it's mass must be converted into energy that 
>is used to power the drive.  When it ceases to use the drive it begins to 
>remain motionless in space from its point of view.   Where did that mass go 
>which was converted into energy that powered the drive?  Did it simply vanish?

This problem does not exist for normal rocket engines that expel a reaction 
mass.  In that case, the energy is accounted for by the mass that is speeding 
rapidly away from the rocket.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Vibrator !  >
To: vortex-l  >
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 7:03 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

Yes, and this is why KE = 1/2 MV^2 - ie., why the acceleration unit cost 
escalates; a given force has to be applied over an ever-greater distance as 
velocity (time rate of change of position) increases.  Alternatively, we could 
hold displacement constant and progressively raise the force magnitude.  

Yet Craig still seems to have a point - without some kind of corporeal reaction 
mass, what is an EM drive's velocity actually relative to?  What's its 
reference frame, if not the thing it's pushing against?

To illustrate the conundrum, suppose i have an EM drive aboard a train, and you 
the observer are standing on the platform as the train passes through the 
station:  I fire the engine, and it accelerates by 1 meter / sec.

Suppose the engine weighs 10 kg.  From my perspective, its KE has increased by 
5 Joules - ie. it's perrformed 5 J of mechanical work, regardless of how much 
more energy may have been wasted to heat.

But if the train was already travelling at 10 m/s, and the drive accelerated in 
the same direction, then from your stationary perspective the drive has 
accelerated up from 10 to 11 m/s - and for a 10 kg mass that's a workload of 
105 J - bringing its KE up from 500 J to 605 J.

So, has the drive burned 5 J or 105 J?



If i cheated - the drive doesn't really work, and i just gave it a 
surreptitious shove - this same paradox is resolved by a corresponding 
deceleration of the train - ie. if i accelerate a small mass against the 
inertia of a larger mass, the latter is decelerated and net momentum is 
conserved.

Except here, the drive ISN'T pushing against the train.  Yet it still benefits 
from its ambient velocity.  Net momentum is NOT conserved, and neither is 
energy.



And so the question arises, how does the EM drive "know" what its reference 
frame is?  Shawyer claims (or seems to imply) that the unit cost of 
acceleration increases as we would normally expect (distance over which a given 
force is applied keeps rising) - but how does it measure "distance"?  Relative 
to what, exactly?   Without physical reaction mass, such a system has its own 
unique reference frame - from within which, energy may be conserved, but which 
from without, cannot be.

I mean this not as a crtitique against the plausibility of such systems, and 
share the prevailing cautious optimism.  But if they do work, then we also have 
an energy anomaly.

In the many years i've been researching classical symmetry breaks, one thing 
has become clear - the only way to explain away a real symmetry break is to 
invoke another somewhere else up or downstream (it's a standard recourse for 
pseudoskeptics).  As much as i'd welcome free energy, momentum and FTL travel, 
and despite Shawyer's assurances everything's classically consistent, these 
enigmatic implications remain..   for me, at least.

 

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:17 AM,  > wrote:

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 

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

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:20:14 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>If so, and the EM drive is moving in aether, then leaving a wake (bow wave, 
>eddy turbulence, kelvin wake, etc) also leaves a mass-equivalence.


The cause of red-shift perhaps?
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[mixent]

In reply to  Russ George's message of Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:51:50 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>In
>either case the 'thermal radiator' will be the challenge.

If the engine, with small shield, is at the end of a long connector with the
living quarters, then the long walls of the connector can be used as thermal
radiators. The shield will cast a large shadow at long distance, easily
shielding the important part of the ship.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[mixent]

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:44:33 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>From the EM drive's point of view the CoE must be violated because as it 
>accelerates in space a portion of it's mass must be converted into energy that 
>is used to power the drive.  When it ceases to use the drive it begins to 
>remain motionless in space from its point of view.   Where did that mass go 
>which was converted into energy that powered the drive?  Did it simply vanish?

When a electric car drives down the road, where does the expended energy show up
in the reference frame of the car?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[Alain Sepeda]

the claim of shawyer is that the energy inside the cavity is destroyed by
acceleration. he propose something linked to doppler detuning.

this is one theory.

MiHsC have another vision where vacuum energy, information, horizon and
mach principle are important factors.

CoE, CoM are respected by Newton, Einstein,... They just change on what it
applies.

2016-03-14 19:44 GMT+01:00 David Roberson :

> Good argument.  I just wanted to add one thought.
>
> From the EM drive's point of view the CoE must be violated because as it
> accelerates in space a portion of it's mass must be converted into energy
> that is used to power the drive.  When it ceases to use the drive it begins
> to remain motionless in space from its point of view.   Where did that mass
> go which was converted into energy that powered the drive?  Did it simply
> vanish?
>
> This problem does not exist for normal rocket engines that expel a
> reaction mass.  In that case, the energy is accounted for by the mass that
> is speeding rapidly away from the rocket.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Vibrator ! 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 7:03 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
>
> Yes, and this is why KE = 1/2 MV^2 - ie., why the acceleration unit cost
> escalates; a given force has to be applied over an ever-greater distance as
> velocity (time rate of change of position) increases.  Alternatively, we
> could hold displacement constant and progressively raise the force
> magnitude.
>
> Yet Craig still seems to have a point - without some kind of corporeal
> reaction mass, what is an EM drive's velocity actually relative to?  What's
> its reference frame, if not the thing it's pushing against?
>
> To illustrate the conundrum, suppose i have an EM drive aboard a train,
> and you the observer are standing on the platform as the train passes
> through the station:  I fire the engine, and it accelerates by 1 meter /
> sec.
>
> Suppose the engine weighs 10 kg.  From my perspective, its KE has
> increased by 5 Joules - ie. it's perrformed 5 J of mechanical work,
> regardless of how much more energy may have been wasted to heat.
>
> But if the train was already travelling at 10 m/s, and the drive
> accelerated in the same direction, then from your stationary perspective
> the drive has accelerated up from 10 to 11 m/s - and for a 10 kg mass
> that's a workload of 105 J - bringing its KE up from 500 J to 605 J.
>
> So, has the drive burned 5 J or 105 J?
>
>
> If i cheated - the drive doesn't really work, and i just gave it a
> surreptitious shove - this same paradox is resolved by a corresponding
> deceleration of the train - ie. if i accelerate a small mass against the
> inertia of a larger mass, the latter is decelerated and net momentum is
> conserved.
>
> Except here, the drive ISN'T pushing against the train.  Yet it still
> benefits from its ambient velocity.  Net momentum is NOT conserved, and
> neither is energy.
>
>
> And so the question arises, how does the EM drive "know" what its
> reference frame is?  Shawyer claims (or seems to imply) that the unit cost
> of acceleration increases as we would normally expect (distance over which
> a given force is applied keeps rising) - but how does it measure
> "distance"?  Relative to what, exactly?   Without physical reaction mass,
> such a system has its own unique reference frame - from within which,
> energy may be conserved, but which from without, cannot be.
>
> I mean this not as a crtitique against the plausibility of such systems,
> and share the prevailing cautious optimism.  But if they do work, then we
> also have an energy anomaly.
>
> In the many years i've been researching classical symmetry breaks, one
> thing has become clear - the only way to explain away a real symmetry break
> is to invoke another somewhere else up or downstream (it's a standard
> recourse for pseudoskeptics).  As much as i'd welcome free energy, momentum
> and FTL travel, and despite Shawyer's assurances everything's classically
> consistent, these enigmatic implications remain..   for me, at least.
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:17 AM,  wrote:
>
>> 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
>> 

