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

[Bob Cook]

Dave--

Your right.  I got the P's mixed up.

Bob

-Original Message- 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2016 1:13 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Sat, 26 Mar 2016 12:20:53 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]

Dave--

Puthoff I think made a machine that produced a gravity pulse, which 
displaced things at a distance and apparently traveled at a velocity 
greater than light—I think it was reported to be 64 times c.


I think that's Podkletnov not Puthoff.
(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov)
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[mixent]

In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Sat, 26 Mar 2016 12:20:53 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Dave--
>
>Puthoff I think made a machine that produced a gravity pulse, which displaced 
>things at a distance and apparently traveled at a velocity greater than 
>light—I think it was reported to be 64 times c.

I think that's Podkletnov not Puthoff. 
(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov)
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[Bob Cook]

Dave--

Puthoff I think made a machine that produced a gravity pulse, which displaced 
things at a distance and apparently traveled at a velocity greater than light—I 
think it was reported to be 64 times c.

If an EM drive produced such a pulse it would seem to have some effective mass, 
given its ability to carry momentum per the Puthoff  reports.  

Bob Cook

From: David Roberson 
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 2:15 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

It is true that the car will eventually come to a rest in its reference frame 
once its fuel is exhausted.  But, observers in other frames will notice that it 
has kinetic energy and momentum gained during the acceleration period.  They 
can all determine that the car mass and energy plus the energy that it imparted 
to other objects during its motion adds up to the beginning amount of mass and 
energy.  This is clearly a different situation than that expected for an EM 
drive vehicle.

You should note that the car we are discussing is not capable of accelerating 
unless it is using a road or some electromagnetic force that is not terminated 
within the car itself.  That other object acts as the reaction matter that 
replaces the exhausted fuel of the rocket concept.  An EM drive operating in 
deep space does not have any tangible object to generate a force against.

If someone can show that the EM drive interacts with the earth's gravitational 
field in a manner that generates a force then perhaps that might make sense.   
Of course, then the earth would act as the reaction mass.  So far I do not 
recall that being seriously discussed.

I suppose that an EM drive that generates gravitational waves and radiates them 
out the rear would offer a possibility.  The recent detection of these waves 
from the black hole combination radiated an enormous amount of energy and thus 
mass into space.   The radiation converted PE of the pair into radiation that 
is difficult to detect.  But, at least the magnitude of the missing mass is 
accounted for in the energy of the radiation.

I remain skeptical that EM drives are a reality but it does little damage to 
speculate upon some possible modes of operation.  If they eventually are proven 
real then my bets are that some form of measurable reaction mass equivalent is 
involved.

Dave





-Original Message-
From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 4:26 pm
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:58:43 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>Of course the EM drive ship that remains in this extreme case(actually nothing 
>at all if zero exhaust is present) is at rest which means it has zero kinetic 
>energy relative to itself. Again, this is not a problem for a normal rocket 
>that spits out reaction mass. In that case all the missing mass and energy can 
>be located by analyzing the exhaust stream. This is true regardless of what 
>reference frame you choose. A normal rocket obeys CoE and CoM whereas the EM 
>Drive ship does not.

An electric car speeding down the road will also eventually exhaust all it's
stored energy, while remaining motionless in it's own rest frame (BTW everything
is always motionless in it's own rest frame, that's why it's called "rest"),
nevertheless it has considerable kinetic energy relative to the road. I fail to
see the difference between this and the EM drive vehicle. Note that the car used
it's energy to change the relationship between it's own frame of reference and
that of it's surroundings. So did the EM drive vehicle.

Kinetic energy always depends on the frame of reference chosen. When either
vehicle starts out with a full fuel load, the "correct" frame of reference is
the initial frame in which the "fuel tank" was full. If we stick to that frame
instead of swapping and changing when we feel like it, then the kinetic energy
gained, as the fuel is used, becomes apparent.

For the EM drive ship, the "exhaust" is the universe itself. Just think of
spacetime as invisible "train tracks", and it all becomes clear.

(Made beautifully visible in a Dr. Who episode about the Orient Express. :) )

Acceleration requires force, and all lines of force have two ends. If one end is
attached to the EM drive, then the other end must be attached to something. The
only thing that would make sense is the fabric of spacetime itself.
In short IMO, if it works at all, then this is how it would have to work.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[David Roberson]

If nothing is remaining of the ship then it can not have a finite value of 
kinetic energy relative to any observer.  Remember this was an example of 
carrying the process to the extreme.  That technique can point out problems in 
many visual concepts.

If you apply the same technique to a normal rocket then all of the original 
energy and mass can be accounted for in the exhaust.  Nothing vanishes.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 12:36 pm
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

Relative to its initial state it has gained kinetic energy. If the
Emdrive needs and external source of energy then it may work by
preserving CoE but by violating CoM.

Harry

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:58 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> Of course the EM drive ship that remains in this extreme case(actually
> nothing at all if zero exhaust is present) is at rest which means it has
> zero kinetic energy relative to itself.  Again, this is not a problem for a
> normal rocket that spits out reaction mass.  In that case all the missing
> mass and energy can be located by analyzing the exhaust stream.  This is
> true regardless of what reference frame you choose.  A normal rocket obeys
> CoE and CoM whereas the EM Drive ship does not.
>
> If it can be shown that the EM drive emits its mass in the form of radiation
> out the exhaust then all is well.  But thus far it is suggested that nothing
> is performing that function.
>
> Dave
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Wed, Mar 16, 2016 9:29 pm
> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
>
> In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:19:13 -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>>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.
>
> The process stops, when all the mass has been converted into kinetic energy.
>
> The only thing I know of that only has kinetic energy and no mass is EM
> radiation.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>

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

[ChemE Stewart]

Question:-

"Why would gravity warp spacetime, but not electric and magnetic fields?
According to Axil and Fran, they warp spacetime big time. (SPPs) ;)"



*http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.08377.pdf *

*"Starting from a five dimensional Kaluza-Klein theory, which is toroidally
compactified to yield an effective four dimensional dilaton-Maxwell theory,
we find exact background solutions describing a dilatonic domain wall which
entraps magnetic flux, which has previously been described by Gibbons and
Wells [1]. This type of domain wall is interesting, not only because it
traps magnetic flux, but also because it is nontopological in origin, i.e.,
the solution is not stabilized by a nontrivial topology of the vacuum
manifold. "*

*My best guess at a "low pressure" Vacuum Manifold:*

*https://sdsimonson.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/waterspout-sunset-key-1.jpg
*


*https://i.imgur.com/gotFHg0.jpg *
*The vacuum ain't stable*


On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 4:27 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Fri, 18 Mar 2016 22:20:20 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 3:19 PM,  wrote:
> >
> >If the presence of an object warps spacetime (General Relativity), then
> >> something must be present to warp?
> >>
> >
> >General relativity provides a unified description of gravity and
> >spacetime.  The EM Drive makes use first and foremost of the
> >electromagnetic interaction.  What about the EM Drive would be causing the
> >warping of spacetime?
> >
> >Eric
>
> The interactions between photons and spacetime? Just guessing.
>
> Question:-
>
> Why would gravity warp spacetime, but not electric and magnetic fields?
> According to Axil and Fran, they warp spacetime big time. (SPPs) ;)
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

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

[David Roberson]

-Original Message-
From: Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Mar 16, 2016 10:34 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
>If i slide my beer across the table, it could land on the floor, or my lap.  
>Its PE depends on which part of the desk i knock it off, so does that PE's 
>corresponding relativistic mass fluctuate as i move it around?<

The initial potential energy is the same regardless of how much you allow to be 
converted into other forms.  If the beer drops a greater distance toward the 
center of the earth, then more of it is used up and converted into other forms 
of energy.  An observer from outside the closed system would not detect an 
overall mass decrease unless some form of that total energy escapes the system.

