Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
On Sunday August 3 Jack said [snip] * * * FOR EXAMPLE: Identicle Twins are QUANTUM-ENTANGLED. . . via Torsion-Wave TRANS HYPERSPACE Spooky Action the same as nano sub-atomic particles and our QUANTUM-ENTANGLED CEREBRAL CORTEX'S. [/snip] Jack, I believe Paradox twins experience the same difference in space time as exotic forms of hydrogen experience when suppressed by changes in nano geometry / lattice defects or tapestries of cavities formed when bulk conductive nano powders are packed together. Some day the relationship between the Casimir formula and the time dilation formula will be proved… I also think the magnetic field will be corralled into this such that the missing parameter in these anomalous claims is finally visible.. I think the Sawyer endorsement by NASA may mean there is a magnetic/geometrical component that we are missing –Many researchers endorse resonance in these cavities but could the macro shape of the reactor itself be part of the puzzle as to why some experiments are so hard to reproduce? Maybe it is time to shotgun the parameters in our search for results with identical powders in a dozens of reactor shapes and even the pill used to form the powders in different shapes. I have always posited that the anomalous energy comes from plying different forces at different scales of nature against herself to perform work on the gas atoms loaded into the metal lattice or powders- previously I thought the quantum averages of geometrical regions that form a tapestry were in opposition to the “randomness” of gas motion.. that is to say random motion becomes usable energy when you can restrain any spatial axis on a small enough scale –which physics teaches us you can’t in the normal 3d isotropy –BUT- Paradox twins are an example of 2 different inertial frames where the 3D spatial frames are rotated from each other causing time dilation from each other’s perspective, IF an equal difference in vacuum pressure can be created via suppression in the nano regions created by these powders then you have random motion that is spatially unbalanced allowing for random motion to be harnessed / preventing cancellation in our dimension but changing the vector of virtual particles exiting our plane. Fran
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
Yes: Paradox indicates that our 3D logic parameters indeed only 'seem' to elicite paradox since we are simultaneously(via transtemperal Casimir destortions) NEEDING TO CROSS CORRELATE seeming 'Through the Looking Glass' A-Dark Tachyonic Super Fluid. *Ha* CROSS CORRELATING a hypothesized DARK ENERGY Tachyonic Super Fluid parallel space is easier said than done since we have no WALDO to reach across the PLASMA BREACH whether at nano-level or at MACRO REACTOR LEVEL. . . AT THE CASIMIR BORDER On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: On Sunday August 3 Jack said [snip] * * * FOR EXAMPLE: Identicle Twins are QUANTUM-ENTANGLED. . . via Torsion-Wave TRANS HYPERSPACE Spooky Action the same as nano sub-atomic particles and our QUANTUM-ENTANGLED CEREBRAL CORTEX'S. [/snip] Jack, I believe Paradox twins experience the same difference in space time as exotic forms of hydrogen experience when suppressed by changes in nano geometry / lattice defects or tapestries of cavities formed when bulk conductive nano powders are packed together. Some day the relationship between the Casimir formula and the time dilation formula will be proved… I also think the magnetic field will be corralled into this such that the missing parameter in these anomalous claims is finally visible.. I think the Sawyer endorsement by NASA may mean there is a magnetic/geometrical component that we are missing –Many researchers endorse resonance in these cavities but could the macro shape of the reactor itself be part of the puzzle as to why some experiments are so hard to reproduce? Maybe it is time to shotgun the parameters in our search for results with identical powders in a dozens of reactor shapes and even the pill used to form the powders in different shapes. I have always posited that the anomalous energy comes from plying different forces at different scales of nature against herself to perform work on the gas atoms loaded into the metal lattice or powders- previously I thought the quantum averages of geometrical regions that form a tapestry were in opposition to the “randomness” of gas motion.. that is to say random motion becomes usable energy when you can restrain any spatial axis on a small enough scale –which physics teaches us you can’t in the normal 3d isotropy –BUT- Paradox twins are an example of 2 different inertial frames where the 3D spatial frames are rotated from each other causing time dilation from each other’s perspective, IF an equal difference in vacuum pressure can be created via suppression in the nano regions created by these powders then you have random motion that is spatially unbalanced allowing for random motion to be harnessed / preventing cancellation in our dimension but changing the vector of virtual particles exiting our plane. Fran
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