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

[mixent]

In reply to  Vibrator !'s message of Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:03:43 +:
Hi,
[snip]
>And so the question arises, how does the EM drive "know" what its reference 
>frame is?  Shawyer claims (or seems to imply) that the unit cost of 
>acceleration increases as we would normally expect (distance over which a 
>given force is applied keeps rising) - but how does it measure "distance"?  
>Relative to what, exactly?   Without physical reaction mass, such a system has 
>its own unique reference frame - from within which, energy may be conserved, 
>but which from without, cannot be.
>
>I mean this not as a crtitique against the plausibility of such systems, and 
>share the prevailing cautious optimism.  But if they do work, then we also 
>have an energy anomaly.
[snip]
Is the energy anomaly resolved if it pushes against the mass of the universe
(i.e. against space-time itself)? In which case it would indeed be just like a
train on rails. In short, momentum is conserved, and all the energy ends up with
the moving object. I suspect that this is the basis of Shawyers argument.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:Bacteria able to eat plastic bottles discovered by scientists

[Jed Rothwell]

By the way, here is some other news about plastics that has been widely
reported in Japan. This is good news for once.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/bacteria-able-to-eat-plastic-bottles-discovered-by-scientists-a6927636.html

- Jed

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

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson  wrote:

I suspect that the transportation of oil as well as its production cost
> would make it desirable to find local sources for the elements needed in
> those related products.


As far as I know, the only thing you want in plastic feedstock is "pure
hydrocarbon polymers." Hydrogen and carbon. Anything else is contamination.
That's what I have read, anyway. I expect that it will eventually be
possible to synthesize pure hydrocarbons from water and carbon rather than
refining oil, which is rather dirty stuff. Coal may be a good source of
carbon if there is not enough organic garbage or recycled plastic, or if it
is not convenient to extract carbon from atmospheric CO2. There are still
mountains of coal left. A small fraction of the coal mined today would
suffice.

Here is one source for the "pure" part:

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/hamman1/

Energy for plastic

. . . To begin, not all plastics are chiefly composed of hydrogen and
carbon like polyethylene. For example, PET is about 33% oxygen by mass
while PVC is about 57% chlorine by mass. [13] These additives come from
non-hydrocarbon feedstocks. To account for the hydrocarbon feedstock
energy, observe that three of the five most widely produced plastics,
namely polyethylene, polypropylene and polystyrene, together account for
nearly 60% of all plastics production. [4,5] Both polypropylene and
polystyrene are pure hydrocarbon polymers with similar heats of combustion
as their feedstock counterparts and polyethylene. . . .


- Jed

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

[Russ George]

Are you saying ‘why doesn’t this experimentalist do his experiment your way?’ 
That’s a bit presumptuous, clearly this guy has put in a lot of effort and 
diligence. His results are consistent with what other diligent experimentalists 
in the field have presented, faithfully matching their experiments though in a 
remarkably simple form. Noone of those others have done what you suggest and 
they seem to be very learned and well equipped and could have done so. The rule 
used to be in science that those with ‘good ideas’ were expected to contribute 
more than the ‘idea’ and do the work as well lest they be simply considered 
gadflies. The dire proliferation of the ‘skeptic’ point of view in science is 
the result of the rampant university puppy mills that have turned out legions 
of people with learning and no place to use it save in virtual realities.

 

The tiny wires and geometry that power the magnetron in the aforementioned 
experiment don’t appear to offer any support to a notion that some sort of 
thrust between the wires is possible… you might of course replicate the 
experiment with just the wires you speak of (leave out all the complex bits) 
and report on being able to produce a facsimile of the thrust reported by the 
differential in the wires push and pull.

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 12:57 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

I would love to see a real EM Drive but it is impossible to believe an 
experiment with external power supply lines attached.   Electric motors operate 
by utilizing the forces that exist between current carrying conductors.  Two 
wires will always push or pull against each other when they carry current and 
this effect must be eliminated in order to prove drive force.

Why does the experimenter not use some form of shielded on board battery for 
power?  A short duration test might be possible especially if they wish to 
convince many skeptics.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Russ George <  russ.geo...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <  vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 3:42 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

Here’s a link to a great EM Drive DIY experiment  
 
http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/#comment-10348

 

 

From: David Roberson [  mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 12:36 PM
To:   vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

I suppose we will have to discover that aether before we can have confidence in 
that possibility.

Would you expect a normal rocket to behave in the same manner if it had to push 
the aether out of its way?   Why would that not require both effects to be 
present thereby changing the reaction mass expelled by the standard rocket?

How would you detect the bow wave or other mass-equivalents to prove they 
exist?  Something must contain the energy that was lost due to operation of the 
drive and it should be measurable.  Then, you will need to modify Special 
Relativity in order to detect the true absolute reference frame of the universe.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene <  jone...@pacbell.net>
To: vortex-l  >
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 3:20 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

Stated another way – does the aether have mass or mass-equivalence (virtual 
mass or effective mass)? 

 

If so, and the EM drive is moving in aether, then leaving a wake (bow wave, 
eddy turbulence, kelvin wake, etc) also leaves a mass-equivalence.

 

 

From: David Roberson 

 

Good argument.  I just wanted to add one thought.

>From the EM drive's point of view the CoE must be violated because as it 
>accelerates in space a portion of it's mass must be converted into energy that 
>is used to power the drive.  When it ceases to use the drive it begins to 
>remain motionless in space from its point of view.   Where did that mass go 
>which was converted into energy that powered the drive?  Did it simply vanish?

 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Declaration from Eindhoven University of Technology related to M. Yildiz magnet motor

[David Roberson]

This subject has been discussed before and no one has ever convinced the crowd 
that magnetic motors can run for very extended periods of time while actually 
performing measurable amounts of work.  It is entirely possible to slowly 
degrade the permanent magnets as their fields are converted into other forms of 
energy which is what appears to be occurring within these motors.

If not energy stored within the permanent magnetic fields, what is the source 
of the load energy?   No one has adequately answered that question as far as I 
am aware.

I believe Mark spent a great deal of effort analyzing this subject and might 
want to offer his advice.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: H Ucar 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 3:46 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Declaration from Eindhoven University of Technology related 
to  M. Yildiz magnet motor



It is a complex situation for sure. It took 6 years for such an document to be 
publicly available. It is a first in the history for a device of apparently a 
perpetual machine of the first kind! 


The motor I observed running at the convention is a 5 kW design but only one of 
four of magnetic rows is populated said Yildiz. He said the earlier prototype 
demonstated in 2012 and 2014 was destroyed due centrifugal forces at over speed 
like 6 RPM while testing it without load (remind me the fate of Roschin and 
Godin's generator). This one with 1/4 of magnets ran comfortably at 2280 RPM 
with negligible load for 3 hours until manually stopped. It appears the speed 
is not vary much with the load and tend to fluctuate by itself. Mr. Yildiz 
expected th speed will gradually increase to 4500 RPM but only icreased from 
2200 to 2280 in this run. Motor surface temperature was 34 Centigrade, not much 
different from environment. I measured 37 degrees inside through a hole looking 
to the rotor. I can say the source of the energy is not thermal, assuming it 
would be cooler otherwise.