This is very similar to what is seen with an electron orbiting an atomic 
nucleus.  Light is emitted when the potential energy of the overall atomic 
system is reduced.  Before the light is emitted the mass of the atomic system 
could in principle be measured.  The loss in mass from the system would exactly 
match the energy contained within the light plus and kinetic energy due to 
atomic recoil.

An outside observer of the beer and Earth system would see the same effects 
taking place.  If you used energy contained for example within a spring to 
raise your beer, he would not detect any net change to the system mass.  You 
tend to think of nuclear energy as being somehow different, but that is not the 
way I see it.  Nuclear mass could also be used to generate electricity which 
then raises your beer.  The effect is identical to the outside observer, he see 
no net change to the closed system mass again unless some form of radiation 
leaves as a result of the nuclear reaction.

The bottom line is that potential energy due to position of the beer relative 
to the center of the earth is just one form of energy which can be interchanged 
with mass according to Einstein's equation.

Dave

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

[mixent]

In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 15:00:38 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Robin's example of the electric car is different than the EM drive since it 
>allows the evaluation of the conservation of momentum.  The road increases 
>its momentum in the opposite direction the car does.  In the EM case there 
>is no apparent conservation of momentum--at least I do not know how to 
>calculate it.  Does the entire space time existence change its momentum? 
>Maybe Robin could identify how momentum is conserved in the EM drive.
>
>Bob Cook

See my reply to David. Everyone is making the assumption that a force can only
act against another object, because that has always been our experience. This
may be the first tangible experience of a force acting against the vacuum
itself, rather than another object.

If we can warp spacetime, we can also push against it.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[mixent]

In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 21:36:33 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>So the vacuum's momentum changes in the opposite direction of the increased 
>momentum of the ship.  The issue is COM in my mind, not an absolute increase 
>in momentum.  That suggests  momentum is not conserved.
>
>bob Cook

If you are able to push against spacetime, why would momentum not be conserved?
Imagine pushing against the mass of the entire universe.

Another useful visual model might be a group of ice-skaters. You can move by
pushing or pulling another skater, but you can also move by pushing a sharp
object into the ice and pushing against that. Perhaps the EM drive is a sharp
object?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Fri, 18 Mar 2016 22:20:20 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 3:19 PM,  wrote:
>
>If the presence of an object warps spacetime (General Relativity), then
>> something must be present to warp?
>>
>
>General relativity provides a unified description of gravity and
>spacetime.  The EM Drive makes use first and foremost of the
>electromagnetic interaction.  What about the EM Drive would be causing the
>warping of spacetime?
>
>Eric

The interactions between photons and spacetime? Just guessing.

Question:-

Why would gravity warp spacetime, but not electric and magnetic fields?
According to Axil and Fran, they warp spacetime big time. (SPPs) ;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[Bob Cook]

Harry--

If the space ship is between galaxies looking at star will be of no help.  The 
will are be observed as receding from you given the expansion of space.  And 
what’s more, how does an accelerometer work that must contend with an 
increasing space volume as one is trying to accelerate?  If there is a 
measurable gravitational field you would conclude you are it would be getting 
smaller with time, assuming time is not expanding with the space.  Unless your 
EM drive would go faster than the expansion of space you would be lost for 
ever.  We are lucky that space within a galaxy does not expand like space 
between galaxies as we know happens according to the Big Bang theory.  Anybody 
traveling between galaxies should stay away from the boundary that separates 
him from a zone of  expansion of space that is more than his ship can handle.  

Bob Cook

Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 3:42 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

People riding in a Emdrive  spaceship could compare their motion to background 
stars before and after the acceleration to determine how much their speed has 
changed. Or they could use an onboard accelerometer to compute their new 
velocity from the prior period of acceleration.

As you pointed out all the tests todate use an external energy supply so until 
the drive operates with an onboard energy supply I think it is also plausible 
to say it may only work with an external energy supply. The external energy 
supply might create acceleration by *increasing* the mass of the drive instead 
of reducing the mass of the drive. Figuratively speaking the drive would "suck".

On Mar 17, 2016 12:56 PM, "David Roberson" <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

  If nothing is remaining of the ship then it can not have a finite value of 
kinetic energy relative to any observer.  Remember this was an example of 
carrying the process to the extreme.  That technique can point out problems in 
many visual concepts.

  If you apply the same technique to a normal rocket then all of the original 
energy and mass can be accounted for in the exhaust.  Nothing vanishes.

  Dave




  -Original Message-
  From: H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com>
  To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
  Sent: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 12:36 pm
  Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

  Relative to its initial state it has gained kinetic energy. If the
  Emdrive needs and external source of energy then it may work by
  preserving CoE but by violating CoM.

  Harry

  On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:58 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
  > Of course the EM drive ship that remains in this extreme case(actually
  > nothing at all if zero exhaust is present) is at rest which means it has
  > zero kinetic energy relative to itself. Again, this is not a problem for a
  > normal rocket that spits out reaction mass. In that case all the missing
  > mass and energy can be located by analyzing the exhaust stream. This is
  > true regardless of what reference frame you choose. A normal rocket obeys
  > CoE and CoM whereas the EM Drive ship does not.
  >
  > If it can be shown that the EM drive emits its mass in the form of radiation
  > out the exhaust then all is well. But thus far it is suggested that nothing
  > is performing that function.
  >
  > Dave
  >
  > -Original Message-
  > From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com>
  > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
  > Sent: Wed, Mar 16, 2016 9:29 pm
  > Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
  >
  > In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:19:13 -0400:
  > Hi,
  > [snip]
  >>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.
  >
  > The process stops, when all the mass has been converted into kinetic energy.
  >
  > The only thing I know of that only has kinetic energy and no mass is EM
  > radiation.
  >
  > Regards,
  >
  > Robin van Spaandonk
  >
  > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
  >

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

[Bob Cook]

Robin's example of the electric car is different than the EM drive since it 
allows the evaluation of the conservation of momentum.  The road increases 
its momentum in the opposite direction the car does.  In the EM case there 
is no apparent conservation of momentum--at least I do not know how to 
calculate it.  Does the entire space time existence change its momentum? 
Maybe Robin could identify how momentum is conserved in the EM drive.