Jack, Take this quiz and get back to me... http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/11/21/are-you-smarter-than-a-5th-grader-who-is-smarter-than-einstein/ On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 1:56 PM, JackHarbach O'Sullivan alset9te...@gmail.com wrote: Yes: Paradox indicates that our 3D logic parameters indeed only 'seem' to elicite paradox since we are simultaneously(via transtemperal Casimir destortions) NEEDING TO CROSS CORRELATE seeming 'Through the Looking Glass' A-Dark Tachyonic Super Fluid. *Ha* CROSS CORRELATING a hypothesized DARK ENERGY Tachyonic Super Fluid parallel space is easier said than done since we have no WALDO to reach across the PLASMA BREACH whether at nano-level or at MACRO REACTOR LEVEL. . . AT THE CASIMIR BORDER On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: On Sunday August 3 Jack said [snip] * * * FOR EXAMPLE: Identicle Twins are QUANTUM-ENTANGLED. . . via Torsion-Wave TRANS HYPERSPACE Spooky Action the same as nano sub-atomic particles and our QUANTUM-ENTANGLED CEREBRAL CORTEX'S. [/snip] Jack, I believe Paradox twins experience the same difference in space time as exotic forms of hydrogen experience when suppressed by changes in nano geometry / lattice defects or tapestries of cavities formed when bulk conductive nano powders are packed together. Some day the relationship between the Casimir formula and the time dilation formula will be proved… I also think the magnetic field will be corralled into this such that the missing parameter in these anomalous claims is finally visible.. I think the Sawyer endorsement by NASA may mean there is a magnetic/geometrical component that we are missing –Many researchers endorse resonance in these cavities but could the macro shape of the reactor itself be part of the puzzle as to why some experiments are so hard to reproduce? Maybe it is time to shotgun the parameters in our search for results with identical powders in a dozens of reactor shapes and even the pill used to form the powders in different shapes. I have always posited that the anomalous energy comes from plying different forces at different scales of nature against herself to perform work on the gas atoms loaded into the metal lattice or powders- previously I thought the quantum averages of geometrical regions that form a tapestry were in opposition to the “randomness” of gas motion.. that is to say random motion becomes usable energy when you can restrain any spatial axis on a small enough scale –which physics teaches us you can’t in the normal 3d isotropy –BUT- Paradox twins are an example of 2 different inertial frames where the 3D spatial frames are rotated from each other causing time dilation from each other’s perspective, IF an equal difference in vacuum pressure can be created via suppression in the nano regions created by these powders then you have random motion that is spatially unbalanced allowing for random motion to be harnessed / preventing cancellation in our dimension but changing the vector of virtual particles exiting our plane. Fran
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
AT THE QUANTUM CASIMIR PLASMA-BREACH BORDER: We are indeed observing QUASI-TESSERACT shifts in nano-geometry which are profoundly RE-CONSTRUCTING atomic structures. . . sudden seemingly paradoxical isotopic rearrangements of atomic structures indicate this. . . Wild card John Hutchison/Hutchison effect reported this phemonenon at a macro level at the eye-gate/plasma-breach/centre of his GIGI-HIGH EM-TORUS FIELDS; Your have accuratedly surmised that this is ONE SINGLE(quasi-paradoxical. a la' nano macro Tesseract-Casimir-MOBIUS INSIDE-OUTING); HENSE this LENSING AFFECT is contiguous and pervasive albiet currently somewhat mystifying. Although these NOT exactly symetrical-lensing translation effects of Tachyonic Transdimensional Super Fluid ingressing Space-Time-Normal GATING through via the Casimir-Plasma-Breach Transtemporal Tesseract geometrics. As we clarify accurate modalities of THOSE PROFOUNDLY SHIFTING field-particle GEOMETRICS; Only then Casimir-Plasma-Breach Transdimensional/Transtemporal (twisting-stretching field mobius geometrics) ingress the TESSERACTING-transdiensional lensing eye-gate transition POINT of the AexoDark Tachyonic Super-Fluid LITERALLY BECOMING SPACE-TIME NORMAL Particle-Wave length Phenomenon. . . every atom is a mini-micro 'big-bang'' The Casimir micro-singularity effect is a Tesseract-Cavitation phenomenon. THIS IS QUITE LITERALLY the very BIG BANG eye-breach of Aexo-Dark Tachyonic Super Fluid aka Hyper Space creating the Ovoid Space Time Normal Bubble that we are. . . the 'big-bang' process is Ubiquitus and ongoing and pervasive at nano to macro to cosmic to AexoDark Cosmic eg TACHYONIC SUPER FLUID aka HyperSpace.. The extant MACRO Plasma-Breach REACTORS use the Tesla fired Super-Conductor bagel-ring GYRO-CENTRIFIC/GIGA-EM-HyperDensity field/CENTRIFIC-GRAVIONIC Torus-Field that they generate to STIR parallel-adjacent Aexo-Dark Tachyonic Super Fluid/HyperSpace to exploit these CASIMIR-TESSERACT plasma-breach HYPERGRAVIONIC transdimensional-transtemporal forces on a large scale. . . At the nano level you are speaking eloquently of; deciphering the micro