Reliability can be a long term issue like loosening of screws which fix the 
magnets in place or metal ageing.  In 2014, while examining the patent I 
thought bearings of rotor could be problematic if conventional steel bearings 
are used and they can not work well under strong magnetic field and can do 
short circuit the possible homopolar induction. At the convention I asked the 
bearing issue and he said he removed the bearings completely and the rotor is 
floating and kept in place with magnets very rigidly. That is magnetic bearing 
but even magnetic bearings needs mechanical stabilization on axis direction. I 
don't know he circumvented the Ernshaw theorem or not.


I will not speculate on the working principle of the device but the Nd magnets 
are very strong and really high quality, said having strength of 15K Gauss 
which correspond to grade N52 - N54. With hundreds of magnets the stress 
created on rotor and and stator and in between can reach several tons. In the 
context of new physics, a tiny asymmetry exploited from this stress would 
provide enough torque. 


The main mechanical issue appears to keep magnets in place. I recall from an 
earlier conversation that plastic armatures used in eariler prototypes would 
subject to partial melting due by the heat produced by microscopic work there. 
Anyway these are engineering issues, not obstacle for observing the phenomenon.


H Ucar




Jones Beene wrote:


 Mon, 14 Mar 2016 06:05:29 -0700

It is not ignored. It is a complicated situation. There are NDAs.

 


Like LENR, the technology works on occasion, but not reliably.

 

 

 

From: H Ucar 

 

I did not expected that this issue would be totally ignored here. So 

reciprocally, don't blame acedemic community for their own ignorances.Sent from 
mobile





-- Original message--
From: H Ucar
Date: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 12:34
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com;
Cc: 
Subject:Re: Declaration from Eindhoven University of Technology related to M. 
Yildiz magnet motor



I did not expected that this issue would be totally ignored here. So 
reciprocally, don't blame acedemic community for their own ignorances.








-- Original message--
From: H Ucar
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2016 21:36
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com;
Cc: 
Subject:Declaration from Eindhoven University of Technology related to M. 
Yildiz magnet motor



This is a serious achievement I think where TU/e wrote a declaration about 
Mumammer Yildiz magnet motor that state it runs and drives a load (without an 
input) and consists of plastic parts, magnets, fixing screws and a steel axis 
(shaft) and disks.


https://plus.google.com/104472960710595563193/posts/4LMQV3TzmvM




BTW, Mr. Yildiz has been at Istanbul Inventors Fair at 3-6 March 2016 where I 
visited his stand and witnessed starting of the motor, running about three 
hours and stopping it manually.


In contrast to internet community, engineers, academicians, business men and 
institutional top people who 

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

[David Roberson]

I would love to see a real EM Drive but it is impossible to believe an 
experiment with external power supply lines attached.   Electric motors operate 
by utilizing the forces that exist between current carrying conductors.  Two 
wires will always push or pull against each other when they carry current and 
this effect must be eliminated in order to prove drive force.

Why does the experimenter not use some form of shielded on board battery for 
power?  A short duration test might be possible especially if they wish to 
convince many skeptics.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Russ George 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 3:42 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)



Here’s a link to a great EM Drive DIY experiment 
http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/#comment-10348
 
 
From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 12:36 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
 
I suppose we will have to discover that aether before we can have confidence in 
that possibility.

Would you expect a normal rocket to behave in the same manner if it had to push 
the aether out of its way?   Why would that not require both effects to be 
present thereby changing the reaction mass expelled by the standard rocket?

How would you detect the bow wave or other mass-equivalents to prove they 
exist?  Something must contain the energy that was lost due to operation of the 
drive and it should be measurable.  Then, you will need to modify Special 
Relativity in order to detect the true absolute reference frame of the universe.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 3:20 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)


 

Stated another way – does the aether have mass or mass-equivalence (virtual 
mass or effective mass)? 

 

If so, and the EM drive is moving in aether, then leaving a wake (bow wave, 
eddy turbulence, kelvin wake, etc) also leaves a mass-equivalence.

 

 

From: David Roberson 

 

Good argument.  I just wanted to add one thought.

>From the EM drive's point of view the CoE must be violated because as it 
>accelerates in space a portion of it's mass must be converted into energy that 
>is used to power the drive.  When it ceases to use the drive it begins to 
>remain motionless in space from its point of view.   Where did that mass go 
>which was converted into energy that powered the drive?  Did it simply vanish?





 

[Vo]:Re: Declaration from Eindhoven University of Technology related to M. Yildiz magnet motor

[H Ucar]

It is a complex situation for sure. It took 6 years for such an document to be 
publicly available. It is a first in the history for a device of apparently a 
perpetual machine of the first kind! 
The motor I observed running at the convention is a 5 kW design but only one of 
four of magnetic rows is populated said Yildiz. He said the earlier prototype 
demonstated in 2012 and 2014 was destroyed due centrifugal forces at over speed 
like 6 RPM while testing it without load (remind me the fate of Roschin and 
Godin's generator). This one with 1/4 of magnets ran comfortably at 2280 RPM 
with negligible load for 3 hours until manually stopped. It appears the speed 
is not vary much with the load and tend to fluctuate by itself. Mr. Yildiz 
expected th speed will gradually increase to 4500 RPM but only icreased from 
2200 to 2280 in this run. Motor surface temperature was 34 Centigrade, not much 
different from environment. I measured 37 degrees inside through a hole looking 
to the rotor. I can say the source of the energy is not thermal, assuming it 
would be cooler otherwise.
Reliability can be a long term issue like loosening of screws which fix the 
magnets in place or metal ageing.  In 2014, while examining the patent I 
thought bearings of rotor could be problematic if conventional steel bearings 
are used and they can not work well under strong magnetic field and can do 
short circuit the possible homopolar induction. At the convention I asked the 
bearing issue and he said he removed the bearings completely and the rotor is 
floating and kept in place with magnets very rigidly. That is magnetic bearing 
but even magnetic bearings needs mechanical stabilization on axis direction. I 
don't know he circumvented the Ernshaw theorem or not.
I will not speculate on the working principle of the device but the Nd magnets 
are very strong and really high quality, said having strength of 15K Gauss 
which correspond to grade N52 - N54. With hundreds of magnets the stress 
created on rotor and and stator and in between can reach several tons. In the 
context of new physics, a tiny asymmetry exploited from this stress would 
provide enough torque. 
The main mechanical issue appears to keep magnets in place. I recall from an 
earlier conversation that plastic armatures used in eariler prototypes would 
subject to partial melting due by the heat produced by microscopic work there. 
Anyway these are engineering issues, not obstacle for observing the phenomenon.
H Ucar

Jones Beene wrote:
 Mon, 14 Mar 2016 06:05:29 -0700

It is not ignored. It is a complicated situation. There are NDAs.

 


Like LENR, the technology works on occasion, but not reliably.

