Re: [Vo]:Rewind

[H LV]

Rocket launch play backwards.
https://youtu.be/dGf4iXK95SY

Harry

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

[H LV]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Vibrator !  wrote:
> That's conflating relativistic mass with rest mass.  I know the conclusion
> that potential energy raises a system's mass is commonly accepted as an
> inevitable implication of GR, but it's one frought with pitfalls:
>
> For instance, i dig a 1 meter-deep hole next to a 1 kg mass, at 1 G the
> system now has 9.81 J of PE.  But is there a relativistic mass increase (i
> don't care how small it'd be - multiply the scale if you wish)?
>
> What if the mass never falls into the hole?
>
> Similarly, a vertical wheel is balanced on a hilltop, with an unequal drop
> on either side, so the system's PE is indeterminate - could relativistic
> mass also be indeterminate?
>

The gravitational potential energy has a maximum finite value at an
infinite distance from the earth.
The point at infinity ensures that gravitational potential energy does
not have to be arbitrary.
As one moves closer to Earth the potential energy decreases relative
to this maxium value.

Harry

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

[Vibrator !]

>From a static observer's POV, such a craft would be able to gain more KE
than the PE it was provided with.  So spacetime would have to be positively
contributing energy, rather than the craft simply swimming in quantum goo.

On board the craft, CoE holds - the correct amount of work is being
performed by the spent energy.  One can only assume it is from this frame
that Shawyer resolves the anomaly.  He calculates the correct amount of
thrust for the expended PE and simply ignores the anomaly from the
non-inertial frame...

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:05 PM,  wrote:

> 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)

[Vibrator !]

That's conflating relativistic mass with rest mass.  I know the conclusion
that potential energy raises a system's mass is commonly accepted as an
inevitable implication of GR, but it's one frought with pitfalls:

For instance, i dig a 1 meter-deep hole next to a 1 kg mass, at 1 G the
system now has 9.81 J of PE.  But is there a relativistic mass increase (i
don't care how small it'd be - multiply the scale if you wish)?

What if the mass never falls into the hole?

Similarly, a vertical wheel is balanced on a hilltop, with an unequal drop
on either side, so the system's PE is indeterminate - could relativistic
mass also be indeterminate?

The clue is in the name "potential energy" - which can depend on chance, or
even conscious agency.  Certainly, KE has relativistic mass, but PE is
something notional, arbitrary, and frame dependent (in a word,
subjective).  Thin ice, here.

But assuming our EM craft was battery powered, and that relativistic mass
does apply to chemical PE, it is still the chemical PE that has been
converted to work (acceleration of the craft, relative to its point of
origin), not its relativistic mass energy equivalency, which itself is
incidental, aside from a minute reduction in the craft's net inertia.

In a conventional rocket, the momentum of the exhaust ejecta is precisely
equal to the momentum gain of the remaining vehicle (per Newton's 3rd), but
because the ship is big and the gas molecules small, their KE per unit of
momentum is much higher.  So, most of the rocket's chemical PE has been
spent accelerating gas, a little has been creamed off by the vehicle that
PE's mass equivalency has disappeared (because mass constancy only applies
to rest mass).

A nuclear power plant would match your description though - the gain in net
KE (vehicle plus ejecta, where applicable) would be equal to the mass
deficit.

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 6:44 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.
>
> 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 

Re: [Vo]:Rewind

[H LV]

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

Suppose you lived in a "rewind universe" where what you see in the
video is just normal behaviour and the laws of mechanics were unknown.
At first I think the concept of teleology would be used to explain the
phenomena. Perhaps the laws of mechanics would emerge latter to
explain portions of the phenomena, but teleology would always be
regarded as part of the universe. Contrast this with the "forward
universe" of modern physics where teleology is given no role
whatsoever.

Harry

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

[Vibrator !]

But as already noted, gyroscopes (rotating bodies generally) and the
magnetic field (as evinced by Faraday's spinning inductor paradox) also
have their own unique frames (classically, the "outermost sphere of fixed
stars") - and they're not warp bubbles!?

A warp bubble is specifically a contortion of spacetime.  Granted such a
craft would need no reaction mass, but then it has no need to accelerate,
either, since it is space itself that is translating.

A reactionless drive would probably take a good while to reach anything
approaching "warp" speeds though.  If it even had the energy reserves.
Although there is one potential reactionless system that could perhaps give
a warp drive a run for its money..

Suppose we had a Bessler wheel!  The classic "gravity mill" - say, applying
an effective N3 break to gain energy from gravity.  Gravity is equivalent
to an acceleration, so if we attach such a system to an accelerating
spacecraft, it'll be powered by its own inertia to that acceleration.  Use
the energy to power an EM drive and you have a positive closed feedback
loop - the harder it accelerates, the more energy the Bessler mechanism is
able to supply to the motor, and so on...  to infinity and beyond,
presumably..

It'd be the last word on thrill rides (infinite exponential acceleration!),
albeit lethal (the craft will quickly exceed its structural limits)..and
hence in practice, still slower than warp..

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Russ George  wrote:

> 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  

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

[Vibrator !]

The problem in trying to tap spin is that it's an elementary,
higher-dimensional construct.. for instance a full rotation of a half-spin
particle requires 720°... so it's quite unlike the mechanical property.
And while we can spin off quasi particles such as spinons or polaritons
etc., these are compound behaviours in aggregate matter rather than direct
manipulations of spin itself.

It's tempting to suppose it might somehow constitute Tesla's infamous
"wheelwork of nature", that we might one day attach our machinery to,
except that like the static magnetic field its divergence and curl are zero
(it's tempospatially symmetrical and not like a current), and as far as it
can be considered gear-like, it's inextricably meshed with every other
gear-particle in the universe, so it wouldn't for instance be possible to
tap a single particle's spin without braking the global value.  Which is
moot anyway as a zero or fractional-spin particle can't exist (half-spins
aside)..

Unless we had a situation in which say, an integer-spin boson dissociated
into an odd number of half-spin fermions, instead of even, and so leaving
an excess of momentum for something else..  but that's a needless
mutliplication of entitites and anyway, then we'd have a clear emission or
charge accumulation corresponding to the thrust.

We do however have a particle for conveying linear momentum between charges
- the virtual photon - which itself is a construct for ambient quantum
momentum wrt the magnetic field, and so fairly neatly fitting your
description..

Any EM drive worthy of that designation is by definition propelled by
magnetic force, and thus virtual photon exchanges.  IIRC Shawyer's claim is
that there's an asymmetric distribution of momentum along the length of the
frustum, but the material form of that momentum remains virtual photon
interactions.