Casimir-Tesseract-Mobius geometrec BALLET which is intrinsic and crucial to producing THE TRUE DREAM OF QUANTUM TORSION-ENTANGLEMENT COMPUTATION. . . for instance not to mention relatively nano-cold fusion. . . Where ever Tachyonic SuperFluid/Aexoplasma is ingressing into Space Time Normal this is COMPLETELY DO-ABLE. And this 'process' is the FUNDAMENTAL functional MODEL of virtually ALL ENERGY SYSTEMS. . . .whether within OVOID UNIVERSE Space Time Normal /or AexoDark Tachyonic SuperFluid HyperSpace aka VIRTUAL NO TIME//VIRTUAL NO DISTANCE. Hypothesizing that the ALL-ENERGY-SOURCE MEDIUM of the Super-M-Brane encompassing-CONTAINING-SUSTAINING the Torsion Tachyonic Super Fluiid ALL-SPECTRUM CARRIER WAVE is a contiguous-continuous 'sheet' of HYPERCOMPRESSED hyper-interacting-FRACTAL DATA CODE. . . That THIS DATA whenever dynamically focused(noded) and spontaneously-integrating should ALWAYS SPONTANEOUSLY INTERACT-THINK would necessarily be the basis of all CONSTRUCT-EXTENDED (built by man or any other sentients) ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENSE eg VIRTUAL LIFE. . . RATHER THAN OUR BRAINS being hard wired to such a 'device' we would quickly learn to TORSION THOUGHT INTERFACE with our THINKING-EXPERIENCING-COMPUTATIONAL DEVICE'S. . . . . DREAMS ~;^) JHO On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 12:56 PM, JackHarbach O'Sullivan alset9te...@gmail.com wrote: Yes: Paradox indicates that our 3D logic parameters indeed only 'seem' to elicite paradox since we are simultaneously(via transtemperal Casimir destortions) NEEDING TO CROSS CORRELATE seeming 'Through the Looking Glass' A-Dark Tachyonic Super Fluid. *Ha* CROSS CORRELATING a hypothesized DARK ENERGY Tachyonic Super Fluid parallel space is easier said than done since we have no WALDO to reach across the PLASMA BREACH whether at nano-level or at MACRO REACTOR LEVEL. . . AT THE CASIMIR BORDER On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: On Sunday August 3 Jack said [snip] * * * FOR EXAMPLE: Identicle Twins are QUANTUM-ENTANGLED. . . via Torsion-Wave TRANS HYPERSPACE Spooky Action the same as nano sub-atomic particles and our QUANTUM-ENTANGLED CEREBRAL CORTEX'S. [/snip] Jack, I believe Paradox twins experience the same difference in space time as exotic forms of hydrogen experience when suppressed by changes in nano geometry / lattice defects or tapestries of cavities formed when bulk conductive nano powders are packed together. Some day the relationship between the Casimir formula and the time dilation formula will be proved… I also think the magnetic field will be corralled into this such that the missing parameter in these anomalous claims is finally visible.. I think the Sawyer endorsement by NASA may mean there is a magnetic/geometrical component that we are missing –Many researchers endorse resonance
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
Sure it might be harder to directly replicate his results, but the same force from an asymmetrical spark discharge was noted. ***Would that be the Asymmetrical Thrust Capacitor proposal that I submitted? On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 1:09 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: I was not aware of Poher, but given that shouldn't Morton be considered a further and earlier verification of this effect? Sure it might be harder to directly replicate his results, but the same force from an asymmetrical spark discharge was noted. It might also be worth noting Piggot: http://www.rexresearch.com/piggott/piggott.htm On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: There is an intriguing cross-connection between two other controversial lines of anti-gravity experiment: Eugene Podkletnov (mentioned in the Wired article) and Claude Poher (not mentioned). Here is a review of Poher’s superconductor. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1101/1101.2419.pdf NASA has reportedly confirmed an effect of reactionless acceleration with Poher’s device, but nothing turns up to verify that, on a quick google search. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Poher Here is a technology that can unite all three phenomena… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_radio_frequency From: Alain Sepeda this is the 3rd test, done with different metrology, and with many cross checking documented on EmDrive (like changing turn...)…he have good hint, no more... about the theory the idea that the EmDrive is surfing, rowing, sculling on the virtual particles of the void is the most reasonable I've heard. David Roberson: I have a hangup about the conservation of momentum that makes me skeptical of this device. My guess is that the thrust will be shown to be an error once everything is taken into account. The power to generate the large amount of RF must enter the device from somewhere and that is likely the root of the thrust. Eric Walker wrote: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-spa ce-drive http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