 

 

 

From: H Ucar 

 

I did not expected that this issue would be totally ignored here. So 
reciprocally, don't blame acedemic community for their own ignorances.Sent from 
mobile

-- Original message--From: H UcarDate: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 12:34To: 
vortex-l@eskimo.com;Cc: Subject:Re: Declaration from Eindhoven University of 
Technology related to M. Yildiz magnet motor
I did not expected that this issue would be totally ignored here. So 
reciprocally, don't blame acedemic community for their own ignorances.


-- Original message--From: H UcarDate: Sat, Mar 5, 2016 21:36To: 
vortex-l@eskimo.com;Cc: Subject:Declaration from Eindhoven University of 
Technology related to M. Yildiz magnet motor
This is a serious achievement I think where TU/e wrote a declaration about 
Mumammer Yildiz magnet motor that state it runs and drives a load (without an 
input) and consists of plastic parts, magnets, fixing screws and a steel axis 
(shaft) and disks.
https://plus.google.com/104472960710595563193/posts/4LMQV3TzmvM

BTW, Mr. Yildiz has been at Istanbul Inventors Fair at 3-6 March 2016 where I 
visited his stand and witnessed starting of the motor, running about three 
hours and stopping it manually.
In contrast to internet community, engineers, academicians, business men and 
institutional top people who visited him in my presence there were not 
skeptical at all. Actually the stand was quite ordinary and the motor is 
running in a corner quietly and boring and Mr. Yildiz explains that the motor 
runs with the 'magnetic energy'.
It expected important disclosure in April 2016
H Ucar

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

[Russ George]

Here’s a link to a great EM Drive DIY experiment  
 
http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/#comment-10348

 

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 12:36 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

I suppose we will have to discover that aether before we can have confidence in 
that possibility.

Would you expect a normal rocket to behave in the same manner if it had to push 
the aether out of its way?   Why would that not require both effects to be 
present thereby changing the reaction mass expelled by the standard rocket?

How would you detect the bow wave or other mass-equivalents to prove they 
exist?  Something must contain the energy that was lost due to operation of the 
drive and it should be measurable.  Then, you will need to modify Special 
Relativity in order to detect the true absolute reference frame of the universe.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene <  jone...@pacbell.net>
To: vortex-l <  vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 3:20 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

Stated another way – does the aether have mass or mass-equivalence (virtual 
mass or effective mass)? 

 

If so, and the EM drive is moving in aether, then leaving a wake (bow wave, 
eddy turbulence, kelvin wake, etc) also leaves a mass-equivalence.

 

 

From: David Roberson 

 

Good argument.  I just wanted to add one thought.

>From the EM drive's point of view the CoE must be violated because as it 
>accelerates in space a portion of it's mass must be converted into energy that 
>is used to power the drive.  When it ceases to use the drive it begins to 
>remain motionless in space from its point of view.   Where did that mass go 
>which was converted into energy that powered the drive?  Did it simply vanish?



 

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

[David Roberson]

I suppose we will have to discover that aether before we can have confidence in 
that possibility.

Would you expect a normal rocket to behave in the same manner if it had to push 
the aether out of its way?   Why would that not require both effects to be 
present thereby changing the reaction mass expelled by the standard rocket?

How would you detect the bow wave or other mass-equivalents to prove they 
exist?  Something must contain the energy that was lost due to operation of the 
drive and it should be measurable.  Then, you will need to modify Special 
Relativity in order to detect the true absolute reference frame of the universe.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 3:20 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)



 
Stated another way – does the aether have mass or mass-equivalence (virtual 
mass or effective mass)? 
 
If so, and the EM drive is moving in aether, then leaving a wake (bow wave, 
eddy turbulence, kelvin wake, etc) also leaves a mass-equivalence.
 
 
From: David Roberson 
 
Good argument.  I just wanted to add one thought.

>From the EM drive's point of view the CoE must be violated because as it 
>accelerates in space a portion of it's mass must be converted into energy that 
>is used to power the drive.  When it ceases to use the drive it begins to 
>remain motionless in space from its point of view.   Where did that mass go 
>which was converted into energy that powered the drive?  Did it simply vanish?





 

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

[Roarty, Francis X]

I vote for accumulated time dilation that unbalances one of the spatial axii 
wrt radiation pressure – the geometry and the microwave energy conspire to 
slightly segregate the vacuum density in the cavity and the radiation path 
slightly prefers one region of segregation over the other, bouncing around in 
resonance it slowly accumulates a time dilation and a corresponding imbalance 
in radiation pressure wrt spatial axii.

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 2:15 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

OK.  I have always seen evidence that linear and angular momentums are 
orthogonal to each other somewhat like sine waves and cosine waves.  Each one 
is conserved independently of the other.

This is a classical viewpoint so perhaps there may exist a quantum mechanical 
version that is different, but I am not aware of that case.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook >
To: vortex-l >
Sent: Sun, Mar 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
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 !

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

[David Roberson]

I suspect that the transportation of oil as well as its production cost would 
make it desirable to find local sources for the elements needed in those 
related products.  After all, every element that oil is produced from is 
present just about everywhere, particularly if you decide to take carbon out of 
the air.

It seems logical that the distant future world systems will operate in the 
simplest manner available with the least human intervention required.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 2:51 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NY Times, "How Saudi Arabia Turned Its Greatest Weapon on 
Itself"




David Roberson  wrote:



You have put together an excellent list of current products that are produced 
from petroleum.  The question is whether or not good replacements for these 
needs can be obtained once energy costs become insignificant.


Why would we replace them? Oil be very cheap when 80% of the market for it goes 
away, so I assume we will continue to make plastic out of oil, and the cost of 
plastic will fall.


I think in the long term, synthetic hydrocarbons will be cheaper than natural 
oil because you do not have to extract it from the ground or ship it from 
distant places, and because the raw materials are not only free, but in many 
cases people will pay you to take them. But in the short term I suppose we will 
continue to use oil as a raw material. This will not add to global warming so 
it will not cause harm.


- Jed

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

[Jones Beene]

 

Stated another way – does the aether have mass or mass-equivalence (virtual 
mass or effective mass)? 

 

If so, and the EM drive is moving in aether, then leaving a wake (bow wave, 
eddy turbulence, kelvin wake, etc) also leaves a mass-equivalence.

 

 

From: David Roberson 

 

Good argument.  I just wanted to add one thought.

>From the EM drive's point of view the CoE must be violated because as it 
>accelerates in space a portion of it's mass must be converted into energy that 
>is used to power the drive.  When it ceases to use the drive it begins to 
>remain motionless in space from its point of view.   Where did that mass go 
>which was converted into energy that powered the drive?  Did it simply vanish?




 

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

[David Roberson]

I have noticed a significant reduction in train cars transporting coal to the 
east coast throughout this region.  It gives me concern for the health of the 
railroad system that depends upon this market.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 2:14 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NY Times, "How Saudi Arabia Turned Its Greatest Weapon on 
Itself"




I wrote:
 


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.