Bob Cook

-Original Message- 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 1:26 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:58:43 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
Of course the EM drive ship that remains in this extreme case(actually 
nothing at all if zero exhaust is present) is at rest which means it has 
zero kinetic energy relative to itself.  Again, this is not a problem for a 
normal rocket that spits out reaction mass.  In that case all the missing 
mass and energy can be located by analyzing the exhaust stream.  This is 
true regardless of what reference frame you choose.  A normal rocket obeys 
CoE and CoM whereas the EM Drive ship does not.


An electric car speeding down the road will also eventually exhaust all it's
stored energy, while remaining motionless in it's own rest frame (BTW 
everything

is always motionless in it's own rest frame, that's why it's called "rest"),
nevertheless it has considerable kinetic energy relative to the road. I fail 
to
see the difference between this and the EM drive vehicle. Note that the car 
used
it's energy to change the relationship between it's own frame of reference 
and

that of it's surroundings. So did the EM drive vehicle.

Kinetic energy always depends on the frame of reference chosen. When either
vehicle starts out with a full fuel load, the "correct" frame of reference 
is
the initial frame in which the "fuel tank" was full. If we stick to that 
frame
instead of swapping and changing when we feel like it, then the kinetic 
energy

gained, as the fuel is used, becomes apparent.

For the EM drive ship, the "exhaust" is the universe itself. Just think of
spacetime as invisible "train tracks", and it all becomes clear.

(Made beautifully visible in a Dr. Who episode about the Orient Express. 
:) )


Acceleration requires force, and all lines of force have two ends. If one 
end is
attached to the EM drive, then the other end must be attached to something. 
The

only thing that would make sense is the fabric of spacetime itself.
In short IMO, if it works at all, then this is how it would have to work.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[mixent]

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:58:43 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>Of course the EM drive ship that remains in this extreme case(actually nothing 
>at all if zero exhaust is present) is at rest which means it has zero kinetic 
>energy relative to itself.  Again, this is not a problem for a normal rocket 
>that spits out reaction mass.  In that case all the missing mass and energy 
>can be located by analyzing the exhaust stream.  This is true regardless of 
>what reference frame you choose.  A normal rocket obeys CoE and CoM whereas 
>the EM Drive ship does not.

An electric car speeding down the road will also eventually exhaust all it's
stored energy, while remaining motionless in it's own rest frame (BTW everything
is always motionless in it's own rest frame, that's why it's called "rest"),
nevertheless it has considerable kinetic energy relative to the road. I fail to
see the difference between this and the EM drive vehicle. Note that the car used
it's energy to change the relationship between it's own frame of reference and
that of it's surroundings. So did the EM drive vehicle.

Kinetic energy always depends on the frame of reference chosen. When either
vehicle starts out with a full fuel load, the "correct" frame of reference is
the initial frame in which the "fuel tank" was full. If we stick to that frame
instead of swapping and changing when we feel like it, then the kinetic energy
gained, as the fuel is used, becomes apparent.

For the EM drive ship, the "exhaust" is the universe itself. Just think of
spacetime as invisible "train tracks", and it all becomes clear.

(Made beautifully visible in a Dr. Who episode about the Orient Express. :) )

Acceleration requires force, and all lines of force have two ends. If one end is
attached to the EM drive, then the other end must be attached to something. The
only thing that would make sense is the fabric of spacetime itself.
In short IMO, if it works at all, then this is how it would have to work.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[H LV]

People riding in a Emdrive  spaceship could compare their motion to
background stars before and after the acceleration to determine how much
their speed has changed. Or they could use an onboard accelerometer to
compute their new velocity from the prior period of acceleration.

As you pointed out all the tests todate use an external energy supply so
until the drive operates with an onboard energy supply I think it is also
plausible to say it may only work with an external energy supply. The
external energy supply might create acceleration by *increasing* the mass
of the drive instead of reducing the mass of the drive. Figuratively
speaking the drive would "suck".
On Mar 17, 2016 12:56 PM, "David Roberson" <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

> If nothing is remaining of the ship then it can not have a finite value of
> kinetic energy relative to any observer.  Remember this was an example of
> carrying the process to the extreme.  That technique can point out problems
> in many visual concepts.
>
> If you apply the same technique to a normal rocket then all of the
> original energy and mass can be accounted for in the exhaust.  Nothing
> vanishes.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 12:36 pm
> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
>
> Relative to its initial state it has gained kinetic energy. If the
> Emdrive needs and external source of energy then it may work by
> preserving CoE but by violating CoM.
>
> Harry
>
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:58 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
> wrote:
> > Of course the EM drive ship that remains in this extreme case(actually
> > nothing at all if zero exhaust is present) is at rest which means it has
> > zero kinetic energy relative to itself. Again, this is not a problem for
> a
> > normal rocket that spits out reaction mass. In that case all the missing
> > mass and energy can be located by analyzing the exhaust stream. This is
> > true regardless of what reference frame you choose. A normal rocket obeys
> > CoE and CoM whereas the EM Drive ship does not.
> >
> > If it can be shown that the EM drive emits its mass in the form of
> radiation
> > out the exhaust then all is well. But thus far it is suggested that
> nothing
> > is performing that function.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com>
> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> > Sent: Wed, Mar 16, 2016 9:29 pm
> > Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
> >
> > In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:19:13 -0400:
> > Hi,
> > [snip]
> >>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.
> >
> > The process stops, when all the mass has been converted into kinetic
> energy.
> >
> > The only thing I know of that only has kinetic energy and no mass is EM
> > radiation.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Robin van Spaandonk
> >
> > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
> >
>
>

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

[H LV]

> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Vibrator !  wrote:
>> But the PE of the system in question is 1 kg * 1 G * 1 meter, not the full
>> distance from heaven to hell.
>>
>


I wrote:
> Measure PE relative to the place where the force of gravity is zero
> inside the Earth. That place has an objective existence even if it is
> impossible for a body to fall there in practice.


Well I guess there could be more than one place with zero gravity so
that wouldn't eliminate
the arbitrariness of mass from gravitational PE.

What one could do is to acknowledge is that the conversion of energy
into mass doesn't happen by accident.

Imagine a hill separating two valleys A and B where B is twice as deep
as A. I find a log in valley A and roll it up to the top of the hill
where it could roll either way. It has now acquired mass from being
rolled out of valley A. If a gust of wind causes the log to roll into
valley B it loses the added mass half way down the hill.

Harry

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

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:58 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

A normal rocket obeys CoE and CoM whereas the EM Drive ship does not.
>

I don't think this conclusion has been established yet.

If it can be shown that the EM drive emits its mass in the form of
> radiation out the exhaust then all is well.  But thus far it is suggested
> that nothing is performing that function.
>

I suggested neutrinos.

Eric

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

[H LV]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Vibrator !  wrote:
> But the PE of the system in question is 1 kg * 1 G * 1 meter, not the full
> distance from heaven to hell.
>

Measure PE relative to the place where the force of gravity is zero
inside the Earth. That place has an objective existence even if it is
impossible for a body to fall there in practice.