NASA's The PLASMA-BREACH Torus-Eye sub-singularity reactor is MACRO-QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT. NASA's 'IMPOSSIBLE SPACE DRIVE merely proves Trans-Spectrum Einstein-Rosen TORUS EYE-BREACH bleed through from (PROVEN) AexoDarkEnergy Parallel-Adjacent hyperspace aka THE~Quantum~BACK OF THE TAPESTRY. . . Accessing HYPERFLUIDIC/HYPERSPEEDDENSE/Hyper-Gravionically Dynamic bleed through Aexo-Dark-Hyper-Space simply allows us to focus/control hyper-gravity POINT LEAD DRIVE ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS. . . Oh ye of little 'faith' aka TRANS-TORSION Einstein-Teslian IMAGING ABILITIES. PER EINSTEIN: Speed plus Density=Gravity CONTROLS TIME and surrounding AEXODARKHyperSPACE=equals SpookyAction/QuantumEntanglement HYPERSPEED @ VIRTUAL NO DISTANCE/VIRTUAL NO TIME hypergravion TACHYONIC-SUPER-FLUID speed/density hyperspace. EINSTEIN LEFT M=EC^2 on his desk. . . the key to UBIQUITOUS QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT. . . . AE TachyonicSuper-Fluid Aexo HyperSpace's BAE//BaseAmbientEnergy level IS TACHYONIC-SUPER-FLUID. . . NASA's TESLA INDUCED Bose Einstein Super Conductor TORUS RING transspectrum TACHYONIC-SUPER-FLUID eye-bleed-through reactors GET THE JOB DONE NICELY. . . . * * * FOR EXAMPLE: Identicle Twins are QUANTUM-ENTANGLED. . . via Torsion-Wave TRANS HYPERSPACE Spooky Action the same as nano sub-atomic particles and our QUANTUM-ENTANGLED CEREBRAL CORTEX'S. . . . but to what The Tesla's, Einsteins, etc are Trans-Torsion CEREBRAL-NEURON Quantum Entangled to. . . . oh yea it's all obvious now. . . CROP CIRCLES. . . * * * And that's why they think on the Multi SIDES OF THE QUANTUM-AEXO-HYPERSPACE TransTorsion Matrix-Super-M-Brane. . . WHILE OTHER FLAT-NON-TORSION minds refusing to think-ponder-transtorsion DELVE/explore/CONCSCIOUSNESS BEYOND the veil of the 'tapestry 'HAVE MORE DIFFICULTY THINKING IN A TRANS-TORSION GESTALT. . . aka ludites. As my young daughter puts it: DUH//are we WAKING-UP GETTING THIS YET? ! ? * * * Just keep laughing while you break out the champagne. . . Einstein called TRANSDIMENSIONAL QUANTUM-ENTANGLEMENT RELATIVITY the final phase of General and Special Relativity. . . Prof. AE deserves another NOBEL at the very least. . . A sadly Steven Hawking Associates never quite MADE the NECCESSARY QUANTUM LEAP. Way too many 'lazy' minds happy to parrot and ride his coat-tails. . . EINSTEIN's TRANSDIMENSIONAL RELATIVITY successfull PREDICTED EVERYTHING THAT HUBBLE online would DISCOVER esp. the ACCELERATING GALAXIES to light speed to ALL be RE-ENVELOPED in surrounding AEXO-DARK-HYPER SPACE and SAUL PERLMUTTER discovered ALL OF THE MEGA-GAMMA RAY BURSTERS at the GALACTIC 'SKIN'-border to AEXOSPACE as @ LIGHT SPEED all the Proton eye SINGULARITIES and GALACTIC HUB SINGULARITES go BLACK-PHASE and RE-INGRESS all theire E nergy back into AEXODARK Parent Adjacent-Parallel HYPERSPACE. . . . SORRY PROF. HAWKING there is NO BIG CRUNCH. . . . THE BIG BANG PLASMA-BREACH WHITE HOLE Centre of our BUBBLE UNIVERSE remains open as a GRAND CENTRAL INGRESS AEXO-PLASMA FOUNTAIN. . . . EINSTEIN STILL GETS THE CREDITY from where he QUANTUM ENTANGLED/Trans-TORSION RELOCATED to for . . . .SUCCESSFULL ARTICULATION of the Unified Field Theory. . . ~:^D Give the Profs. Einstein Tesla a transtorsion-wave 'call' to verify. . . but probably JUST BELIEVING NASA will suffice. FOSTER GAMBLE'S THRIVE.COM DVE graphics are PRETTY GOOD along these lines aka ZPE/Feyman/Podkletnov/Evgengy Nickitin ANTONOV aka Russia's Aethyer-Transdimesional HYPER GRAVITY StarGate Project/Andy Yeong Wei.a.Wu-Boeing Phantom Works/R.A. Ned Allen-Lockheed Martin Skunk Words/John Brandenburg-Orbitic/John Beyster SAIC-CIAS etc. Etc. . ETC . . ! ! ! DUH. . . . Follow the money. JHO cuz $talks AND Right THEORY produces HARD SCIENCE produces HARD TECHNOLOGY and everything else. . . . WALKS. . . On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: part of the current tragedy of science is all kind of mainstream media http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4 first of all scientific journalists, then science tabloid (science, nature, Cells), then influential mainstream media (NYT)... don't look further, consensus is manufactured. see recent affairs... WMD is just de detail if you compare to current manufacture of consensus. cold fusion fiasco is an example of something I see recently and that CIA have well theorized, if you lie at the beginning of an affair, it became the consensus. for a mainstream story like a crash you have to lie for 24h and media follow... for science 2month is enough. then no evidence can change the truth of the journalists. NO EVIDENCE CAN! except the one that reach the heart of each citizen independently, and based on his selfish interest or concrete observation. the tea kettle fallacy is the only truth. 2014-08-02 17:23 GMT+02:00 Alan Fletcher a...@well.com: What a surprise : Jennifer Ouellette comes out against it Physics Week in Review: August
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