As i see it, the system has more in common with traditional mechanical
attempts at "inertial motors" - futile as they are (due to mass constancy
and Newton's 3rd law).  Just as a working inertial motor would need no
reaction mass, so a working EM drive doesn't need to eject anything, wave
or particle.  In short, anything with an asymmetric distribution of
momentum, by definition, already has a net momentum

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

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

Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that the thrust Shawyer
> calculates and measures from his devices is several orders of magnitude
> higher than what could be obtained from photon radiation recoil - even if
> all of the generated RF were radiated unidirectionally.  A small leak of RF
> would provide an undetectable thrust.  That's what makes his devices
> interesting.
>

My intuition is actually in line with this.  Obviously there is no
observable thrust with a flashlight, for example.  And a powerful spotlight
doesn't budge, even though enough power is being fed into it to drive a
motor.  Nonetheless I was curious what the relationship between energy and
radiation pressure is.  Here is what Wikipedia says for a blackbody emitter:



P is pressure, epsilon is emissivity, sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann
constant and T is the temperature.  I wonder what the relationship would be
for a non-blackbody emitter emitting photons at a specific frequency.
Although radiation pressure is a small force, apparently it's nonneglible.
Wikipedia says that "had the effects of the sun's radiation pressure on the
spacecraft of the Viking program been ignored, the spacecraft would have
missed Mars orbit by about 15,000 kilometers."  We also see it doing real
work in the case of a Crookes radiometer:



I see that the Shawyer device is operating more or less at the level of
measurement uncertainty. There are no unequivocal results at this point by
third parties. Some of the tests even show reverse thrust when positive
thrust was intended.  Given this level of uncertainty, it would seem that
little can be ruled out at this point.  Even air convection.  One imagines
that much more testing is needed.

Have you formed an opinion on what might conserve momentum in the case of
the EM drive, if something like radiation pressure is ruled out?

Eric

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

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

In reply to Jed Rothwell.

The 15% Figure is the maximum value of oil in post fossil fuel age and the
$1 value is what they stated they are willing to go to.

The reality of the future market price is between the two.

Factors that will affect the price of oil including allowing or causing
continued low prices.
1) Strategy, they wish to kill off their competitors.
2) Strategy, they want to slow the take up of LENR.
3) Technology, LENR will cut the costs of production of everything
including oil.
4) Keeping the prices low will kill off US and other western Fracking
concerns which have high start-up debt costs.
5) Those Fracking wells that go bust because they cannot pay their loans,
will be bought up by big oil, as without the debt they are reasonably cheap
wells to run, but most such Fracking wells have less than a half of decade
of life in them, many as little as two. Putting in new Fracking wells in a
low oil value post Fossil Fuel era will not be viable, so Russia Iran and
Saudi Arabia will only need perhaps as little as two or three years to
replace high margins on low volume with low margins on high volume.
Consider the volume required will be coming down at the same time The
Saudis Russians and Iranians ramp up production.
6) The oil market will be among the be among the earliest adopters of LENR,
with everything, from rigs to to oil tankers.
7) Saudi Arabia and Russia have far bigger abilities to cope with low
income than many think, look at Iran they just lived through decades of
sanctions. Saudi Arabia owns big chunks of the USA and Europe, most malls
and warehouse districts you go to have a massive Saudi Ownership once you
look through who owns what.
8) Each of these countries will look to diversify and move into an LENR
enabled economy. I personally think Iran and Russia have the technical and
educational edge on the Saudi's but Saudi Arabia has the biggest war chest
so they will each be fighting out with the rest of the world for a share of
the action.

The above is not a complete thesis :)

Kind Regards walker




On 15 March 2016 at 02:35, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> 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
>
>

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

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Russ George  wrote:

How about a simple verbal explanation as opposed to movies… few of us open
> movies posted in the wild on the net, it’s rather like poking at a mangy
> looking sleeping dog one comes across.
>

Frank is welcome to send a link to a video, and you're free to ignore it.

Eric

Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Russ George  wrote:

Your understanding is correct, the thrust observed is far from that
> possible due to photon radiation recoil. That’s a bogus strawman lure cast
> up from under the bridge.
>

Please explain how a thought experiment is a strawman argument.

Eric

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

[Frank Znidarsic]

Pet plastic depolarizes a beam of polarized light.  How is that for a simple 
explanation.


Frank Z

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

[Terry Blanton]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/06/the-looming-bankruptcy-of-saudi-arabia/#74ea1456eee2

https://youtu.be/Jkqb4bUgJ9c

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> 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.
>


Checked
by Avast Antivirus. www.avast.com

<#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

Re: [Vo]:Quantum Spin Liquids and Kagome Space-Time Structures

[Axil Axil]

The ability to control spin of photons is at the heart if the LENR
mechanism. The concentration and focusing of the spin of many photons
produces monopole flux tubes that interfere with the strong force which is
a monopole based interaction between quarks which are really monopoles
themselves.

The Surface Plasmon polariton is a quantum spin liquid that allows for
almost certain formation of spin  bose condensation where many photons
contribute to the formation of monopole flux tubes

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Ron Kita  wrote:

> Greetings Vortex-L,
>
> Interesting material BUT there is also a link to Space-time with Kagome
> Lattices:
> http://phys.org/news/2016-03-quest-liquids.html
>
> A google of Kagome Lattice and Space-Time:
> https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=%22kagome+lattice%22+%22space+time%22
>
> Ad astra,
> Ron Kita, Chiralex
> Material Science is Everything
>

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

[Bob Cook]

Or maybe the inventor was Puthoff.  I think the Puthoff measured the velocity 
of the projected gravity pulse at a velocity greater than the speed of light.  

At the report of that experiment I wondered if the expansion of the Universe 
could be related to the speed of the gravity pulse that, I think, was measured 
by Puthoff.  

It was Podkletnov that hooked up with NASA to investigate anti-gravity I 
believe.  

Bob Cook

From: Bob Cook 
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 11:33 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

The anti gravity devices that have been described, including those that can 
project gravity impulses at more than the speed of light, should not be 
forgotten.  I think its inventor was named Podkletnov.

From: Russ George 
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 10:00 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

I believe that anyone with eyes and experience can see in the many EM drive 
reports the apparent evidence for the absence of emissions inside and outside 
of the microwave spectrum of the several EM drives that have been widely 
reported on. There is no joy in beating the fantasy strawman to death that 
presumes the researchers were nincompoops. (I acknowledge that there are some 
denizens inhabiting the ecology of atoms and the internet for whom such 
nincompoop presumptions is the reward, but no one here on Vortex-l is such a 
beast, right ;) The amount of apparent thrust and trend of thrust clearly 
demands something unknown about EM Drives and one does not so simply catch the 
unknown in nets of the known.  Perhaps on the 23 of March BBC Horizons will 
reveal more on its program on gravity including Shawyer and his EM drive. The 
pacing and paucity of research reports leaves one nearly breathless in 
anticipation.

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 11:48 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:45 AM, Russ George  wrote:

 

  Well since most microwave leak detectors are actually pretty broadband rf 
detectors so most rf can be ruled out, no appreciable heating is seen so no ir, 
no visible light, no massive sound so no acoustic, live lab rats so no ionizing 
radiation, what’s left that might be made and detected???

 

Are you inferring that no radiation was observed outside of the microwave 
spectrum, or are you reporting a specific claim?