> Suppose we had a scale sensitive enough to register a relativistic mass
> increase due to PE, and then we roll a dice to decide how mach mass to drop,
> or how far...  is the reading on the scale in some kind of superposition
> until the dice lands?
>
> And where would the mass increase actually be manifest - in the mass to be
> dropped, or the earth, or the net system?  (i don't mind if we'd have to
> weigh the whole Sol system - doesn't have to be practically viable, just in
> principle)
>
> If i have to input 9.81 J to raise 1 kg by 1 meter, but only half that - 4.9
> J - to excavate a 1 meter-deep hole, both systems have equal output PE, yet
> unequal input PE..  So what would our hypothetical Schrodinger's weighing
> scale have to say about this?
>
> E=MC^2 ascribes relativistic mass to KE - which is why C is mechanically
> unattainable - but not "potential", which, as the name implies, can be
> conditional and even indeterminate - ie. an unstable system can have a
> multitude of possible stable configurations it could collapse into, each
> with a unique energy profile.  Because of this, i have difficulty accepting
> the oft-mentioned example of a loaded spring posessing such a mass increase
> - it would be selective evidence for a generalisation encompassing
> indeterminate systems...  surely, either all PE has relativistic mass, or
> none does.

You are confusing possibility with potentiality. Possibility is
conditional and indeterminate. A seed has the potential to become a
tree, but the condition of the environment may make it impossible for
the seed to realize its potential. I would say as long as the
environment is sufficiently determined then a body can have an
objective PE and extra mass. ( I don't like term relativistic mass
because that implies motion which is not required for a body to have
PE)


> However even if i'm mistaken, and a relativistic mass increase CAN be in a
> superposition of states, in that case it's not a conserved quantity either,
> and free to come and go with the ebb and flow of potential..  just as it
> does with KE.  Which is just as well, since if an EM drive really could
> reach C, its wet weight would be infinite..
>
> I can think of one permutation that might be an exception - a
> nuclear-powered EM drive; supposing perfect efficiency, would the
> relativistic mass gained from KE equal the mass deficit of the spent fuel?
> Tricky one, that.
>
> Or for a real head-twister, suppose we have a Bessler wheel powering our EM
> drive - gravity is equivalent to an acceleration, so acceleration of the
> craft in turn powers the Bessler mechanism, in a positive feedback loop.
> The harder it accelerates, the more PE it has to accelerate even harder.
> Fueled by its own acceleration, it's limited only by how much inertial force
> it can withstand... but in principle it has infinite PE, and again, the
> corresponding mass increase, as some would have it..
>
>
> You could knock these out all day - bottom line is that a blanket assumption
> that relativistic mass applies to potential, implies all manner of
> absurdities and infinities.  Which doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong of
> course, but should set alarm bells ringing..


Harry

>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 4:42 AM, H LV  wrote:
>>
>> 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: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

If its neutrinos, then they would seem to have some mass that is magnified
> by their high velocity and special relativity.
>

I don't think it is necessary that the neutrinos be relativistic, although
surely they will be. I do not know that a relativistic increase in mass
will have any bearing on recoil.  What is important in the present context
is momentum.  The momentum of the neutrino and the momentum of the recoil
nucleus will be equal and opposite, dividing up several MeV in the case of
electron capture.  The neutrino will travel much faster, of course.  But
the momenta are equal (by Newton's third law).

If neutrino travels at the speed of  light, like many believe. they should
> have no rest  mass.
>

Perhaps.  Wikipedia says the first generation of neutrinos has ~ 0.3 eV
mass.  I believe the suggestion that they have mass goes back to the
observation of neutrino oscillation.  Note that although 0.3 eV does not
sound like much in the way of mass, it's a lot more than zero, which is
what photons have, assuming the current understanding is correct.

Eric, do you have any information regarding the momentum of neutrinos that
> collide with targets and are stopped?
>

The neutrino wouldn't collide or stop in this case.  It would be emitted
during the electron capture, causing the daughter nucleus to recoil, and it
would pass right through the apparatus, leading an apparent violation of
conservation of momentum.  We are trying to account for a thrust that is on
the order of 100 uN.  I do not have a clear understanding at this point of
whether the implied intensity of MeV neutrino emission would be improbably
high to explain this amount of thrust, or whether a plausible reaction rate
could be obtained.

The neutrino emission would also need to be directed.  This might be a
simple consequence of having an anisotropic pattern of RF stimulation
within the cavity.

Presumably the cavity material is what would undergo electron capture.
Copper cannot do this, although aluminum, which has been used in the past,
can [1].  In the case of copper, perhaps there would be an impurity or
alloyed element that would be involved.

Eric


[1] https://hackaday.io/project/5596-em-drive

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

[Bob Cook]

So the vacuum's momentum changes in the opposite direction of the increased 
momentum of the ship.  The issue is COM in my mind, not an absolute increase 
in momentum.  That suggests  momentum is not conserved.


bob Cook

-Original Message- 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 5:43 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 15:00:38 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]

Robin's example of the electric car is different than the EM drive since it
allows the evaluation of the conservation of momentum.  The road increases
its momentum in the opposite direction the car does.  In the EM case there
is no apparent conservation of momentum--at least I do not know how to
calculate it.  Does the entire space time existence change its momentum?
Maybe Robin could identify how momentum is conserved in the EM drive.

Bob Cook


See my reply to David. Everyone is making the assumption that a force can 
only
act against another object, because that has always been our experience. 
This

may be the first tangible experience of a force acting against the vacuum
itself, rather than another object.

If we can warp spacetime, we can also push against it.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[Bob Cook]

If its neutrinos, then they would seem to have some mass that is magnified by 
their high velocity and special relativity.  If neutrino travels at the speed 
of  light, like many believe. they should have no rest  mass.  Eric, do you 
have any information regarding the momentum of neutrinos that collide with 
targets and are stopped?

Bob Cook

From: Eric Walker 
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 3:56 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:58 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:


  A normal rocket obeys CoE and CoM whereas the EM Drive ship does not.


I don't think this conclusion has been established yet.

  If it can be shown that the EM drive emits its mass in the form of radiation 
out the exhaust then all is well.  But thus far it is suggested that nothing is 
performing that function.


I suggested neutrinos.

Eric

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

[mixent]

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:19:13 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>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.

The process stops, when all the mass has been converted into kinetic energy. 

The only thing I know of that only has kinetic energy and no mass is EM
radiation.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[David Roberson]

It is true that the car will eventually come to a rest in its reference frame 
once its fuel is exhausted.  But, observers in other frames will notice that it 
has kinetic energy and momentum gained during the acceleration period.  They 
can all determine that the car mass and energy plus the energy that it imparted 
to other objects during its motion adds up to the beginning amount of mass and 
energy.  This is clearly a different situation than that expected for an EM 
drive vehicle.