U.S. coal consumption is down by 24% since 2001. See:


Consumption for electricity generation for coal, annual

Indexed to 2001 as percent


http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/?src=home-f1#/topic/3?agg=1,0,2=8=g=o3g=ELEC.CONS_EG.COW-US-99.A=ELEC.CONS_EG.COW-US-99.A~ELEC.CONS_EG.COW-US-1.A~ELEC.CONS_EG.COW-US-94.A~ELEC.CONS_EG.COW-US-96.A~ELEC.CONS_EG.COW-US-97.A=ELEC.CONS_EG.COW-US-99.A=A=1=linechart=pin=s==0=0



Coal as a percent of electric power generation has fallen 29%. I do not see 
anything on the horizon that will reverse this trend. If things continue this 
way, coal will gradually be replaced with wind, solar and natural gas. See:




http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/?src=home-f1#/topic/0?agg=2,0,1=vvg=g=g=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.COW-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.NG-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.NUC-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.HYC-US-99.A=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.COW-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.NG-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.NUC-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.HYC-US-99.A=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-99.A=A=2001=2015=1=linechart=pin=s==0=0



- Jed

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

[Russ George]

Clearly a small but very powerful submarine type nuclear fission reactor
looks to be able to power a substantial starship. The reactor would need
very little heavy shielding as it could be positioned so as to shield only
the tiny sector of emissions directed at vulnerable sections of the ship. No
issue emitting radiation into the void of space, indeed one would want to
emit as much to the void as possible as cooling. Of course the utility of a
'cold fusion' direct to electricity reactor is very much more appealing. In
either case the 'thermal radiator' will be the challenge.

-Original Message-
From: Roarty, Francis X [mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 11:36 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:EM Drive(s)

Even kilowatts of electrical energy for kilowatts of propellant-less thrust
- don't need to get OU if we can just dispense with carrying fuel!

-Original Message-
From: Russ George [mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 4:40 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:EM Drive(s)

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?

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

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson  wrote:

You have put together an excellent list of current products that are
> produced from petroleum.  The question is whether or not good replacements
> for these needs can be obtained once energy costs become insignificant.


Why would we replace them? Oil be very cheap when 80% of the market for it
goes away, so I assume we will continue to make plastic out of oil, and the
cost of plastic will fall.

I think in the long term, synthetic hydrocarbons will be cheaper than
natural oil because you do not have to extract it from the ground or ship
it from distant places, and because the raw materials are not only free,
but in many cases people will pay you to take them. But in the short term I
suppose we will continue to use oil as a raw material. This will not add to
global warming so it will not cause harm.

- Jed

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

[David Roberson]

Good argument.  I just wanted to add one thought.

>From the EM drive's point of view the CoE must be violated because as it 
>accelerates in space a portion of it's mass must be converted into energy that 
>is used to power the drive.  When it ceases to use the drive it begins to 
>remain motionless in space from its point of view.   Where did that mass go 
>which was converted into energy that powered the drive?  Did it simply vanish?

This problem does not exist for normal rocket engines that expel a reaction 
mass.  In that case, the energy is accounted for by the mass that is speeding 
rapidly away from the rocket.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Vibrator ! 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 7:03 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)



Yes, and this is why KE = 1/2 MV^2 - ie., why the acceleration unit cost 
escalates; a given force has to be applied over an ever-greater distance as 
velocity (time rate of change of position) increases.  Alternatively, we could 
hold displacement constant and progressively raise the force magnitude.  


Yet Craig still seems to have a point - without some kind of corporeal reaction 
mass, what is an EM drive's velocity actually relative to?  What's its 
reference frame, if not the thing it's pushing against?


To illustrate the conundrum, suppose i have an EM drive aboard a train, and you 
the observer are standing on the platform as the train passes through the 
station:  I fire the engine, and it accelerates by 1 meter / sec.


Suppose the engine weighs 10 kg.  From my perspective, its KE has increased by 
5 Joules - ie. it's perrformed 5 J of mechanical work, regardless of how much 
more energy may have been wasted to heat.


But if the train was already travelling at 10 m/s, and the drive accelerated in 
the same direction, then from your stationary perspective the drive has 
accelerated up from 10 to 11 m/s - and for a 10 kg mass that's a workload of 
105 J - bringing its KE up from 500 J to 605 J.


So, has the drive burned 5 J or 105 J?



If i cheated - the drive doesn't really work, and i just gave it a 
surreptitious shove - this same paradox is resolved by a corresponding 
deceleration of the train - ie. if i accelerate a small mass against the 
inertia of a larger mass, the latter is decelerated and net momentum is 
conserved.


Except here, the drive ISN'T pushing against the train.  Yet it still benefits 
from its ambient velocity.  Net momentum is NOT conserved, and neither is 
energy.



And so the question arises, how does the EM drive "know" what its reference 
frame is?  Shawyer claims (or seems to imply) that the unit cost of 
acceleration increases as we would normally expect (distance over which a given 
force is applied keeps rising) - but how does it measure "distance"?  Relative 
to what, exactly?   Without physical reaction mass, such a system has its own 
unique reference frame - from within which, energy may be conserved, but which 
from without, cannot be.


I mean this not as a crtitique against the plausibility of such systems, and 
share the prevailing cautious optimism.  But if they do work, then we also have 
an energy anomaly.


In the many years i've been researching classical symmetry breaks, one thing 
has become clear - the only way to explain away a real symmetry break is to 
invoke another somewhere else up or downstream (it's a standard recourse for 
pseudoskeptics).  As much as i'd welcome free energy, momentum and FTL travel, 
and despite Shawyer's assurances everything's classically consistent, these 
enigmatic implications remain..   for me, at least.




On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:17 AM,   wrote:

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

[Roarty, Francis X]

Even kilowatts of electrical energy for kilowatts of propellant-less thrust - 
don't need to get OU if we can just dispense with carrying fuel!

-Original Message-
From: Russ George [mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 4:40 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:EM Drive(s)

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?

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

[David Roberson]

Mark,

You have put together an excellent list of current products that are produced 
from petroleum.  The question is whether or not good replacements for these 
needs can be obtained once energy costs become insignificant.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 2:26 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:NY Times, "How Saudi Arabia Turned Its Greatest Weapon on 
Itself"



Although the largest uses for petroleum are energy/transportation, which would 
be replaced by LENR, there are numerous other uses for petroleum which will not 
be replaced by LENR, so there will always be some market for it.  Here are some 
of those other uses:
 
Agriculture
One of the most important uses of petroleum is in the production of ammonia to 
be used as the nitrogen source in agricultural fertilizers. In the early 20th 
century, Fritz Haber invented a process that allowed for industrial scale 
production of ammonia. Prior to that, ammonia for fertilizer came only from 
manure and other biological processes. Agriculture also depends on the use of 
pesticides to ensure consistent, healthy crop yields. Pesticides are almost all 
produced from oil. 
 
Plastics
Plastic is a staple of modern life. From computer monitors to nylon to 
Styrofoam, plastics are integral aspects of many manufactured products. 
Polystyrene, from which Styrofoam is made, and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) were 
both products of post-World War II industrialization. Nylon, which is in 
everything from stockings to mechanical gears and even in car engines, is the 
most successful petroleum-based plastic to date. Most plastics come from 
olefins, which include ethylene and propylene.
 
Tires
Tires are made of rubber. Until 1910 all rubber was produced from natural 
elastomers obtained from plants. The need for synthetic rubber was relatively 
small until World War II, which resulted in embargos on natural rubber from 
South America and the need to produce synthetic rubber on a large scale. Rubber 
is primarily a product of butadiene.
 
Pharmaceuticals
Mineral oil and petrolatum are petroleum byproducts used in many creams and 
topical pharmaceuticals. Tar, for psoriasis and dandruff, is also produced from 
petroleum. Most pharmaceuticals are complex organic molecules, which have their 
basis in smaller, simpler organic molecules. Most of these precursors are 
petroleum byproducts.
 