 

Eric

 

[Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Bob Cook]

The anti gravity devices that have been described, including those that can 
project gravity impulses at more than the speed of light, should not be 
forgotten.  I think its inventor was named Podkletnov.

From: Russ George 
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 10:00 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

I believe that anyone with eyes and experience can see in the many EM drive 
reports the apparent evidence for the absence of emissions inside and outside 
of the microwave spectrum of the several EM drives that have been widely 
reported on. There is no joy in beating the fantasy strawman to death that 
presumes the researchers were nincompoops. (I acknowledge that there are some 
denizens inhabiting the ecology of atoms and the internet for whom such 
nincompoop presumptions is the reward, but no one here on Vortex-l is such a 
beast, right ;) The amount of apparent thrust and trend of thrust clearly 
demands something unknown about EM Drives and one does not so simply catch the 
unknown in nets of the known.  Perhaps on the 23 of March BBC Horizons will 
reveal more on its program on gravity including Shawyer and his EM drive. The 
pacing and paucity of research reports leaves one nearly breathless in 
anticipation.

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 11:48 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:45 AM, Russ George  wrote:

 

  Well since most microwave leak detectors are actually pretty broadband rf 
detectors so most rf can be ruled out, no appreciable heating is seen so no ir, 
no visible light, no massive sound so no acoustic, live lab rats so no ionizing 
radiation, what’s left that might be made and detected???

 

Are you inferring that no radiation was observed outside of the microwave 
spectrum, or are you reporting a specific claim?

 

Eric

 

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

[David Roberson]

Bob,

Now I see what you are suggesting and I agree with you 100%.   Two equal but 
opposite sources of angular momentum can combine together with a net of zero 
angular momentum, which is actually what existed mathematically in the closed 
system before they joined.  However, the rotational energy that each contains 
does not balance out when joined with its mate since energy is not a vector 
quantity.

I suppose that we can accept that nuclear energy can be released in a reaction 
which leads to the generation of two equal but opposite stores of angular 
momentum and the associated angular energy.  Each individual store of angular 
momentum can further be distributed to additional particles within the system.  
 At some future time these daughters might combine resulting in a pure release 
of energy with no residual angular momentum.

It seems likely that the final net release of energy could take place over an 
extended period of time.  This is pure speculation, but many of us seek a 
manner in which magnetic interactions can accept nuclear energy without needing 
to require a gamma release.  And, if it can be shown that the released energy 
interacts with a local magnetic field which causes it to build up in a positive 
feedback method that encourages the original nuclear reactions then all the 
better.

An electronic oscillator is an interesting analogue.  Noise of an extremely low 
level can be amplified by positive feedback until it saturates the oscillator 
device in one of these.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Mar 15, 2016 1:54 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)




Dave--
 
As I understand, the minimum spin quanta applies to transitions in all coherent 
systems.  I am suggesting that there may be a conversion of spin energy with 
its angular momentum to pure energy with no residual angular momentum.  That 
could be the case if two spinors with equal and opposite angular momentum were 
to come together to add pure energy to a system without associated angular 
momentum.  
 
Bob Cook 

 

From: David Roberson 
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 9:57 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 
Bob,

I agree that It becomes difficult to relate to real life when one discusses 
rotational energy as you seem to imply.  In classical physical systems it is 
not too difficult to convert linear kinetic energy into rotational energy.  Of 
course the total closed system linear momentum and angular momentum need to be 
conserved separately and do not convert.

This is not to suggest that a linearly moving object could not impart angular 
momentum to a pair of rotating disks for example.  It just so happens that an 
equal and opposite amount of angular momentum is imparted to them such that the 
net sum is zero.  Some find this situation difficult to grasp.

Your concept about a minimum energy quanta is interesting but how would that be 
explained in the case of extremely low frequencies where the F approaches zero 
in the equation E=h*F?  Perhaps the spin quanta that follows your rule may only 
apply to atomic systems?

Dave

 
-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Mar 15, 2016 11:50 am
Subject: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)




Dave—
 
People do not like to go there when it comes to the equivalence of spin angular 
momentum and other forms of energy.  Since spin has a minimum associated with 
the Planck constant, it suggests a minimum quanta of energy also IMHO.  I know 
of no explanation along these lines however.
 
Bob Cook

 

From: David Roberson 
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 7:33 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 
Notice that I had an etc. at the end of that short list!  The poor guy ran into 
the wall as it was speeding in his direction.  It also happens that the Earth 
spins a little bit faster or perhaps slower than before the car's acceleration 
to absorb some of that original energy.  It can get complicated very quickly if 
we add considerations of rotational energy to the discussion.  I'd rather not 
go there.

Dave

 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: mixent 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Mar 15, 2016 12:07 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

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

[Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Bob Cook]

Dave--

As I understand, the minimum spin quanta applies to transitions in all coherent 
systems.  I am suggesting that there may be a conversion of spin energy with 
its angular momentum to pure energy with no residual angular momentum.  That 
could be the case if two spinors with equal and opposite angular momentum were 
to come together to add pure energy to a system without associated angular 
momentum.  

Bob Cook 

From: David Roberson 
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 9:57 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

Bob,

I agree that It becomes difficult to relate to real life when one discusses 
rotational energy as you seem to imply.  In classical physical systems it is 
not too difficult to convert linear kinetic energy into rotational energy.  Of 
course the total closed system linear momentum and angular momentum need to be 
conserved separately and do not convert.

This is not to suggest that a linearly moving object could not impart angular 
momentum to a pair of rotating disks for example.  It just so happens that an 
equal and opposite amount of angular momentum is imparted to them such that the 
net sum is zero.  Some find this situation difficult to grasp.

Your concept about a minimum energy quanta is interesting but how would that be 
explained in the case of extremely low frequencies where the F approaches zero 
in the equation E=h*F?  Perhaps the spin quanta that follows your rule may only 
apply to atomic systems?

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Mar 15, 2016 11:50 am
Subject: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)


Dave—

People do not like to go there when it comes to the equivalence of spin angular 
momentum and other forms of energy.  Since spin has a minimum associated with 
the Planck constant, it suggests a minimum quanta of energy also IMHO.  I know 
of no explanation along these lines however.

Bob Cook

From: David Roberson 
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 7:33 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

Notice that I had an etc. at the end of that short list!  The poor guy ran into 
the wall as it was speeding in his direction.  It also happens that the Earth 
spins a little bit faster or perhaps slower than before the car's acceleration 
to absorb some of that original energy.  It can get complicated very quickly if 
we add considerations of rotational energy to the discussion.  I'd rather not 
go there.

Dave




-Original Message-
From: mixent 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Mar 15, 2016 12:07 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

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

[H LV]

I wrote:
> Another interpretation regarding the EmDrive is that the thrust is
> real but the effect (for whatever reason) requires an external source
> of electricity. On the plus side the thrust could not be explained
> away as an artifact of the electrical forces between the input wires,
> but on the down side it would mean the EmDrive could not power itself.