You should note that the car we are discussing is not capable of accelerating 
unless it is using a road or some electromagnetic force that is not terminated 
within the car itself.  That other object acts as the reaction matter that 
replaces the exhausted fuel of the rocket concept.  An EM drive operating in 
deep space does not have any tangible object to generate a force against.

If someone can show that the EM drive interacts with the earth's gravitational 
field in a manner that generates a force then perhaps that might make sense.   
Of course, then the earth would act as the reaction mass.  So far I do not 
recall that being seriously discussed.

I suppose that an EM drive that generates gravitational waves and radiates them 
out the rear would offer a possibility.  The recent detection of these waves 
from the black hole combination radiated an enormous amount of energy and thus 
mass into space.   The radiation converted PE of the pair into radiation that 
is difficult to detect.  But, at least the magnitude of the missing mass is 
accounted for in the energy of the radiation.

I remain skeptical that EM drives are a reality but it does little damage to 
speculate upon some possible modes of operation.  If they eventually are proven 
real then my bets are that some form of measurable reaction mass equivalent is 
involved.

Dave


 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 4:26 pm
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:58:43 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>Of course the EM drive ship that remains in this extreme case(actually nothing 
>at all if zero exhaust is present) is at rest which means it has zero kinetic 
>energy relative to itself.  Again, this is not a problem for a normal rocket 
>that spits out reaction mass.  In that case all the missing mass and energy 
>can be located by analyzing the exhaust stream.  This is true regardless of 
>what reference frame you choose.  A normal rocket obeys CoE and CoM whereas 
>the EM Drive ship does not.

An electric car speeding down the road will also eventually exhaust all it's
stored energy, while remaining motionless in it's own rest frame (BTW everything
is always motionless in it's own rest frame, that's why it's called "rest"),
nevertheless it has considerable kinetic energy relative to the road. I fail to
see the difference between this and the EM drive vehicle. Note that the car used
it's energy to change the relationship between it's own frame of reference and
that of it's surroundings. So did the EM drive vehicle.

Kinetic energy always depends on the frame of reference chosen. When either
vehicle starts out with a full fuel load, the "correct" frame of reference is
the initial frame in which the "fuel tank" was full. If we stick to that frame
instead of swapping and changing when we feel like it, then the kinetic energy
gained, as the fuel is used, becomes apparent.

For the EM drive ship, the "exhaust" is the universe itself. Just think of
spacetime as invisible "train tracks", and it all becomes clear.

(Made beautifully visible in a Dr. Who episode about the Orient Express. :) )

Acceleration requires force, and all lines of force have two ends. If one end is
attached to the EM drive, then the other end must be attached to something. The
only thing that would make sense is the fabric of spacetime itself.
In short IMO, if it works at all, then this is how it would have to work.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[mixent]

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 17:15:16 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>You should note that the car we are discussing is not capable of accelerating 
>unless it is using a road or some electromagnetic force that is not terminated 
>within the car itself.  That other object acts as the reaction matter that 
>replaces the exhausted fuel of the rocket concept. 

Precisely.

> An EM drive operating in deep space does not have any tangible object to 
> generate a force against.

Not that we have as yet experienced. However this may the first example (black
swan) of a drive that can actually interact with the vacuum itself . If it works
at all, then that's what I would bet on.
That's why I would like to see a much higher Q factor tried. Varying the Q
factor should provide corresponding results, if the inventor is correct.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:43 PM,  wrote:

See my reply to David. Everyone is making the assumption that a force can
> only
> act against another object, because that has always been our experience.
> This
> may be the first tangible experience of a force acting against the vacuum
> itself, rather than another object.
>
> If we can warp spacetime, we can also push against it.
>

Does this require that the vacuum be something other than a frictionless
superfluid?

Eric

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

[mixent]

In reply to  Roarty, Francis X's message of Fri, 18 Mar 2016 10:23:12 +:
Hi,
[snip]
>Which takes something physically present to do the warping…ok if it can remain 
>spatially fixed but I suspect it will have to dilate on temporal axis to 
>maintain equal and opposite action across frames.

If the presence of an object warps spacetime (General Relativity), then
something must be present to warp?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[Vibrator !]

>Your example is similar to what happens when an electron is located at an
elevated energy level.  Do you believe that the atom does not have
additional mass when compared to one that is in the lowest energy state?
The energy that is going to be radiated must come from somewhere and I
believe it shows up as a mass increase of the atomic system.

And when the battery is recharged by the use of regenerative braking, mass
is returned that is equal to the mass lost in driving the motor.  What is
the source of chemical energy if not due to stored potential energy of
electrons? E=M*c*c appears to apply in every case that I have seen. <



Momentum's conserved so energy rises with orbital radius,and a
corresponding mass increase is expected - the actual form of this
particular "PE" is KE.

But PE could depend on something as abstract as an entropy change.
"Potential" = conditional, not yet manifest.

The difference between nuclear and chemical PE would be the distinction
between relativistic and rest mass - and the very fact they're contextual
underlines my point; a chemical reaction doesn't have nuclear PE and vice
versa. PE is subjective, context-dependent.


>Here that same arguement applies as before.  Except that several
electron lower energy states exist instead of just one.<

...and so when a system's PE is indeterminate, any corresponding
relativistic mass increase must be in a superposition until it collapses
into a definite state..!?  A given reaction might unleash 2 or 3 ev, but
prior to an outcome we'd have to assign a mass range rather than a definite
weight?  This is what i have trouble with..

If i slide my beer across the table, it could land on the floor, or my
lap.  Its PE depends on which part of the desk i knock it off, so does that
PE's corresponding relativistic mass fluctuate as i move it around?







On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:28 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

> -Original Message-
> From: Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Tue, Mar 15, 2016 10:32 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
> ...
> >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)?<
>
> Your example is similar to what happens when an electron is located at an
> elevated energy level.  Do you believe that the atom does not have
> additional mass when compared to one that is in the lowest energy state?
> The energy that is going to be radiated must come from somewhere and I
> believe it shows up as a mass increase of the atomic system.
>
> >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?<
>
> Here that same arguement applies as before.  Except that several
> electron lower energy states exist instead of just one.
>
> >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.<
>
> And when the battery is recharged by the use of regenerative braking, mass
> is returned that is equal to the mass lost in driving the motor.  What is
> the source of chemical energy if not due to stored potential energy of
> electrons? E=M*c*c appears to apply in every case that I have seen.
>
> >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.<...
>
> I consider nuclear energy as being analogous to electron orbital energy.
> The force keeping the nucleus together performs the same function and in
> that case everyone seems to accept that this store of potential
> energy results in a nuclear mass decrease as fission takes place.  Nothing
> but a tradeoff between potential energy and other forms.  How is that
> process completely different from PE stored by electrons in orbit?
> Dave
>

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

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:59:12 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:43 PM,  wrote:
>
>See my reply to David. Everyone is making the assumption that a force can
>> only
>> act against another object, because that has always been our experience.
>> This
>> may be the first tangible experience of a force acting against the vacuum
>> itself, rather than another object.
>>
>> If we can warp spacetime, we can also push against it.
>>
>
>Does this require that the vacuum be something other than a frictionless
>superfluid?