Dyes, Detergents, and Other
Petroleum distillates such as benzene, toluene, xylene, and others provide the 
raw material for products that include dyes, synthetic detergents, and fabrics. 
Benzene and toluene are the starting materials used to make polyurethanes, 
which are used in surfactants, oils, and even to varnish wood. Even sulfuric 
acid has its origins in the sulfur that is removed from petroleum.
 
Partial List of Unexpected Products Made from or Containing Petroleum:
Ink
Upholstery
CDs
Vitamin Capsule
Denture Adhesive
Putty
Guitar Strings
Heart Valves
Anesthetics
Cortisone
Toilet Seats
Crayons
Pillows
Artificial Turf
Deodorant
Lipstick
Hair Coloring
Aspirin
Makeup
Candle wax
 
-mark
 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 6:41 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NY Times, "How Saudi Arabia Turned Its Greatest Weapon on 
Itself"

 


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)

[David Roberson]

OK.  I have always seen evidence that linear and angular momentums are 
orthogonal to each other somewhat like sine waves and cosine waves.  Each one 
is conserved independently of the other.

This is a classical viewpoint so perhaps there may exist a quantum mechanical 
version that is different, but I am not aware of that case.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Mar 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)




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

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> 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.
>

U.S. coal consumption is down by 24% since 2001. See:

Consumption for electricity generation for coal, annual
Indexed to 2001 as percent

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/?src=home-f1#/topic/3?agg=1,0,2=8=g=o3g=ELEC.CONS_EG.COW-US-99.A=ELEC.CONS_EG.COW-US-99.A~ELEC.CONS_EG.COW-US-1.A~ELEC.CONS_EG.COW-US-94.A~ELEC.CONS_EG.COW-US-96.A~ELEC.CONS_EG.COW-US-97.A=ELEC.CONS_EG.COW-US-99.A=A=1=linechart=pin=s==0=0

Coal as a percent of electric power generation has fallen 29%. I do not see
anything on the horizon that will reverse this trend. If things continue
this way, coal will gradually be replaced with wind, solar and natural gas.
See:

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/?src=home-f1#/topic/0?agg=2,0,1=vvg=g=g=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.COW-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.NG-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.NUC-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.HYC-US-99.A=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.COW-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.NG-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.NUC-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.HYC-US-99.A=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-99.A=A=2001=2015=1=linechart=pin=s==0=0

- Jed

RE: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Russ George]

It’s right there for all to see hidden behind the Cheshire Cat’s grin!

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 11:07 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

 

Can you point out the location of the mouse in Rossi's patent?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil  >
To: vortex-l  >
Sent: Sun, Mar 13, 2016 3:34 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

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

 



 

Re: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[David Roberson]

Can you point out the location of the mouse in Rossi's patent?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Mar 13, 2016 3:34 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note



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

[Vo]:today a bit about accountability in LENR

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/03/mar-14-2016-lenr-today-about.html

I still cannot show you the Balance of the Accountant re energy bought and
sold in the Test- however I am discussing about accountability
In LENR affairs.

Wish you well, including brave patience

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

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

[Russ George]

Great vibrations but where you say, “Without physical reaction mass, such a 
system has its own unique reference frame - from within which, energy may be 
conserved, but which from without, cannot be.”   Might we start using common 
terminology…. Your description is of course more popularly known as the ‘warp 
bubble’;)

 

 

From: Vibrator ! [mailto:mrvibrat...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 4:04 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

Yes, and this is why KE = 1/2 MV^2 - ie., why the acceleration unit cost 
escalates; a given force has to be applied over an ever-greater distance as 
velocity (time rate of change of position) increases.  Alternatively, we could 
hold displacement constant and progressively raise the force magnitude.  

Yet Craig still seems to have a point - without some kind of corporeal reaction 
mass, what is an EM drive's velocity actually relative to?  What's its 
reference frame, if not the thing it's pushing against?

To illustrate the conundrum, suppose i have an EM drive aboard a train, and you 
the observer are standing on the platform as the train passes through the 
station:  I fire the engine, and it accelerates by 1 meter / sec.

Suppose the engine weighs 10 kg.  From my perspective, its KE has increased by 
5 Joules - ie. it's perrformed 5 J of mechanical work, regardless of how much 
more energy may have been wasted to heat.

But if the train was already travelling at 10 m/s, and the drive accelerated in 
the same direction, then from your stationary perspective the drive has 
accelerated up from 10 to 11 m/s - and for a 10 kg mass that's a workload of 
105 J - bringing its KE up from 500 J to 605 J.

So, has the drive burned 5 J or 105 J?



If i cheated - the drive doesn't really work, and i just gave it a 
surreptitious shove - this same paradox is resolved by a corresponding 
deceleration of the train - ie. if i accelerate a small mass against the 
inertia of a larger mass, the latter is decelerated and net momentum is 
conserved.

Except here, the drive ISN'T pushing against the train.  Yet it still benefits 
from its ambient velocity.  Net momentum is NOT conserved, and neither is 
energy.



And so the question arises, how does the EM drive "know" what its reference 
frame is?  Shawyer claims (or seems to imply) that the unit cost of 
acceleration increases as we would normally expect (distance over which a given 
force is applied keeps rising) - but how does it measure "distance"?  Relative 
to what, exactly?   Without physical reaction mass, such a system has its own 
unique reference frame - from within which, energy may be conserved, but which 
from without, cannot be.

I mean this not as a crtitique against the plausibility of such systems, and 
share the prevailing cautious optimism.  But if they do work, then we also have 
an energy anomaly.

In the many years i've been researching classical symmetry breaks, one thing 
has become clear - the only way to explain away a real symmetry break is to 
invoke another somewhere else up or downstream (it's a standard recourse for 
pseudoskeptics).  As much as i'd welcome free energy, momentum and FTL travel, 
and despite Shawyer's assurances everything's classically consistent, these 
enigmatic implications remain..   for me, at least.

 

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:17 AM,  > wrote:

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]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[H LV]

The common wisdom is that the laws of motion are not necessarily in
effect when a mind is moved. In this situation a given action does not
necessarily result in an equal and opposite reaction. Action
instigates a response which from the point of view of the action
appears as an under or an over reaction or a "misdirected" reaction.
However, material reductionists hold that mind is ultimately
explainable in terms of the laws of motion so any apparent
inconsistency with the laws of motion is just apparent and not real.
Can measurement show this object does not conform with the laws of
motion. If it can then there is case to be made that the mathematics
of mind are not reducible to the laws of motion.