Well not necessarily an external source of electricity, although it
would need an external source of energy. So would a solar powered
EmDrive yield more thrust then a conventional solar powered ion drive?

Harry

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

[Roarty, Francis X]

On Tues 3/15/2016 Jones Beene said [snip] Shawyer claims that a standing wave 
interference pattern is created by geometry, operating frequency path lengths. 
And he claims that “stress energy of space” is altered by the interference 
pattern. That sounds a lot like aether.[/snip]
I agree withShawyer and like the breach in isotropy created by 
Casimir cavities it segregates vacuum density only the EM requires both power 
and the trapezoid geometry to form the segregated regions which the rf also 
pushes against in a manner biased in favor of one region over the other. IMHO 
he might find more evidence if he did a beam balance measurement of 
propellant–less braking while adding or subtracting weight from the counter 
balance because he would be able to measure all the linkage to ether effects 
differentially wrt the device turned off. My point is the EM drive still 
suffers from the same weakness as the failed circa 2k DeForio et all experiment 
with stacked parallel Casimir cavities in trying to establish a spatial bias, 
If I am correct the motion of segregated vacuum density regions through the 
macro isotropy is exactly equivalent to frame dragging in astrophysics with out 
the need for relativistic velocities. The clues have been there, anomalous 
spontaneous emission of photons in microwave cavities, anomalous half life 
decays in nano powders – Puthoff coined the term vacuum engineering but few are 
willing to believe negative vacuum density can be manipulated easily to 
relativistic values in regions large enough to contain hydrogen gas and control 
its decay rate thru time dilation.
Fran


From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 11:32 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)


A related but alternative bit of insight comes from John Wallace in the cited 
paper on spin waves. I thought Bob Cook was aware of it, but maybe not since he 
did not bring up the most important detail - mass.

It would be relevant to Shawyer’s drive if the Frustum were to have an iron 
liner component, such as an inner layer of sheet iron or even iron plating, 
which is not the case, but anyway this paper is worth a read on the off-chance 
that copper can produce spin waves like iron (doubtful).

http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.1631

In Wallace’s hypothesis, applied to Sawyer, RF would be converted into 
transverse (spin) waves. These waves have special properties and importantly 
they have mass. One dispersion curve yielded a real but exceedingly small 
effective mass of 1.8 10^{-39}kg for spin waves… which is not too far removed 
from the mass energy of the microwave photon which created it. But unless the 
copper frustum acts to release the same spin wave as does iron this explanation 
does not work for Em. Plus, since these waves have mass, they can be depleted 
over time without a replenishment source which spoils the idea of very long 
space missions. Most of the idealists balk at a theory that doesn’t get them 
access to intergalactic Sci-Fi missions. ☺

There are other partial explanations which actually mesh with spin waves. 
Shawyer claims that a standing wave interference pattern is created by 
geometry, operating frequency path lengths. And he claims that “stress energy 
of space” is altered by the interference pattern. That sounds a lot like 
aether. A chiral aether with effective mass, together with spin waves of 
effective mass – that would explain everything - yet observers shy away. Too 
bad.

A third slant is Puthoff's patent - showing that a small but detectable curl 
free potential can be created from interference patterns passing through 
barriers, presumably like a copper wall. If the microwaves remain inside the 
cavity, then there is no interaction with the vacuum except by invoking a 
massive wave, and consequently, there is no established theory to give external 
thrust to the device except the Wallace approach, which comes the closest since 
it predicts wave-particles of low-but-real mass. Wallace does have real 
uncontested data for spin waves whereas Shawye’s data is challenged.

Original Message-
From: Eric Walker

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 

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

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Russ George  wrote:

I believe that anyone with eyes and experience can see in the many EM drive
> reports the apparent evidence for the absence of emissions inside and
> outside of the microwave spectrum of the several EM drives that have been
> widely reported on.
>

There's obviously black/graybody radiation; or do you disagree?  Do you
assume it's isotropic?  Do you assume that no RF is what is desired?

There is no joy in beating the fantasy strawman to death that presumes the
> researchers were nincompoops.
>

It's a thought experiment, not a strawman.  A strawman is a logically
flawed position that one attributes to another party and then
deconstructs.  A thought experiment is a possibility one explores in order
to gain insight into related implications.  Thought experiments need not be
realistic, although the matter of RF has not been adequately dealt with in
this instance, because there is an unwarranted assumption that Shawyer et
al. do not want RF.  They do not need to be nincompoops to notice a
correlation between thrust and benign RF.

The amount of apparent thrust and trend of thrust clearly demands something
> unknown about EM Drives and one does not so simply catch the unknown in
> nets of the known.
>

What do you suggest is going on?

Eric

[Vo]:portrait of the coming LENR diplomats

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/03/mar-15-2016-portrait-of-lenr-diplomat.html


They will have a lot to do!
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

RE: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[Russ George]

Your understanding is correct, the thrust observed is far from that possible 
due to photon radiation recoil. That’s a bogus strawman lure cast up from under 
the bridge. The higher Q = higher thrust prediction is long standing, 
easily/readily testable, and presumably Shawyer and others have done so to lead 
to that predicted characteristic.   There are more than a few interesting 
cross-over elements between EM Drives, cold fusion, lenr, and perhaps one or 
two other energy mysteries. It would sure be more likely to have one single new 
great miracle emerging than a handful of equally  wondrous miracles. I can see 
in my minds eye  Bussard collectors being put to a practical use.

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 9:47 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

 

My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that the thrust Shawyer calculates 
and measures from his devices is several orders of magnitude higher than what 
could be obtained from photon radiation recoil - even if all of the generated 
RF were radiated unidirectionally.  A small leak of RF would provide an 
undetectable thrust.  That's what makes his devices interesting.

Other notes ... superconductors have been discussed for their effects on 
Shawyer cavities.  One thing that can be said is that in space, if shielded 
from the sun, getting stuff really cold is not a problem.  Also, 
superconductors (even Type I) have a finite RF resistance and so don't produce 
infinite Q cavities.  Ordinary conductors like Cu and Ag have their surface 
resistance continuously declining with temperature, extrapolated to 0 
resistance at 0K.  For RF purposes, just cold copper is approaching the 
performance of a Type 1 superconductor at the low temperatures that would be 
needed for Type I superconductivity.  But, Cu and Ag have the advantage that 
they do not have a critical temperature where everything falls apart.  As I 
recall, the Shawyer thrust is proportional to cavity Q and power.  If the Q of 
the cavity goes up because of cold temperature improvement in the resistivity 
of the cavity metal in space, the thrust will go up too.

 

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Eric Walker  > wrote:

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:24 AM, David Roberson  > wrote:

 

I would assume that the guys working on these devices have the expertise to 
ensure that a very minimum amount of RF is escaping from their shielded cavity. 
 This is not too difficult to achieve in real life with highly conductive 
cavities.

 

What if ensuring that a minimum of RF escaped made the thrust go away, and it 
was found that RF in the radio and infrared was benign and correlated with the 
thrust?