Not sure about that (literally). How do you feel about a solid lattice rather
than a superfluid?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 5:23 AM, Roarty, Francis X <
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:

Which takes something physically present to do the warping…ok if it can
> remain spatially fixed but I suspect it will have to dilate on temporal
> axis to maintain equal and opposite action across frames.
>

We've seen nominal evidence of thrust that one wants to understand.  Have
we seen nominal evidence of warping?

Eric

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

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 6:29 PM,  wrote:

Wasn't there something quoted here not too long ago about laser possibly
> revealing a warping in the neighborhood of an operating drive?
>

I don't remember it, but if there was such a report, I think it would be
outside of the realm of what is interesting to mainstream investigators and
deep into woo phenomena.  Which doesn't mean it's incorrect.

Eric

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

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Fri, 18 Mar 2016 10:05:31 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 5:23 AM, Roarty, Francis X <
>francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:
>
>Which takes something physically present to do the warping…ok if it can
>> remain spatially fixed but I suspect it will have to dilate on temporal
>> axis to maintain equal and opposite action across frames.
>>
>
>We've seen nominal evidence of thrust that one wants to understand.  Have
>we seen nominal evidence of warping?


Wasn't there something quoted here not too long ago about laser possibly
revealing a warping in the neighborhood of an operating drive?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[David Roberson]

Of course the EM drive ship that remains in this extreme case(actually nothing 
at all if zero exhaust is present) is at rest which means it has zero kinetic 
energy relative to itself.  Again, this is not a problem for a normal rocket 
that spits out reaction mass.  In that case all the missing mass and energy can 
be located by analyzing the exhaust stream.  This is true regardless of what 
reference frame you choose.  A normal rocket obeys CoE and CoM whereas the EM 
Drive ship does not.

If it can be shown that the EM drive emits its mass in the form of radiation 
out the exhaust then all is well.  But thus far it is suggested that nothing is 
performing that function.

Dave
 

-Original Message-
From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Mar 16, 2016 9:29 pm
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:19:13 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>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.

The process stops, when all the mass has been converted into kinetic energy. 

The only thing I know of that only has kinetic energy and no mass is EM
radiation.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[Roarty, Francis X]

Which takes something physically present to do the warping…ok if it can remain 
spatially fixed but I suspect it will have to dilate on temporal axis to 
maintain equal and opposite action across frames.

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 9:59 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:43 PM, 
<mix...@bigpond.com<mailto:mix...@bigpond.com>> wrote:

See my reply to David. Everyone is making the assumption that a force can only
act against another object, because that has always been our experience. This
may be the first tangible experience of a force acting against the vacuum
itself, rather than another object.

If we can warp spacetime, we can also push against it.

Does this require that the vacuum be something other than a frictionless 
superfluid?

Eric

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

[H LV]

Relative to its initial state it has gained kinetic energy. If the
Emdrive needs and external source of energy then it may work by
preserving CoE but by violating CoM.

Harry

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:58 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> Of course the EM drive ship that remains in this extreme case(actually
> nothing at all if zero exhaust is present) is at rest which means it has
> zero kinetic energy relative to itself.  Again, this is not a problem for a
> normal rocket that spits out reaction mass.  In that case all the missing
> mass and energy can be located by analyzing the exhaust stream.  This is
> true regardless of what reference frame you choose.  A normal rocket obeys
> CoE and CoM whereas the EM Drive ship does not.
>
> If it can be shown that the EM drive emits its mass in the form of radiation
> out the exhaust then all is well.  But thus far it is suggested that nothing
> is performing that function.
>
> Dave
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Wed, Mar 16, 2016 9:29 pm
> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
>
> In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:19:13 -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>>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.
>
> The process stops, when all the mass has been converted into kinetic energy.
>
> The only thing I know of that only has kinetic energy and no mass is EM
> radiation.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>

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

[Vibrator !]

But the PE of the system in question is 1 kg * 1 G * 1 meter, not the full
distance from heaven to hell.

Suppose we had a scale sensitive enough to register a relativistic mass
increase due to PE, and then we roll a dice to decide how mach mass to
drop, or how far...  is the reading on the scale in some kind of
superposition until the dice lands?

And where would the mass increase actually be manifest - in the mass to be
dropped, or the earth, or the net system?  (i don't mind if we'd have to
weigh the whole Sol system - doesn't have to be practically viable, just in
principle)

If i have to input 9.81 J to raise 1 kg by 1 meter, but only half that -
4.9 J - to excavate a 1 meter-deep hole, both systems have equal output PE,
yet unequal input PE..  So what would our hypothetical Schrodinger's
weighing scale have to say about this?

E=MC^2 ascribes relativistic mass to KE - which is why C is mechanically
unattainable - but not "potential", which, as the name implies, can be
conditional and even indeterminate - ie. an unstable system can have a
multitude of possible stable configurations it could collapse into, each
with a unique energy profile.  Because of this, i have difficulty accepting
the oft-mentioned example of a loaded spring posessing such a mass increase
- it would be selective evidence for a generalisation encompassing
indeterminate systems...  surely, either all PE has relativistic mass, or
none does.

However even if i'm mistaken, and a relativistic mass increase CAN be in a
superposition of states, in that case it's not a conserved quantity either,
and free to come and go with the ebb and flow of potential..  just as it
does with KE.  Which is just as well, since if an EM drive really could
reach C, its wet weight would be infinite..

I can think of one permutation that might be an exception - a
nuclear-powered EM drive; supposing perfect efficiency, would the
relativistic mass gained from KE equal the mass deficit of the spent fuel?
Tricky one, that.

Or for a real head-twister, suppose we have a Bessler wheel powering our EM
drive - gravity is equivalent to an acceleration, so acceleration of the
craft in turn powers the Bessler mechanism, in a positive feedback loop.
The harder it accelerates, the more PE it has to accelerate even harder.
Fueled by its own acceleration, it's limited only by how much inertial
force it can withstand... but in principle it has infinite PE, and again,
the corresponding mass increase, as some would have it..


You could knock these out all day - bottom line is that a blanket
assumption that relativistic mass applies to potential, implies all manner
of absurdities and infinities.  Which doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong
of course, but should set alarm bells ringing..


On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 4:42 AM, H LV  wrote:

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

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 3:22 PM,  wrote:

>Does this require that the vacuum be something other than a frictionless
> >superfluid?
>
> Not sure about that (literally). How do you feel about a solid lattice
> rather
> than a superfluid?
>

I feel doubtful, although I have no strong opinion.  The contrarian in me
would be delighted for a viscous spacetime to be discovered, as that would
be suggestive of an ether.  That's different from a solid lattice, although
it might accomplish the same thing.

Eric

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

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 3:19 PM,  wrote:

If the presence of an object warps spacetime (General Relativity), then
> something must be present to warp?
>

General relativity provides a unified description of gravity and
spacetime.  The EM Drive makes use first and foremost of the
electromagnetic interaction.  What about the EM Drive would be causing the
warping of spacetime?