Harry

Harry

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Vibrator !  wrote:
> Yes, and this is why KE = 1/2 MV^2 - ie., why the acceleration unit cost
> escalates; a given force has to be applied over an ever-greater distance as
> velocity (time rate of change of position) increases.  Alternatively, we
> could hold displacement constant and progressively raise the force
> magnitude.
>
> Yet Craig still seems to have a point - without some kind of corporeal
> reaction mass, what is an EM drive's velocity actually relative to?  What's
> its reference frame, if not the thing it's pushing against?
>
> To illustrate the conundrum, suppose i have an EM drive aboard a train, and
> you the observer are standing on the platform as the train passes through
> the station:  I fire the engine, and it accelerates by 1 meter / sec.
>
> Suppose the engine weighs 10 kg.  From my perspective, its KE has increased
> by 5 Joules - ie. it's perrformed 5 J of mechanical work, regardless of how
> much more energy may have been wasted to heat.
>
> But if the train was already travelling at 10 m/s, and the drive accelerated
> in the same direction, then from your stationary perspective the drive has
> accelerated up from 10 to 11 m/s - and for a 10 kg mass that's a workload of
> 105 J - bringing its KE up from 500 J to 605 J.
>
> So, has the drive burned 5 J or 105 J?
>
>
> If i cheated - the drive doesn't really work, and i just gave it a
> surreptitious shove - this same paradox is resolved by a corresponding
> deceleration of the train - ie. if i accelerate a small mass against the
> inertia of a larger mass, the latter is decelerated and net momentum is
> conserved.
>
> Except here, the drive ISN'T pushing against the train.  Yet it still
> benefits from its ambient velocity.  Net momentum is NOT conserved, and
> neither is energy.
>
>
> And so the question arises, how does the EM drive "know" what its reference
> frame is?  Shawyer claims (or seems to imply) that the unit cost of
> acceleration increases as we would normally expect (distance over which a
> given force is applied keeps rising) - but how does it measure "distance"?
> Relative to what, exactly?   Without physical reaction mass, such a system
> has its own unique reference frame - from within which, energy may be
> conserved, but which from without, cannot be.
>
> I mean this not as a crtitique against the plausibility of such systems, and
> share the prevailing cautious optimism.  But if they do work, then we also
> have an energy anomaly.
>
> In the many years i've been researching classical symmetry breaks, one thing
> has become clear - the only way to explain away a real symmetry break is to
> invoke another somewhere else up or downstream (it's a standard recourse for
> pseudoskeptics).  As much as i'd welcome free energy, momentum and FTL
> travel, and despite Shawyer's assurances everything's classically
> consistent, these enigmatic implications remain..   for me, at least.
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:17 AM,  wrote:
>>
>> 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"

[Chris Zell]

It appears from various threads that the issue of ionizing radiation emissions 
is still unsettled.

That could bring up yet more NIMBY-ism.  For example, I bought a gift that was 
a glow in the dark keychain, powered by tritium. I had to buy it off Ebay from 
Britain as the US is too phobic to allow practical tritium lights for sale. 
It’s ridiculous.

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.
>

I do not know how long it will take to get started. I cannot predict when
cold fusion will become a practical source of energy. There is so much
opposition to it, and so little research, it may never become practical.
However, if it does become practical, I can predict it will not take long
to replace all automobiles with cold fusion models. I explained why here:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthefuturem.pdf

See Fig. 1.

The market forces affecting electric power are different. That might take
longer.

- Jed

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

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> The non-energy use of oil used to be about 10% of total production,
> including about 2% for plastic feedstock. Some natural gas is also used in
> nonenergy applications.
>

Correction: it was 17% in 2000. It was 6.4 quads out of 38.8 for petroleum.
See the last page here:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NRELenergyover.pdf


Chris Zell  wrote:

Thermal depolymerization will require refineries, of a sort – together with
> the attendant cancer-causing leaks/byproducts.
>

These can be small refineries. I have seen photos of some the size of
houses. They can probably be made fully automatic and the size of
automobiles for local production of plastic feedstock out of coal and
water. Possibly the size of coffee makers. They can be made as leakproof as
any other industrial machine. Organic materials are not usually
cancer-causing. We have machines that safely handle things like battery
acid which is probably more dangerous.



> Something is wrong with depolymerization, perhaps politically because we
> don’t have it en masse today.
>

The problems have been that it is still too expensive. It cannot compete
with naturally produced oil. Also some of the plants made a bad smell.
Problems like that can be fixed. Here is a company that tried but went out
of business:

https://gigaom.com/2009/03/05/biofuel-maker-changing-world-files-for-bankruptcy/

- Jed

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

[Chris Zell]

Thermal depolymerization will require refineries, of a sort – together with the 
attendant cancer-causing leaks/byproducts.  And there will be the usual 
NIMBY-ism about their siteing.  Maybe they could convert existing refineries or 
ship them off to the third world, in which bribes and repression will take care 
of objections.

Something is wrong with depolymerization, perhaps politically because we don’t 
have it en masse today.   Plans about using animal wastes were made many years 
ago and the synthetic fuel technology of Nazi Germany is 70 years old. You 
would think that with a mostly free fuel source and automation ( instead of WW2 
slaves) that the economics would work out.

   I can only hope that LENR is truly decentralized as to its production – 
otherwise the stagnation will never end.  I think there is enough evidence 
being spilled out about Saudi intentions currently that reveals how powerful 
these repressive international forces have been.  The alternative energy plans 
of the Carter Administration were most of 40 years ago and they successfully 
stopped them.

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

[Jed Rothwell]

MarkI-ZeroPoint  wrote:

Although the largest uses for petroleum are energy/transportation, which
> would be replaced by LENR, there are numerous other uses for petroleum
> which will not be replaced by LENR, so there will always be some market for
> it.
>

The non-energy use of oil used to be about 10% of total production,
including about 2% for plastic feedstock. Some natural gas is also used in
nonenergy applications.

With cold fusion, I expect most of this market can be met with synthetic
hydrocarbons. This will be cheaper and safer. This is already being done
with thermal depolymerization of sewage, garbage, plastic, agricultural
waste and other organic waste to produce oil and fertilizer. This has the
enormous advantage that the starting materials are not only free, people
pay you to take them. You make money on both ends.

There is nowhere near enough organic garbage to produce all of the oil we
need for fuel, but there is enough to meet these other demands.

Thermal depolymerization takes some energy, although not as much is you get
from burning the fuel. With cold fusion it would not matter how much it
takes.

In the more distant future, I predict that people may use cold fusion
produce huge quantities of synthetic coal or oil from CO2 and water, and
from deadwood, in order to reduce the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere
and reverse global warming. This oil and coal will be a useless waste
product which will be sequestered deep underground. In other words, we will
have reverse oil wells and coal mines. There are plenty of deep holes in
which to put the coal.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Re: Declaration from Eindhoven University of Technology related to M. Yildiz magnet motor

[Jones Beene]

It is not ignored. It is a complicated situation. There are NDAs.

 

Like LENR, the technology works on occasion, but not reliably.

 

 

 

From: H Ucar 

 

I did not expected that this issue would be totally ignored here. So 
reciprocally, don't blame acedemic community for their own ignorances.

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Declaration from Eindhoven University of Technology related to M. Yildiz magnet motor

[a.ashfield]

H Ucar,
"I did not expected that this issue would be totally ignored here. So 
reciprocally, don't blame acedemic community for their own ignorances."


I had seen various articles about the Yildiz motor over the years that 
looked intriguing but often had a sad ending where the promised 
independent evaluation had fallen through.  As far as I could tell, not 
due to Mr. Yildiz's fault.


Because of the Conservation of Energy Law it really does require an 
independent test.  With known science the only way it could work is by 
using up the potential energy of the permanent magnets.
It is possible this is another case where the simple assumption like the 
Coulomb barrier would prevent LENR from working and it shouldn't be 
dismissed without looking.