So, you wanna get into UFO's... No doubt, there are few subjects that will throw a discussion group into the weeds better than UFOs. UFOs are the 2nd most searched item on Google. Nacherly, xxx sex is the first. Look upthread at my electrogravitics approach to the NASA proposals. Then do a search for electrogravitics and UFOs. You'll find plenty of answers. But the vast majority of readers will reject such answers. If you are truly skeptical of both of these issues at this time! then you'll want further information and you will acquire it, read it, and then report back on it. 85% of the folks I have corresponded with have not made it through that supposedly skeptical route. Because they were lazy and already had their minds made up. Are you Ready, then? Flying saucers were an extension of Ludwig Prandtl's experiments in boundary layer control theory that the Germans performed in WWII. It was the Allies who won WWII, and coincidentally, took all those boundary layer control experimental results 2 years later there were correspondingly shaped experimental craft flying over America. CoInkkDINKY? I don't think so. How is it that a supposedly extraterrestrial craft covers the impossible feat of zillions of light-years of distance only to crash near a military base 2 years after such experiments? Nope. Those weren't aliens, they were secret experimental aircraft. So at this point, the average alien visitation believer is so worked up that they want to engage me in all kinds of ridiculous rhetoric. But they never seem to be able to argue without employing simple logical fallacies. They also refuse to examine the evidence. So here's the best evidence so far: Read the book Intercept UFO by Renato Vesco. http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=1cad=rjauact=8ved=0CB8QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FIntercept-UFO-Renato-Vesco%2Fdp%2FB0006WI572ei=MI3cU_70McL2oATXwIKQAQusg=AFQjCNGoW1oN-Licmx6EMac0gFNwZTs75Qsig2=48YqVXYw6PWJEIbP5cot3g If you aren't willing to read such a book, you've become a UFO alien believer and there's no real debating with such people. Read the book. On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:27 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: If the UFO phenomena is real, and there seems to be a lot of mounting evidence to that effect, then the aliens must have some form of drive that does not require rocket fuels that we are familiar with. Perhaps this is a glimpse of how it is accomplished. Unfortunately, I remain skeptical of both of these issues at this time! Maybe someone would like to add discussions about UFOs to the list unless that is out of bounds for some reason. I suspect that we have many vorts that can contribute. Dave -Original Message- From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com To: Vortex List vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 7:22 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive this is the 3rd test, done with different metrology, and with many cross checking documented on EmDrive (like changing turn...) as Ed Storms says in his books, when a phenomenon survive to the change of the measurement setup(shawyer, chinese, nasa), and is similar in different setup(emdirve, qdrive) that share a common thing (resonance, asymmetry, microwave), there is a great chance something real linked to the core technology is happening... and not independent artifacts that conspires independently to fool scientists. however the ideas of shawyer about the theory have no strong reason to be good, so his computation on how to improve it... he have good hint, no more... about the theory the idea that the EmDrive is surfing, rowing, sculling on the virtual particles of the void is the most reasonable I've heard. I don't need no violation of any conservation law... just less unchecked assumption (as for LENR). 2014-07-31 23:45 GMT+02:00 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com: I have a hangup about the conservation of momentum that makes me skeptical of this device. My guess is that the thrust will be shown to be an error once everything is taken into account. The power to generate the large amount of RF must enter the device from somewhere and that is likely the root of the thrust. Dave -Original Message- From: leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 4:16 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now? On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive Eric
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
few bad point for the test are : 1- the thrust is much weaker than EmDrive 2- the blank reactor works too. the 1 is probably linked to the bad Q compares to EmDrive the 2 maybe is simply that Fetta does not understand well his reactor, and that it worsk for another reason than the one he imagine. one hypothesis is that Shawyer is right (at least phenomenologically) and Fetta have build involuntarily 2 EmDrive point 2 rule out the fraud as a fraudster would have make the blank fail. the characteristic of rauds is that it work as expected. that Emdrive and Canae Drive work in 4 test setups make clear that it is not a measurement artifact. it is something unexpected linked to microwave, resonance... whether it is real thrust or artifact is a question, but it is a microwave resonance artifact if artifact. 2014-07-31 20:22 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com: See: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive Eric
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