Eric

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

[David Roberson]

-Original Message-
From: Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Mar 15, 2016 10:32 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

...
>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)?<
 
Your example is similar to what happens when an electron is located at an 
elevated energy level.  Do you believe that the atom does not have additional 
mass when compared to one that is in the lowest energy state?  The energy that 
is going to be radiated must come from somewhere and I believe it shows up as a 
mass increase of the atomic system.

>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?<

Here that same arguement applies as before.  Except that several electron lower 
energy states exist instead of just one.

>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.<

And when the battery is recharged by the use of regenerative braking, mass is 
returned that is equal to the mass lost in driving the motor.  What is the 
source of chemical energy if not due to stored potential energy of electrons? 
E=M*c*c appears to apply in every case that I have seen.  

>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.<...

I consider nuclear energy as being analogous to electron orbital energy.  The 
force keeping the nucleus together performs the same function and in that case 
everyone seems to accept that this store of potential energy results in a 
nuclear mass decrease as fission takes place.  Nothing but a tradeoff between 
potential energy and other forms.  How is that process completely different 
from PE stored by electrons in orbit?

Dave

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 <dlrober...@aol.com> 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 ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> 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 whi

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 <russ.geo...@gmail.com> 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 

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]: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 <russ.geo...@gmail.com> 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 <russ.geo...@gmail.com> 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 <frobertc...@hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
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 <frobertc...@hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
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 <mix...@bigpond.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
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 <frobertc...@hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
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 <mix...@bigpond.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
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]: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: 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

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 <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > 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 <frobertc...@hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
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 <mix...@bigpond.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
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)

[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 <mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>  

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> 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 <mix...@bigpond.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
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 <russ.geo...@gmail.com> 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 <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
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 <dlrober...@aol.com> 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 <francis.x.roa...@lmco.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
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

[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 <russ.geo...@gmail.com> 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 <mix...@bigpond.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
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 <mix...@bigpond.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
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 <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
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 <frobertc...@hotmail.com> 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 <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Eric

 

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

[Eric Walker]

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

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

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

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

Eric

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

[Russ George]

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

 

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

 

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Eric

 

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

[Eric Walker]

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

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


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

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

Eric

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

[mixent]

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

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

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[mixent]

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

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

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

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

A different point of view:-

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

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

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

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[Russ George]

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

 

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

 

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 10:37 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

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

 

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

 

Eric

 

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

[Russ George]

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

 

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

 

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 10:37 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

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

 

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

 

Eric

 

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

[Eric Walker]

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

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


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

Eric

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

[Russ George]

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

 

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

 

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com 
<mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com> > 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)

[Eric Walker]

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

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

This is along the lines that I was thinking.

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

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

Eric

[Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Bob Cook]

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

Bob Cook

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

Good argument.  I just wanted to add one thought.

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

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

Dave




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


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


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


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


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


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


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



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


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



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


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


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


On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:17 AM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote:

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

  Note the use of the word "acceleration".

  Acceleration produces a force. Force times distance = energy.

  >This doesn't make any sense:
  >
  >"For a given acceleration period, the higher the mean velocity, the
  >longer the distance travelled, hence the higher the energy lost by the
  >engine."
  >
  >Since we're not talking about relativistic speeds, then the idea that a
  >device will consume more energy, over a given period of time, simply
  >because it's moving, would violate Einstein's Special Relativity which
  &g

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

[David Roberson]

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

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 8:45 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)



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

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

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

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

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

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

Dave

 

 

 

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


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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

[H LV]

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

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

Or maybe the measured thrust is only artifact.

Harry



On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 2:44 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> Good argument.  I just wanted to add one thought.
>
> From the EM drive's point of view the CoE must be violated because as it
> accelerates in space a portion of it's mass must be converted into energy
> that is used to power the drive.  When it ceases to use the drive it begins
> to remain motionless in space from its point of view.   Where did that mass
> go which was converted into energy that powered the drive?  Did it simply
> vanish?
>
> This problem does not exist for normal rocket engines that expel a reaction
> mass.  In that case, the energy is accounted for by the mass that is
> speeding rapidly away from the rocket.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 7:03 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
>
> Yes, and this is why KE = 1/2 MV^2 - ie., why the acceleration unit cost
> escalates; a given force has to be applied over an ever-greater distance as
> velocity (time rate of change of position) increases.  Alternatively, we
> could hold displacement constant and progressively raise the force
> magnitude.
>
> Yet Craig still seems to have a point - without some kind of corporeal
> reaction mass, what is an EM drive's velocity actually relative to?  What's
> its reference frame, if not the thing it's pushing against?
>
> To illustrate the conundrum, suppose i have an EM drive aboard a train, and
> you the observer are standing on the platform as the train passes through
> the station:  I fire the engine, and it accelerates by 1 meter / sec.
>
> Suppose the engine weighs 10 kg.  From my perspective, its KE has increased
> by 5 Joules - ie. it's perrformed 5 J of mechanical work, regardless of how
> much more energy may have been wasted to heat.
>
> But if the train was already travelling at 10 m/s, and the drive accelerated
> in the same direction, then from your stationary perspective the drive has
> accelerated up from 10 to 11 m/s - and for a 10 kg mass that's a workload of
> 105 J - bringing its KE up from 500 J to 605 J.
>
> So, has the drive burned 5 J or 105 J?
>
>
> If i cheated - the drive doesn't really work, and i just gave it a
> surreptitious shove - this same paradox is resolved by a corresponding
> deceleration of the train - ie. if i accelerate a small mass against the
> inertia of a larger mass, the latter is decelerated and net momentum is
> conserved.
>
> Except here, the drive ISN'T pushing against the train.  Yet it still
> benefits from its ambient velocity.  Net momentum is NOT conserved, and
> neither is energy.
>
>
> And so the question arises, how does the EM drive "know" what its reference
> frame is?  Shawyer claims (or seems to imply) that the unit cost of
> acceleration increases as we would normally expect (distance over which a
> given force is applied keeps rising) - but how does it measure "distance"?
> Relative to what, exactly?   Without physical reaction mass, such a system
> has its own unique reference frame - from within which, energy may be
> conserved, but which from without, cannot be.
>
> I mean this not as a crtitique against the plausibility of such systems, and
> share the prevailing cautious optimism.  But if they do work, then we also
> have an energy anomaly.
>
> In the many years i've been researching classical symmetry breaks, one thing
> has become clear - the only way to explain away a real symmetry break is to
> invoke another somewhere else up or downstream (it's a standard recourse for
> pseudoskeptics).  As much as i'd welcome free energy, momentum and FTL
> travel, and despite Shawyer's assurances everything's classically
> consistent, these enigmatic implications remain..   for me, at least.
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:17 AM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>> In reply to  Craig Haynie's message of Sun, 13 Mar 2016 21:08:43 -0400:
>> Hi,

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

[David Roberson]

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

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 5:15 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

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

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

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[David Roberson]

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

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

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

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 5:06 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

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

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[Russ George]

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dave

 

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

Dave

 

 

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

[David Roberson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dave

 

 

 

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



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

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

Dave

 

 

 

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


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

 

 

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

 

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

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

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

Dave


 


 


 


-Or

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

[Russ George]

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

 

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

 

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

 

this is one theory.