 

Also, the actual thrust due to photons being emitted is extremely tiny due to 
their low mass when compared to the overall device.

 

The common understanding is that photons have no mass at all.  But it is easy 
to see how they can carry significant momentum in the case of the recoil of an 
atom when a gamma photon is emitted during a transition from an excited state.  
Radio and infrared photons do not have this kind of momentum.  But perhaps if 
you have a high intensity, and the beam is focused, there will be some thrust.  
Has anyone attempted to measure the thrust from a powerful flashlight, one 
wonders.

 

Eric

 

 

[Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Bob Cook]

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

I do not have a reference to the entire book edited by Vonsovskii.  However, I 
would think that spin waves would have mass, since they have some energy 
associated with them.  I would like to get a free library reference to the 
book. It may be in Jed collection.  

Also thanks for that reference to the paper by John Wallace.  It is in line 
with my thoughts about spin coupling.  Note the idea of Ferro magnetism that 
Wallace introduces.

I keep thinking that the real nature of an electron is hidden in some of these 
discussions taken in the context of the Dirac model.  The Stubbs discussion of 
the role of muons being made up of electrons (and positrons) together with 
Hatt’s construction of the proton, neutron, muon,  etc., from electrons and 
positrons is pertinent to the issue.  It may be “spinors” are the gluons that 
hold things together and from real particles from the real world and the 
imaginary one.  

The paper I identified below in response to Eric addresses an imaginary/real 
connection.

http://www.andrijar.com/cherenkov/cherenkov.htm


Bob Cook
From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 9:47 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

Bob – although interesting, in this reference Vonsovskii does not mention the 
mass of the spin wave.  Or if he did, I missed it, so please supply that 
reference.

 

Having real mass could mean everything in the context of understanding why 
conservation of momentum is not violated in the Em - and Wallace provides hard 
evidence of massive spin waves.  

 

What’s more – Wallace’s mass is within range of the mass-energy equivalent of 
microwave photons, which have no rest mass … but apparently microwaves can give 
up some of their mass-energy equivalent when they convert into transverse(or 
spin) waves.

 

I am pretty sure we can make the case for magnons being the functional 
equivalent of captured spin waves.

 

From: Bob Cook 

 

Jones--

 

Spin waves are discussed in the Ferromagnetism book I identified in this 
thread-- 

Ferromagnetic Resonance: The Phenomenon of Resonant Absorption of a High ...
edited by S. V. Vonsovskii

 

I did not want to raise any more controversy!  

 

Thanks of keeping me in mind anyway.

 

Bob Cook

 

 

From: Jones Beene 

Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 8:31 AM

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

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

 

A related but alternative bit of insight comes from John Wallace in the cited 
paper on spin waves. I thought Bob Cook was aware of it, but maybe not since he 
did not bring up the most important detail - mass.

It would be relevant to Shawyer’s drive if the Frustum were to have an iron 
liner component, such as an inner layer of sheet iron or even iron plating, 
which is not the case, but anyway this paper is worth a read on the off-chance 
that copper can produce spin waves like iron (doubtful).

http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.1631

In Wallace’s hypothesis, applied to Sawyer, RF would be converted into 
transverse (spin) waves. These waves have special properties and importantly 
they have mass. One dispersion curve yielded a real but exceedingly small 
effective mass of 1.8 10^{-39}kg for spin waves… which is not too far removed 
from the mass energy of the microwave photon which created it. But unless the 
copper frustum acts to release the same spin wave as does iron this explanation 
does not work for Em. Plus, since these waves have mass, they can be depleted 
over time without a replenishment source which spoils the idea of very long 
space missions. Most of the idealists balk at a theory that doesn’t get them 
access to intergalactic Sci-Fi missions. J

There are other partial explanations which actually mesh with spin waves. 
Shawyer claims that a standing wave interference pattern is created by 
geometry, operating frequency path lengths. And he claims that “stress energy 
of space” is altered by the interference pattern. That sounds a lot like 
aether. A chiral aether with effective mass, together with spin waves of 
effective mass – that would explain everything - yet observers shy away. Too 
bad.

A third slant is Puthoff's patent - showing that a small but detectable curl 
free potential can be created from interference patterns passing through 
barriers, presumably like a copper wall. If the microwaves remain inside the 
cavity, then there is no interaction with the vacuum except by invoking a 
massive wave, and consequently, there is no established theory to give external 
thrust to the device except the Wallace approach, which comes the closest since 
it predicts wave-particles of low-but-real mass. Wallace does have real 
uncontested data for spin waves whereas Shawye’s data is challenged.

Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 

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 

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

[Russ George]

How about a simple verbal explanation as opposed to movies… few of us open 
movies posted in the wild on the net, it’s rather like poking at a mangy 
looking sleeping dog one comes across. 

 

From: Frank Znidarsic [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 10:11 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Fwd: [Vo]:Bacteria able to eat plastic bottles discovered by scientists

 

Try again on this link somehow its coming out wrong.

 

http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/temp/operation.wm 
 v 

 

 

Frank Z

 

 

 

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

[Frank Znidarsic]

Try again on this link somehow its coming out wrong.


http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/temp/operation.wmv




Frank Z

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

[H LV]

Another interpretation regarding the EmDrive is that the thrust is
real but the effect (for whatever reason) requires an external source
of electricity. On the plus side the thrust could not be explained
away as an artifact of the electrical forces between the input wires,
but on the down side it would mean the EmDrive could not power itself.

Harry

[Vo]:Quantum Spin Liquids and Kagome Space-Time Structures

[Ron Kita]

Greetings Vortex-L,

Interesting material BUT there is also a link to Space-time with Kagome
Lattices:
http://phys.org/news/2016-03-quest-liquids.html

A google of Kagome Lattice and Space-Time:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=%22kagome+lattice%22+%22space+time%22

Ad astra,
Ron Kita, Chiralex
Material Science is Everything

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

[Russ George]

I believe that anyone with eyes and experience can see in the many EM drive 
reports the apparent evidence for the absence of emissions inside and outside 
of the microwave spectrum of the several EM drives that have been widely 
reported on. There is no joy in beating the fantasy strawman to death that 
presumes the researchers were nincompoops. (I acknowledge that there are some 
denizens inhabiting the ecology of atoms and the internet for whom such 
nincompoop presumptions is the reward, but no one here on Vortex-l is such a 
beast, right ;) The amount of apparent thrust and trend of thrust clearly 
demands something unknown about EM Drives and one does not so simply catch the 
unknown in nets of the known.  Perhaps on the 23 of March BBC Horizons will 
reveal more on its program on gravity including Shawyer and his EM drive. The 
pacing and paucity of research reports leaves one nearly breathless in 
anticipation.

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 11:48 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:45 AM, Russ George  > wrote:

 

Well since most microwave leak detectors are actually pretty broadband rf 
detectors so most rf can be ruled out, no appreciable heating is seen so no ir, 
no visible light, no massive sound so no acoustic, live lab rats so no ionizing 
radiation, what’s left that might be made and detected???