Alain, where did you read that the blank/dummy control drive also worked? From what I read it seemed to indicate that it passed (got negative result) on that drive. On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: few bad point for the test are : 1- the thrust is much weaker than EmDrive 2- the blank reactor works too. the 1 is probably linked to the bad Q compares to EmDrive the 2 maybe is simply that Fetta does not understand well his reactor, and that it worsk for another reason than the one he imagine. one hypothesis is that Shawyer is right (at least phenomenologically) and Fetta have build involuntarily 2 EmDrive point 2 rule out the fraud as a fraudster would have make the blank fail. the characteristic of rauds is that it work as expected. that Emdrive and Canae Drive work in 4 test setups make clear that it is not a measurement artifact. it is something unexpected linked to microwave, resonance... whether it is real thrust or artifact is a question, but it is a microwave resonance artifact if artifact. 2014-07-31 20:22 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com: See: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive Eric
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
It looks like I can answer my own question. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140006052.pdf Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the “null” test article). On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 9:16 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Alain, where did you read that the blank/dummy control drive also worked? From what I read it seemed to indicate that it passed (got negative result) on that drive. On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: few bad point for the test are : 1- the thrust is much weaker than EmDrive 2- the blank reactor works too. the 1 is probably linked to the bad Q compares to EmDrive the 2 maybe is simply that Fetta does not understand well his reactor, and that it worsk for another reason than the one he imagine. one hypothesis is that Shawyer is right (at least phenomenologically) and Fetta have build involuntarily 2 EmDrive point 2 rule out the fraud as a fraudster would have make the blank fail. the characteristic of rauds is that it work as expected. that Emdrive and Canae Drive work in 4 test setups make clear that it is not a measurement artifact. it is something unexpected linked to microwave, resonance... whether it is real thrust or artifact is a question, but it is a microwave resonance artifact if artifact. 2014-07-31 20:22 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com: See: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive Eric
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
However, apparently a dummy load produced zero thrust... And I think the other designs need to be better understood, should they really be null? http://i.imgur.com/daNmDty.png On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 10:09 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: It looks like I can answer my own question. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140006052.pdf Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the “null” test article). On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 9:16 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Alain, where did you read that the blank/dummy control drive also worked? From what I read it seemed to indicate that it passed (got negative result) on that drive. On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: few bad point for the test are : 1- the thrust is much weaker than EmDrive 2- the blank reactor works too. the 1 is probably linked to the bad Q compares to EmDrive the 2 maybe is simply that Fetta does not understand well his reactor, and that it worsk for another reason than the one he imagine. one hypothesis is that Shawyer is right (at least phenomenologically) and Fetta have build involuntarily 2 EmDrive point 2 rule out the fraud as a fraudster would have make the blank fail. the characteristic of rauds is that it work as expected. that Emdrive and Canae Drive work in 4 test setups make clear that it is not a measurement artifact. it is something unexpected linked to microwave, resonance... whether it is real thrust or artifact is a question, but it is a microwave resonance artifact if artifact. 2014-07-31 20:22 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com: See: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive Eric
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