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

[Vibrator !]

Yes, and this is why KE = 1/2 MV^2 - ie., why the acceleration unit cost
escalates; a given force has to be applied over an ever-greater distance as
velocity (time rate of change of position) increases.  Alternatively, we
could hold displacement constant and progressively raise the force
magnitude.

Yet Craig still seems to have a point - without some kind of corporeal
reaction mass, what is an EM drive's velocity actually relative to?  What's
its reference frame, if not the thing it's pushing against?

To illustrate the conundrum, suppose i have an EM drive aboard a train, and
you the observer are standing on the platform as the train passes through
the station:  I fire the engine, and it accelerates by 1 meter / sec.

Suppose the engine weighs 10 kg.  From my perspective, its KE has increased
by 5 Joules - ie. it's perrformed 5 J of mechanical work, regardless of how
much more energy may have been wasted to heat.

But if the train was already travelling at 10 m/s, and the drive
accelerated in the same direction, then from your stationary perspective
the drive has accelerated up from 10 to 11 m/s - and for a 10 kg mass
that's a workload of 105 J - bringing its KE up from 500 J to 605 J.

So, has the drive burned 5 J or 105 J?


If i cheated - the drive doesn't really work, and i just gave it a
surreptitious shove - this same paradox is resolved by a corresponding
deceleration of the train - ie. if i accelerate a small mass against the
inertia of a larger mass, the latter is decelerated and net momentum is
conserved.

Except here, the drive ISN'T pushing against the train.  Yet it still
benefits from its ambient velocity.  Net momentum is NOT conserved, and
neither is energy.


And so the question arises, how does the EM drive "know" what its reference
frame is?  Shawyer claims (or seems to imply) that the unit cost of
acceleration increases as we would normally expect (distance over which a
given force is applied keeps rising) - but how does it measure "distance"?
Relative to what, exactly?   Without physical reaction mass, such a system
has its own unique reference frame - from within which, energy may be
conserved, but which from without, cannot be.

I mean this not as a crtitique against the plausibility of such systems,
and share the prevailing cautious optimism.  But if they do work, then we
also have an energy anomaly.

In the many years i've been researching classical symmetry breaks, one
thing has become clear - the only way to explain away a real symmetry break
is to invoke another somewhere else up or downstream (it's a standard
recourse for pseudoskeptics).  As much as i'd welcome free energy, momentum
and FTL travel, and despite Shawyer's assurances everything's classically
consistent, these enigmatic implications remain..   for me, at least.

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:17 AM,  wrote:

> 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
>
>

[Vo]:Re: Declaration from Eindhoven University of Technology related to M. Yildiz magnet motor

[H Ucar]

I did not expected that this issue would be totally ignored here. So 
reciprocally, don't blame acedemic community for their own ignorances.


-- Original message--From: H UcarDate: Sat, Mar 5, 2016 21:36To: 
vortex-l@eskimo.com;Cc: Subject:Declaration from Eindhoven University of 
Technology related to M. Yildiz magnet motor
This is a serious achievement I think where TU/e wrote a declaration about 
Mumammer Yildiz magnet motor that state it runs and drives a load (without an 
input) and consists of plastic parts, magnets, fixing screws and a steel axis 
(shaft) and disks.
https://plus.google.com/104472960710595563193/posts/4LMQV3TzmvM

BTW, Mr. Yildiz has been at Istanbul Inventors Fair at 3-6 March 2016 where I 
visited his stand and witnessed starting of the motor, running about three 
hours and stopping it manually.
In contrast to internet community, engineers, academicians, business men and 
institutional top people who visited him in my presence there were not 
skeptical at all. Actually the stand was quite ordinary and the motor is 
running in a corner quietly and boring and Mr. Yildiz explains that the motor 
runs with the 'magnetic energy'.
It expected important disclosure in April 2016
H Ucar

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

[Craig Haynie]

"Acceleration produces a force. Force times distance = energy. "

I am aware that this is a well-vetted, common equation; but if used in 
this case, then an object accelerating at 1 m/s^2 for 10 seconds, and 
travelling at 200 m/s, with respect to a common point, would require 
approximately twice as much energy as an object accelerating at 1 m/s^2 
for 10 seconds, and travelling at 100 m/s.


As Einstein asked, which one is travelling at which speed? From the 
point of view of the first object, it doesn't know that it's travelling 
at 200 m/s. It sees the common point moving by at 200 m/s. When 
calculating the acceleration of a rocket, one doesn't use distance 
travelled. The calculation uses force multiplied by time. The 
acceleration doesn't drop off as the rocket increases in speed.


Craig

On 03/14/2016 12:17 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

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"

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Although the largest uses for petroleum are energy/transportation, which would 
be replaced by LENR, there are numerous other uses for petroleum which will not 
be replaced by LENR, so there will always be some market for it.  Here are some 
of those other uses:

 

Agriculture

One of the most important uses of petroleum is in the production of ammonia to 
be used as the nitrogen source in agricultural fertilizers. In the early 20th 
century, Fritz Haber invented a process that allowed for industrial scale 
production of ammonia. Prior to that, ammonia for fertilizer came only from 
manure and other biological processes. Agriculture also depends on the use of 
pesticides to ensure consistent, healthy crop yields. Pesticides are almost all 
produced from oil. 

 

Plastics

Plastic is a staple of modern life. From computer monitors to nylon to 
Styrofoam, plastics are integral aspects of many manufactured products. 
Polystyrene, from which Styrofoam is made, and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) were 
both products of post-World War II industrialization. Nylon, which is in 
everything from stockings to mechanical gears and even in car engines, is the 
most successful petroleum-based plastic to date. Most plastics come from 
olefins, which include ethylene and propylene.

 

Tires

Tires are made of rubber. Until 1910 all rubber was produced from natural 
elastomers obtained from plants. The need for synthetic rubber was relatively 
small until World War II, which resulted in embargos on natural rubber from 
South America and the need to produce synthetic rubber on a large scale. Rubber 
is primarily a product of butadiene.

 

Pharmaceuticals

Mineral oil and petrolatum are petroleum byproducts used in many creams and 
topical pharmaceuticals. Tar, for psoriasis and dandruff, is also produced from 
petroleum. Most pharmaceuticals are complex organic molecules, which have their 
basis in smaller, simpler organic molecules. Most of these precursors are 
petroleum byproducts.

 

Dyes, Detergents, and Other

Petroleum distillates such as benzene, toluene, xylene, and others provide the 
raw material for products that include dyes, synthetic detergents, and fabrics. 
Benzene and toluene are the starting materials used to make polyurethanes, 
which are used in surfactants, oils, and even to varnish wood. Even sulfuric 
acid has its origins in the sulfur that is removed from petroleum.

 

Partial List of Unexpected Products Made from or Containing Petroleum:

Ink

Upholstery

CDs

Vitamin Capsule

Denture Adhesive

Putty

Guitar Strings

Heart Valves

Anesthetics

Cortisone

Toilet Seats

Crayons

Pillows

Artificial Turf

Deodorant

Lipstick

Hair Coloring

Aspirin

Makeup

Candle wax

 

-mark

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 6:41 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NY Times, "How Saudi Arabia Turned Its Greatest Weapon on 
Itself"

 

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