 

Are you inferring that no radiation was observed outside of the microwave 
spectrum, or are you reporting a specific claim?

 

Eric

 

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

[David Roberson]

Bob,

I agree that It becomes difficult to relate to real life when one discusses 
rotational energy as you seem to imply.  In classical physical systems it is 
not too difficult to convert linear kinetic energy into rotational energy.  Of 
course the total closed system linear momentum and angular momentum need to be 
conserved separately and do not convert.

This is not to suggest that a linearly moving object could not impart angular 
momentum to a pair of rotating disks for example.  It just so happens that an 
equal and opposite amount of angular momentum is imparted to them such that the 
net sum is zero.  Some find this situation difficult to grasp.

Your concept about a minimum energy quanta is interesting but how would that be 
explained in the case of extremely low frequencies where the F approaches zero 
in the equation E=h*F?  Perhaps the spin quanta that follows your rule may only 
apply to atomic systems?

Dave

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Mar 15, 2016 11:50 am
Subject: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)




Dave—
 
People do not like to go there when it comes to the equivalence of spin angular 
momentum and other forms of energy.  Since spin has a minimum associated with 
the Planck constant, it suggests a minimum quanta of energy also IMHO.  I know 
of no explanation along these lines however.
 
Bob Cook

 

From: David Roberson 
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 7:33 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 
Notice that I had an etc. at the end of that short list!  The poor guy ran into 
the wall as it was speeding in his direction.  It also happens that the Earth 
spins a little bit faster or perhaps slower than before the car's acceleration 
to absorb some of that original energy.  It can get complicated very quickly if 
we add considerations of rotational energy to the discussion.  I'd rather not 
go there.

Dave

 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: mixent 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Mar 15, 2016 12:07 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

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

[Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[Bob Higgins]

My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that the thrust Shawyer
calculates and measures from his devices is several orders of magnitude
higher than what could be obtained from photon radiation recoil - even if
all of the generated RF were radiated unidirectionally.  A small leak of RF
would provide an undetectable thrust.  That's what makes his devices
interesting.

Other notes ... superconductors have been discussed for their effects on
Shawyer cavities.  One thing that can be said is that in space, if shielded
from the sun, getting stuff really cold is not a problem.  Also,
superconductors (even Type I) have a finite RF resistance and so don't
produce infinite Q cavities.  Ordinary conductors like Cu and Ag have their
surface resistance continuously declining with temperature, extrapolated to
0 resistance at 0K.  For *RF* purposes, just cold copper is approaching the
performance of a Type 1 superconductor at the low temperatures that would
be needed for Type I superconductivity.  But, Cu and Ag have the advantage
that they do not have a critical temperature where everything falls apart.
As I recall, the Shawyer thrust is proportional to cavity Q and power.  If
the Q of the cavity goes up because of cold temperature improvement in the
resistivity of the cavity metal in space, the thrust will go up too.

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:24 AM, David Roberson 
> wrote:
>
> I would assume that the guys working on these devices have the expertise
>> to ensure that a very minimum amount of RF is escaping from their shielded
>> cavity.  This is not too difficult to achieve in real life with highly
>> conductive cavities.
>>
>
> What if ensuring that a minimum of RF escaped made the thrust go away, and
> it was found that RF in the radio and infrared was benign and correlated
> with the thrust?
>
>
>> Also, the actual thrust due to photons being emitted is extremely tiny
>> due to their low mass when compared to the overall device.
>>
>
> The common understanding is that photons have no mass at all.  But it is
> easy to see how they can carry significant momentum in the case of the
> recoil of an atom when a gamma photon is emitted during a transition from
> an excited state.  Radio and infrared photons do not have this kind of
> momentum.  But perhaps if you have a high intensity, and the beam is
> focused, there will be some thrust.  Has anyone attempted to measure the
> thrust from a powerful flashlight, one wonders.
>
> Eric
>
>

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

[Jones Beene]

Bob – although interesting, in this reference Vonsovskii does not mention the 
mass of the spin wave. Or if he did, I missed it, so please supply that 
reference.

 

Having real mass could mean everything in the context of understanding why 
conservation of momentum is not violated in the Em - and Wallace provides hard 
evidence of massive spin waves.  

 

What’s more – Wallace’s mass is within range of the mass-energy equivalent of 
microwave photons, which have no rest mass … but apparently microwaves can give 
up some of their mass-energy equivalent when they convert into transverse(or 
spin) waves.

 

I am pretty sure we can make the case for magnons being the functional 
equivalent of captured spin waves.

 

From: Bob Cook 

 

Jones--

 

Spin waves are discussed in the Ferromagnetism book I identified in this 
thread-- 



Ferromagnetic Resonance: The Phenomenon of Resonant Absorption of a High ...


edited by S. V. Vonsovskii

 

I did not want to raise any more controversy!Smile  

 

Thanks of keeping me in mind anyway.

 

Bob Cook

 

 

From: Jones Beene   

Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 8:31 AM

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

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

 

A related but alternative bit of insight comes from John Wallace in the cited 
paper on spin waves. I thought Bob Cook was aware of it, but maybe not since he 
did not bring up the most important detail - mass.

It would be relevant to Shawyer’s drive if the Frustum were to have an iron 
liner component, such as an inner layer of sheet iron or even iron plating, 
which is not the case, but anyway this paper is worth a read on the off-chance 
that copper can produce spin waves like iron (doubtful).

  http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.1631

In Wallace’s hypothesis, applied to Sawyer, RF would be converted into 
transverse (spin) waves. These waves have special properties and importantly 
they have mass. One dispersion curve yielded a real but exceedingly small 
effective mass of 1.8 10^{-39}kg for spin waves… which is not too far removed 
from the mass energy of the microwave photon which created it. But unless the 
copper frustum acts to release the same spin wave as does iron this explanation 
does not work for Em. Plus, since these waves have mass, they can be depleted 
over time without a replenishment source which spoils the idea of very long 
space missions. Most of the idealists balk at a theory that doesn’t get them 
access to intergalactic Sci-Fi missions. J

There are other partial explanations which actually mesh with spin waves. 
Shawyer claims that a standing wave interference pattern is created by 
geometry, operating frequency path lengths. And he claims that “stress energy 
of space” is altered by the interference pattern. That sounds a lot like 
aether. A chiral aether with effective mass, together with spin waves of 
effective mass – that would explain everything - yet observers shy away. Too 
bad.

A third slant is Puthoff's patent - showing that a small but detectable curl 
free potential can be created from interference patterns passing through 
barriers, presumably like a copper wall. If the microwaves remain inside the 
cavity, then there is no interaction with the vacuum except by invoking a 
massive wave, and consequently, there is no established theory to give external 
thrust to the device except the Wallace approach, which comes the closest since 
it predicts wave-particles of low-but-real mass. Wallace does have real 
uncontested data for spin waves whereas Shawye’s data is challenged.

Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 

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]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Bob Cook]

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

Spin waves are discussed in the Ferromagnetism book I identified in this 
thread-- 
 

Ferromagnetic Resonance: The Phenomenon of Resonant Absorption of a High ...
edited by S. V. Vonsovskii

I did not want to raise any more controversy!  

Thanks of keeping me in mind anyway.

Bob Cook


From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 8:31 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

A related but alternative bit of insight comes from John Wallace in the cited 
paper on spin waves. I thought Bob Cook was aware of it, but maybe not since he 
did not bring up the most important detail - mass.

It would be relevant to Shawyer’s drive if the Frustum were to have an iron 
liner component, such as an inner layer of sheet iron or even iron plating, 
which is not the case, but anyway this paper is worth a read on the off-chance 
that copper can produce spin waves like iron (doubtful).

http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.1631

In Wallace’s hypothesis, applied to Sawyer, RF would be converted into 
transverse (spin) waves. These waves have special properties and importantly 
they have mass. One dispersion curve yielded a real but exceedingly small 
effective mass of 1.8 10^{-39}kg for spin waves… which is not too far removed 
from the mass energy of the microwave photon which created it. But unless the 
copper frustum acts to release the same spin wave as does iron this explanation 
does not work for Em. Plus, since these waves have mass, they can be depleted 
over time without a replenishment source which spoils the idea of very long 
space missions. Most of the idealists balk at a theory that doesn’t get them 
access to intergalactic Sci-Fi missions. J

There are other partial explanations which actually mesh with spin waves. 
Shawyer claims that a standing wave interference pattern is created by 
geometry, operating frequency path lengths. And he claims that “stress energy 
of space” is altered by the interference pattern. That sounds a lot like 
aether. A chiral aether with effective mass, together with spin waves of 
effective mass – that would explain everything - yet observers shy away. Too 
bad.

A third slant is Puthoff's patent - showing that a small but detectable curl 
free potential can be created from interference patterns passing through 
barriers, presumably like a copper wall. If the microwaves remain inside the 
cavity, then there is no interaction with the vacuum except by invoking a 
massive wave, and consequently, there is no established theory to give external 
thrust to the device except the Wallace approach, which comes the closest since 
it predicts wave-particles of low-but-real mass. Wallace does have real 
uncontested data for spin waves whereas Shawye’s data is challenged.

Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 

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]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Bob Cook]

Dave—

People do not like to go there when it comes to the equivalence of spin angular 
momentum and other forms of energy.  Since spin has a minimum associated with 
the Planck constant, it suggests a minimum quanta of energy also IMHO.  I know 
of no explanation along these lines however.

Bob Cook

From: David Roberson 
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 7:33 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

Notice that I had an etc. at the end of that short list!  The poor guy ran into 
the wall as it was speeding in his direction.  It also happens that the Earth 
spins a little bit faster or perhaps slower than before the car's acceleration 
to absorb some of that original energy.  It can get complicated very quickly if 
we add considerations of rotational energy to the discussion.  I'd rather not 
go there.

Dave




-Original Message-
From: mixent 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Mar 15, 2016 12:07 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

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)

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:24 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

I would assume that the guys working on these devices have the expertise to
> ensure that a very minimum amount of RF is escaping from their shielded
> cavity.  This is not too difficult to achieve in real life with highly
> conductive cavities.
>

What if ensuring that a minimum of RF escaped made the thrust go away, and
it was found that RF in the radio and infrared was benign and correlated
with the thrust?


> Also, the actual thrust due to photons being emitted is extremely tiny due
> to their low mass when compared to the overall device.
>

The common understanding is that photons have no mass at all.  But it is
easy to see how they can carry significant momentum in the case of the
recoil of an atom when a gamma photon is emitted during a transition from
an excited state.  Radio and infrared photons do not have this kind of
momentum.  But perhaps if you have a high intensity, and the beam is
focused, there will be some thrust.  Has anyone attempted to measure the
thrust from a powerful flashlight, one wonders.

Eric

[Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Bob Cook]

Eric etal---

The following is a link to an abridged  book on ferromagnetic resonance.  (Note 
the subject index.)  It has an explanation of Cherenkov Radiation at page 135 
which is part of the abridgement.  Does anyone have a free link to this book?  
I think it would be a good reference to EM drive theory.  


https://books.google.com/books?id=j5s3BQAAQBAJ=PA320=PA320=Cherenkov+magnetons=bl=_20BQFaMJz=ByVfgAhZ9O13wIGF6RO5lfOhTJI=en=X=0ahUKEwjy_8Dv_cLLAhUK2mMKHSkGAWcQ6AEIMjAE#v=onepage=Cherenkov%20magnetons=false

Bob Cook

From: Eric Walker 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 11:48 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:45 AM, Russ George  wrote:


  Well since most microwave leak detectors are actually pretty broadband rf 
detectors so most rf can be ruled out, no appreciable heating is seen so no ir, 
no visible light, no massive sound so no acoustic, live lab rats so no ionizing 
radiation, what’s left that might be made and detected???


Are you inferring that no radiation was observed outside of the microwave 
spectrum, or are you reporting a specific claim?

Eric

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

[Jones Beene]

A related but alternative bit of insight comes from John Wallace in the cited 
paper on spin waves. I thought Bob Cook was aware of it, but maybe not since he 
did not bring up the most important detail - mass.
It would be relevant to Shawyer’s drive if the Frustum were to have an iron 
liner component, such as an inner layer of sheet iron or even iron plating, 
which is not the case, but anyway this paper is worth a read on the off-chance 
that copper can produce spin waves like iron (doubtful).
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.1631
In Wallace’s hypothesis, applied to Sawyer, RF would be converted into 
transverse (spin) waves. These waves have special properties and importantly 
they have mass. One dispersion curve yielded a real but exceedingly small 
effective mass of 1.8 10^{-39}kg for spin waves… which is not too far removed 
from the mass energy of the microwave photon which created it. But unless the 
copper frustum acts to release the same spin wave as does iron this explanation 
does not work for Em. Plus, since these waves have mass, they can be depleted 
over time without a replenishment source which spoils the idea of very long 
space missions. Most of the idealists balk at a theory that doesn’t get them 
access to intergalactic Sci-Fi missions. :-)
There are other partial explanations which actually mesh with spin waves. 
Shawyer claims that a standing wave interference pattern is created by 
geometry, operating frequency path lengths. And he claims that “stress energy 
of space” is altered by the interference pattern. That sounds a lot like 
aether. A chiral aether with effective mass, together with spin waves of 
effective mass – that would explain everything - yet observers shy away. Too 
bad.
A third slant is Puthoff's patent - showing that a small but detectable curl 
free potential can be created from interference patterns passing through 
barriers, presumably like a copper wall. If the microwaves remain inside the 
cavity, then there is no interaction with the vacuum except by invoking a 
massive wave, and consequently, there is no established theory to give external 
thrust to the device except the Wallace approach, which comes the closest since 
it predicts wave-particles of low-but-real mass. Wallace does have real 
uncontested data for spin waves whereas Shawye’s data is challenged.
Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
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]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[David Roberson]

I would assume that the guys working on these devices have the expertise to 
ensure that a very minimum amount of RF is escaping from their shielded cavity. 
 This is not too difficult to achieve in real life with highly conductive 
cavities.