Different, but this made me think of Borbas Miklos, a simple ion free anomalous thrust experiment: http://web.archive.org/web/20090902150248/http://bmiklos2000.freeweb.hu/unipolar.htm On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 10:16 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: However, apparently a dummy load produced zero thrust... And I think the other designs need to be better understood, should they really be null? http://i.imgur.com/daNmDty.png On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 10:09 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: It looks like I can answer my own question. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140006052.pdf Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the “null” test article). On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 9:16 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Alain, where did you read that the blank/dummy control drive also worked? From what I read it seemed to indicate that it passed (got negative result) on that drive. On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: few bad point for the test are : 1- the thrust is much weaker than EmDrive 2- the blank reactor works too. the 1 is probably linked to the bad Q compares to EmDrive the 2 maybe is simply that Fetta does not understand well his reactor, and that it worsk for another reason than the one he imagine. one hypothesis is that Shawyer is right (at least phenomenologically) and Fetta have build involuntarily 2 EmDrive point 2 rule out the fraud as a fraudster would have make the blank fail. the characteristic of rauds is that it work as expected. that Emdrive and Canae Drive work in 4 test setups make clear that it is not a measurement artifact. it is something unexpected linked to microwave, resonance... whether it is real thrust or artifact is a question, but it is a microwave resonance artifact if artifact. 2014-07-31 20:22 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com: See: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive Eric
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
More on the null test... http://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/2c8xah/nasa_validates_impossible_space_drive_wired_uk/cjdg3bh On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 11:21 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Different, but this made me think of Borbas Miklos, a simple ion free anomalous thrust experiment: http://web.archive.org/web/20090902150248/http://bmiklos2000.freeweb.hu/unipolar.htm On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 10:16 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: However, apparently a dummy load produced zero thrust... And I think the other designs need to be better understood, should they really be null? http://i.imgur.com/daNmDty.png On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 10:09 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: It looks like I can answer my own question. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140006052.pdf Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the “null” test article). On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 9:16 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Alain, where did you read that the blank/dummy control drive also worked? From what I read it seemed to indicate that it passed (got negative result) on that drive. On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: few bad point for the test are : 1- the thrust is much weaker than EmDrive 2- the blank reactor works too. the 1 is probably linked to the bad Q compares to EmDrive the 2 maybe is simply that Fetta does not understand well his reactor, and that it worsk for another reason than the one he imagine. one hypothesis is that Shawyer is right (at least phenomenologically) and Fetta have build involuntarily 2 EmDrive point 2 rule out the fraud as a fraudster would have make the blank fail. the characteristic of rauds is that it work as expected. that Emdrive and Canae Drive work in 4 test setups make clear that it is not a measurement artifact. it is something unexpected linked to microwave, resonance... whether it is real thrust or artifact is a question, but it is a microwave resonance artifact if artifact. 2014-07-31 20:22 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com: See: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive Eric
RE: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
From: John Berry More on the null test... http://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/2c8xah/nasa_validates_impossible _space_drive_wired_uk/cjdg3bh They say the null test was designed to be null, and yet it still showed thrust. This could mean that the test which was designed to show thrust and did show thrust cannot be trusted. There are other implications as well. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
What a surprise : Jennifer Ouellette comes out against it Physics Week in Review: August 2, 2014 http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2014/08/02/physics-week-in-review-august-2-2014/ Perhaps your interest was piqued by the news that a Fuel-Less Space Drive with “Q-Thrusters” May Actually Work, meaning that it might one day be possible to travel through space without filling up the gas tank, so to speak. Per Wired : “Either the results are completely wrong, or NASA has confirmed a major breakthrough in space propulsion.” The Time Lord’s money is on the latter. Via Twitter, he declared that the notion of “Propulsive momentum transfer via the quantum vacuum virtual plasma” is nonsensical sub- Star-Trek level technobabble . (You may as well put your faith in “Red Matter.”) But I think she has a typo ... The Time Lord’s money is on the latter. -- where latter is breakthrough.