 

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

 

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

 

2016-03-14 19:44 GMT+01:00 David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com 
<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com> >:

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 ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com <mailto:mrvibrat...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> >
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 7:03 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

 

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:17 AM, <mix...@bigpond.com 
<mailto:mix...@bigpond.com> > wrote:

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

Note the use of the word "acceleration".

Acceleration produces a force. Force times distance = energy.

>This doesn't make any sense:
>
>"For a given acceleration

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

[Russ George]

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

this is one theory.

 

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

 

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

 

2016-03-14 19:44 GMT+01:00 David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com 
<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com> >:

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 ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com <mailto:mrvibrat...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> >
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 7:03 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

 

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:17 AM, <mix...@bigpond.com 
<mailto:mix...@bigpond.com> > wrote:

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

Note the use of the word "acceleration".

Acceleration produces a force. Force times distance = energy.

>This doesn't make any sense:
>
>&qu

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

[Russ George]

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

 

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

 

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

 

this is one theory.

 

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

 

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

 

2016-03-14 19:44 GMT+01:00 David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com 
<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com> >:

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 ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com <mailto:mrvibrat...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> >
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 7:03 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

 

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:17 AM, <mix...@bigpond.com 
<mailto:mix...@bigpond.com> > wrote:

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

Note the use of the word "acceleration".

Acceleration produces a force. Force times distance = energy.

>This doesn't make any sense:
>
>"For a given acceleration period, the higher the mean velocity, the
>longer the distance travelled, hence t

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

[mixent]

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


The cause of red-shift perhaps?
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[mixent]

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

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

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[Alain Sepeda]

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

this is one theory.

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

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

2016-03-14 19:44 GMT+01:00 David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>:

> 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 ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 7:03 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
>
> Yes, and this is why KE = 1/2 MV^2 - ie., why the acceleration unit cost
> escalates; a given force has to be applied over an ever-greater distance as
> velocity (time rate of change of position) increases.  Alternatively, we
> could hold displacement constant and progressively raise the force
> magnitude.
>
> Yet Craig still seems to have a point - without some kind of corporeal
> reaction mass, what is an EM drive's velocity actually relative to?  What's
> its reference frame, if not the thing it's pushing against?
>
> To illustrate the conundrum, suppose i have an EM drive aboard a train,
> and you the observer are standing on the platform as the train passes
> through the station:  I fire the engine, and it accelerates by 1 meter /
> sec.
>
> Suppose the engine weighs 10 kg.  From my perspective, its KE has
> increased by 5 Joules - ie. it's perrformed 5 J of mechanical work,
> regardless of how much more energy may have been wasted to heat.
>
> But if the train was already travelling at 10 m/s, and the drive
> accelerated in the same direction, then from your stationary perspective
> the drive has accelerated up from 10 to 11 m/s - and for a 10 kg mass
> that's a workload of 105 J - bringing its KE up from 500 J to 605 J.
>
> So, has the drive burned 5 J or 105 J?
>
>
> If i cheated - the drive doesn't really work, and i just gave it a
> surreptitious shove - this same paradox is resolved by a corresponding
> deceleration of the train - ie. if i accelerate a small mass against the
> inertia of a larger mass, the latter is decelerated and net momentum is
> conserved.
>
> Except here, the drive ISN'T pushing against the train.  Yet it still
> benefits from its ambient velocity.  Net momentum is NOT conserved, and
> neither is energy.
>
>
> And so the question arises, how does the EM drive "know" what its
> reference frame is?  Shawyer claims (or seems to imply) that the unit cost
> of acceleration increases as we would normally expect (distance over which
> a given force is applied keeps rising) - but how does it measure
> "distance"?  Relative to what, exactly?   Without physical reaction mass,
> such a system has its own unique reference frame - from within which,
> energy may be conserved, but which from without, cannot be.
>
> I mean this not as a crtitique against the plausibility of such systems,
> and share the prevailing cautious optimism.  But if they do work, then we
> also have an energy anomaly.
>
> In the many years i've been researching classical symmetry breaks, one
> thing has become clear - the only way to explain away a real symmetry break
> is to invoke another somewhere else up or downstream (it's a standard
> recourse for pseudoskeptics).  As much as i'd welcome free energy, momentum
> and FTL travel, and despite Shawyer's assurances everything's classically
> consistent, these enigmatic implications remain..   for me, at least.
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:17 AM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> In reply to  Craig Haynie's message of Sun, 13 Mar 2016 21:08:43 -0400:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>>
>> Note the use of the word "acceleration".
>>
>> Acceleration produces a force. Force times distance = energy.
>>
>> >This doesn't make any sense:
>> >
>> >"For a given acceleration period, the higher the mean velocity, the
>> >longer the distance travelled, hence the highe

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

[mixent]

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

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[Russ George]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

Dave

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

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

 

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

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

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

Dave

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

From: David Roberson 

 

Good argument.  I just wanted to add one thought.

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

 

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

[David Roberson]

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

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

Dave

 

 

 

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



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

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

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

Dave

 

 

 

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


 

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

 

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

 

 

From: David Roberson 

 

Good argument.  I just wanted to add one thought.

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





 

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

[Russ George]

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

 

 

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

 

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

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

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

Dave

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

From: David Roberson 

 

Good argument.  I just wanted to add one thought.

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



 

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

[David Roberson]

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

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

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

Dave

 

 

 

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



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

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





 

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

[Roarty, Francis X]

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

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

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

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

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com<mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com>>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>>
Sent: Sun, Mar 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
Dave--

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

Bob Cook

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

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

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com<mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com>>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>>
Sent: Sun, Mar 13, 2016 11:22 am
Subject: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
It may be that the intrinsic spin (and angular momentum) of a particle is 
converted preferentially to a particle with linear momentum in the direction of 
a magnetic field.  In this case there would be no apparent conservation of 
linear momentum.  This seems to happen in macroscopic systems—a kid running and 
jumping on a merry-go-round to make it go faster.  It may only require a QM 
coherent system to produce linear momentum from scratch in the EM drive devices.

It’s all about spin...

Bob Cook

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

From: Vibrator !

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s all about spin…

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

[Jones Beene]

 

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

 

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

 

 

From: David Roberson 

 

Good argument.  I just wanted to add one thought.

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




 

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

[David Roberson]

Good argument.  I just wanted to add one thought.

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

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

Dave

 

 

 

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



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


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


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


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


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


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



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


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



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


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


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




On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:17 AM,  <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote:

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

Note the use of the word "acceleration".

Acceleration produces a force. Force times distance = energy.

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

Robin van Spaandonk

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