Also, the actual thrust due to photons being emitted is extremely tiny due to 
their low mass when compared to the overall device.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Mar 15, 2016 11:08 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)




On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 8:48 AM, David Roberson  wrote:


Of course thrust would be generated if RF is directed away from the drive into 
space.  Unfortunately, this is not happening in these devices since they are 
well shielded and keep the RF from escaping.




There was an interesting YouTube video that was mentioned here within the last 
year, maybe, that showed how RF could readily escape from a metal trashcan that 
was being used as a Faraday cage if electrical conducting tape was not used to 
carefully tape down the lid.  Has the question of (non-microwave) RF been 
systematically investigated in connection with the EM Drive?


At a minimum, even in the case of a Faraday cage, I assume there will be a 
conversion to black/graybody radiation. Presumably such radiation would not be 
unidirectional, but it would still be measurable.  I'm curious whether anyone 
has looked at the general question of escaping RF yet.


Eric

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

[Eric Walker]

I wrote:

There was an interesting YouTube video that was mentioned here within the
> last year, maybe, that showed how RF could readily escape from a metal
> trashcan that was being used as a Faraday cage if electrical conducting
> tape was not used to carefully tape down the lid.
>

Sorry, that should have been "leak into," in the case of the video.  But I
assume the reverse applies equally as well?

Eric

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

[David Roberson]

When might somehow be important but if you take the process to the extreme you 
get a result that doesn't make any sense.  For example, if the spaceship 
continues to use up its mass in a constant acceleration process that requires 
power and thus energy to be expended for the drive, then eventually there will 
be no mass left at all.  All of the original mass is lost if this takes place.  
That does not make sense.

A standard rocket does not have an issue of this type since the energy and any 
missing mass ends up in the exhaust stream.  It can all be accounted for even 
in such an extreme event.

I propose that a normal classical physical rocket or process that obeys the 
conservation laws actually can be boiled down to a simple rule.  A device in 
free space without interference from other matter and forces will maintain its 
center of mass and rotation at one point in space.  So, for a rocket of this 
type, all of the mass expended as exhaust can be located and summed up with the 
remaining rocket such that the center of mass remains constant in space.

That rule reveals why a multistage rocket can reach such high velocities for 
the payload.  Most of the mass, including the earlier stage rocket frames are 
left behind to contribute components to the center of mass equation.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Roarty, Francis X 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Mar 15, 2016 8:08 am
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

Perhaps "when" did the mass go answers the question better to explain the 
spatial imbalance.

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 5:15 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: 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

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

[Frank Znidarsic]

corrected link

http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/temp/operation.wmvm/scifi2/zpt/temp/operation.wmv








Secret of the plastic detector model number I.  Model II is confidential.

http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/temp/operation.wmvm/scifi2/zpt/temp/Operation.wmv



Frank Znidarsic

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

[Frank Znidarsic]

Secret of the plastic detector model number I.  Model II is confidential.

http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/temp/operation.wmvm/scifi2/zpt/temp/Operation.wmv



Frank Znidarsic

[Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Bob Cook]

Eric and Russ etal.--

Check out the following link:

http://www.andrijar.com/cherenkov/cherenkov.htm

I am surprised Axil has not already noted this.

Bob Cook

From: Eric Walker 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 8:46 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 Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 8:48 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

Of course thrust would be generated if RF is directed away from the drive
> into space.  Unfortunately, this is not happening in these devices since
> they are well shielded and keep the RF from escaping.
>

There was an interesting YouTube video that was mentioned here within the
last year, maybe, that showed how RF could readily escape from a metal
trashcan that was being used as a Faraday cage if electrical conducting
tape was not used to carefully tape down the lid.  Has the question of
(non-microwave) RF been systematically investigated in connection with the
EM Drive?

At a minimum, even in the case of a Faraday cage, I assume there will be a
conversion to black/graybody radiation. Presumably such radiation would not
be unidirectional, but it would still be measurable.  I'm curious whether
anyone has looked at the general question of escaping RF yet.

Eric

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

[David Roberson]

Notice that I had an etc. at the end of that short list!  The poor guy ran into 
the wall as it was speeding in his direction.  It also happens that the Earth 
spins a little bit faster or perhaps slower than before the car's acceleration 
to absorb some of that original energy.  It can get complicated very quickly if 
we add considerations of rotational energy to the discussion.  I'd rather not 
go there.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: mixent 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Mar 15, 2016 12:07 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

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)

[David Roberson]

The car expends energy when it accelerates to a higher velocity in the 
direction of motion.  This must result in a reduction of mass since it takes 
power input to perform that motion.  When regenerative braking is used, energy 
is returned to the car batteries which means the battery mass must then 
increase.  The net is that no change to overall mass has occurred in the 
loss-less case once a return to the original state condition has taken place.
 

 A person within the car could in principle measure that his car's mass first 
decreased and then increased back to the original amount.  All he needs is to 
find are an impossibly accurate accelerometer and meters to verify the exact 
magnitude of his acceleration when a precise amount of thrust is applied.  A 
test thrust is required to establish the mass at each of the two states.

In both cases the reaction mass is the Earth which is slightly sped up and then 
slowed down in rotation rate to store and then return the changing mass of the 
car.

After reading about the latest measurement of gravitational waves I am not too 
sure that it is impossible to achieve the required degree of accuracy. ;)

Dave  

 

-Original Message-
From: mixent 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Mar 15, 2016 12:00 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

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)

[David Roberson]

Of course thrust would be generated if RF is directed away from the drive into 
space.  Unfortunately, this is not happening in these devices since they are 
well shielded and keep the RF from escaping.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 10:36 pm
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

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

[Roarty, Francis X]

Perhaps "when" did the mass go answers the question better to explain the 
spatial imbalance.

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 5:15 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: 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)

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:45 AM, Russ George  wrote:

Well since most microwave leak detectors are actually pretty broadband rf
> detectors so most rf can be ruled out, no appreciable heating is seen so no
> ir, no visible light, no massive sound so no acoustic, live lab rats so no
> ionizing radiation, what’s left that might be made and detected???
>

Are you inferring that no radiation was observed outside of the microwave
spectrum, or are you reporting a specific claim?

Eric

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

[Russ George]

Well since most microwave leak detectors are actually pretty broadband rf 
detectors so most rf can be ruled out, no appreciable heating is seen so no ir, 
no visible light, no massive sound so no acoustic, live lab rats so no ionizing 
radiation, what’s left that might be made and detected??? Likely no search was 
made for something very exotic. Seems like a ‘cool’ experiment that makes 
thrust… if something is providing an expelled propellant then it has to be a 
crazy mysterious particle or a warp bubble wave to surf on. That’s a good 
question … can a warp bubble wave be very small such that it provides so little 
thrust.

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 10:17 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

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