In reply to Remi Cornwall's message of Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:04:36
+0100:
Hi,
[snip]
Robin,
Yes it is confusing. Also sometimes the phase velocity appears to be greater
than c (anomalous media) or the group velocity is. In either case they defer
to the one less than c. The Feynman articles give a
In reply to Keith Nagel's message of Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:50:18
-0400:
Hi Keith,
[snip]
Hi Robin,
I was confused by this also. I don't think english is Andres
first language, so his paper is a little obtuse at points.
What he's saying, after a more careful read on my part, is that
he assumes The
: Thursday, September 28, 2006 1:27 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
Hi Robin,
you write:
Possible, but not exactly in evidence.
Quoting Andre, In the following we review the the theoretical
model for the engine put forth by SPR... The next paragraph
is then supposed
Relativity
that seems to provide a proof that it is the group velocity that is
relevant.
Remi.
-Original Message-
From: Robin van Spaandonk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 26 September 2006 04:57
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
In reply
]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
In reply to Remi Cornwall's message of Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:21:56
+0100:
Hi Remi,
[snip]
Don,
I had a few thoughts on the paper:
http://uk.geocities.com/remicornwall/ElectromagneticPropulsion.htm
In
http://uk.geocities.com/remicornwall
PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:
stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
I meant to expand on my hose analogy.
I was likening the impulse of the arc and aether flow to a hose being turned on
because I heard once that droplets of water are found to orbit water coming out
of a nosle at high speed
In reply to Remi Cornwall's message of Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:21:56
+0100:
Hi Remi,
[snip]
Don,
I had a few thoughts on the paper:
http://uk.geocities.com/remicornwall/ElectromagneticPropulsion.htm
In
http://uk.geocities.com/remicornwall/FeynmanIIpg24a7sections24a2to24a4.jpg
it states very
John Berry wrote:
On 9/17/06, *Wesley Bruce* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ZPE saves the conservation of energy yet again.
John Berry wrote:
snip I'm to thick to handle this bit. ;-)
Plus you do not state by which mechanism the thrust would be
John Berry wrote:
Well if Kyle and Robin are right it can't be calculated because we
can't really know what our velocity relative to the machian reference
frame is.
If I am right then, well I'm no good at the math but I think that a
superconducting chamber bouncing EM around assuming the Q
I meant to expand on my hose analogy.I was likening the impulse of the arc and aether flow to a hose being turned on because I heard once that droplets of water are found to orbit water coming out of a nosle at high speed.
And this is exactly what I believe the aether is doing and furthermore
I think I know how Podkletnovs second device works, the aether moves through the donut superconductors inducing a second beam like aether
flow at 90 degrees, the exact same thing can be seen to happen in the ATGroup device and Mortons device which was really Podkletnov on a budget.Close but the
On 9/17/06, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In reply toJohn Berry's message of Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:29:05+1200:Hi,[snip] BTW I also suspect that it is real, because the measured mass change was +2 gm in one orientation, and -2 gm when turned upside
down. This is not the sort of thing
. Mcallister wrote:
- Original Message - From: John Berry
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 6:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
What you should note is that this device if it works at all MUST
violate the conservation of energy
wrote: - Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 6:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor What you should note is that this device if it works at all MUST violate the conservation of energy, there is no way round
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to John Berry's message of Sun, 17 Sep 2006 10:10:37
+1200:
Hi,
[snip]
No Kyle, your mistaken.
You doubt KE = 1/2mv^2?
Not in anything other than reactionless propulsion.
Who
ZPE saves the conservation of energy yet again.
John Berry wrote:
snip I'm to thick to handle this bit. ;-)
Plus you do not state by which mechanism the thrust would be effected,
where my Doppler effect pushing it out of resonance lowering the Q is
pretty much what was stated in the
On 9/17/06, Wesley Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ZPE saves the conservation of energy yet again.
John Berry wrote:
snip I'm to thick to handle this bit. ;-)
Plus you do not state by which mechanism the thrust would be effected,
where my Doppler effect pushing it out of resonance
Title: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
The quantity mv^2 was what Leibniz termed vis viva (the living force) to distinguish
it from Newton's vis inertia (the force of interia).
Neglecting the constant of integration, mv^2 is the integral of mvdv .
Harry
John Berry wrote
- Original Message -
From: John Berry
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
No Kyle, your mistaken.
You doubt KE = 1/2mv^2? To postulate a scenario where a supposed
reactionless engine consumes
No Kyle, your mistaken.You doubt KE = 1/2mv^2?Not in anything other than reactionless propulsion.
To postulate a scenario where a supposedreactionless engine consumes power at a rate based on an absolute velocity
and therefore obeys energy conservation I think is less mistaken than tosimply
- Original Message -
From: John Berry
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 6:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
Not in anything other than reactionless propulsion.
But why make it a special case?
But you must assume
Hi,
Here's a variation on a theme. An atom may be seen as a small
spherical resonant chamber, with infinite Q, with EM energy in it.
In that respect it looks like one of these drive units, except
that it wouldn't develop any force because it is symmetrical.
If placed in a severely asymmetric
Indeed, it would seem that the hypothesized preferred frame would act as the
road. Or the air. There is another word that could be used, it startswith an e (or ae) but I will remain a gentleman. :)I'm not so much of a gentleman then.
But if you accept that Morton and ATGroup and especially
On 9/17/06, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In reply toJohn Berry's message of Sun, 17 Sep 2006 10:10:37+1200:Hi,[snip] No Kyle, your mistaken. You doubt KE = 1/2mv^2?Not in anything other than reactionless propulsion.
Who says it's reactionless? Personally, I think it reacts
In reply to John Berry's message of Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:29:05
+1200:
Hi,
[snip]
BTW I also suspect that it is real, because the measured mass
change was +2 gm in one orientation, and -2 gm when turned upside
down. This is not the sort of thing that results from measurement
error caused by
A stationary emdrive can still push a ship in a given direction. It
becomes an inertial anchor. An inertial anchor resists being moved but
does not move itself. You can push down or back on it and it wont move
but pulling upon it and it moves freely. A craft with an inertial
anchor on it can
In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:41:50
+1000:
Hi,
[snip]
A stationary emdrive can still push a ship in a given direction. It
becomes an inertial anchor. An inertial anchor resists being moved but
does not move itself. You can push down or back on it and it wont move
No, Wesely is correct, it is an inertial anchor. (it could be used to push off or it could be used by moving it in the direction of travel and turning it on then bringing it to rest relative to the ship, or both)The reason acceleration is tricky is not because the energy is converted into motion
I suppose KWh is a poor unit of energy to use when my example only ran for a few seconds, so change to some other suitible measure of energy.On 9/15/06, John Berry
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:No, Wesely is correct, it is an inertial anchor. (it could be used to push off or it could be used by moving
if its based on difference in wave velocity, wouldnt stationary be
based on the surrounding radiation fields? and if so... now, uber
amateur here, im einsteinian, in that, im great with theory, weak with
mathematics, would two of these drives mounted at an angle to each
other, say, a 90 between
myself- do it :)
Colin
- Original Message -
From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 3:13 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:41:50
+1000:
Hi
- Original Message -
From: John Berry
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 6:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
What you should note is that this device if it works at all MUST violate
the conservation of energy, there is no way round
of energy really is just a general observation and not true in all cases.
On 9/16/06, Kyle R. Mcallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -From: John BerryTo: vortex-l@eskimo.comSent: Friday, September 15, 2006 6:27 AMSubject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
What you
33 matches
Mail list logo