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
as the comment says, it rather says that the theory of fetta is wrong... that fetta cannot design a reactor that don't work by changing what he consider a key detail. it is a theory failure, not a practical failure. the resonance is important, and this enough let me consider something is real, at worst an artifact that is linked to microwave resonance and not mechanical setup, that was tested for artifacts. 2014-08-02 16:32 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: From: John Berry More on the null test... http://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/2c8xah/nasa_validates_impossible _space_drive_wired_uk/cjdg3bh They say the null test was designed to be null, and yet it still showed thrust. This could mean that the test which was designed to show thrust and did show thrust cannot be trusted. There are other implications as well.
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
part of the current tragedy of science is all kind of mainstream media http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4 first of all scientific journalists, then science tabloid (science, nature, Cells), then influential mainstream media (NYT)... don't look further, consensus is manufactured. see recent affairs... WMD is just de detail if you compare to current manufacture of consensus. cold fusion fiasco is an example of something I see recently and that CIA have well theorized, if you lie at the beginning of an affair, it became the consensus. for a mainstream story like a crash you have to lie for 24h and media follow... for science 2month is enough. then no evidence can change the truth of the journalists. NO EVIDENCE CAN! except the one that reach the heart of each citizen independently, and based on his selfish interest or concrete observation. the tea kettle fallacy is the only truth. 2014-08-02 17:23 GMT+02:00 Alan Fletcher a...@well.com: What a surprise : Jennifer Ouellette comes out against it Physics Week in Review: August 2, 2014 http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2014/08/02/physics-week-in-review-august-2-2014/ Perhaps your interest was piqued by the news that a Fuel-Less Space Drive with “Q-Thrusters” http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/fuel-less-space-drive-may-actually-work-says-nasa May Actually Work, meaning that it might one day be possible to travel through space without filling up the gas tank, so to speak. Per Wired http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive: “Either the results are completely wrong, or NASA has confirmed a major breakthrough in space propulsion.” The Time Lord’s money is on the latter. Via Twitter, he declared that the notion of “Propulsive momentum transfer via the quantum vacuum virtual plasma” is nonsensical sub-*Star-Trek* level technobabble http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052. (You may as well put your faith in “Red Matter.”) But I think she has a typo ... The Time Lord’s money is on the latter. -- where latter is breakthrough.
RE: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
Jones, The more obvious cross connection is to the paper by Naudts describing the hydrino as relativistic hydrogen. IMHO it is this linkage between inertial frames that is providing a soft anchor into the ether upon which we can either push, as in the EM drive, or be pushed as in Mills and Rossi. This all comes down to what Puthoff coined as vacuum engineering and in the passive mode we need the geometry to be spot on in the nano range to force virtual particles to bend space time in order to fit between the suppression geometry [and carry any hydrogen atoms present in the cavity along for the ride] but in the EM drive we are using rf energy to create an imbalance / break in the isotropy that isn’t exactly in balance with “equal and opposite reaction” as defined by physics… I think Shawyers focus on relativistic effects based on vacuum engineering is spot on – It allows for trigonometric manipulation of the standard equal and opposite formula with another inertial frame that is under contraction from our 3d perspective and his hi Q pursuit must correlate in some way to percentage of C for a relativistic space craft. IMHO this tech like Mills and Rossi is achieved via negative acceleration where we the stationary observers appear to be approaching high % C relative to the suppressed – “warped” region these devices create. I have mentioned before the correlation between Mill’s skeletal catalyst and nano powders used by other researchers essentially being inverse embodiments resulting in the same sort nano geometry [ok Rossi claims micro scale but with interleaving hairs that pack together to form smaller geometries]. I hope the EM drive is validated soon because I believe this relativistic theory is behind both his success and the anomaly Mill’s and Rossi are pursuing but it will take validation to spur other researchers to look seriously at this relativistic connection and the part it plays in LENR. IMHO this is the only known way to tap ZPE since it must cancel out in 3D, is to set the stage via vacuum engineering to accomplish a goal [heat something up or push against something], between different inertial frames – at the macro scale it would be impossible to push something to near C while still linked to something in a near stationary inertial frame but at the nano scale where the goal is to do the opposite [suppress virtual particles] the linkage is free in that we are opposing nature by using Casimir geometry to force a breach creating a steady Casimir force that links the frames..similarily I suggest the RF field in the EM drive provides this same linkage while the geometry somehow leads to the suppression. I know that anomalous spontaneous emission of gas in a microwave cavity is a documented reality and would suspect that Shawyer has a lot of room to grow beside just tweaking his Q point. My interpretation of the Mills paper has led me to posit a relativistic Casimir effect where the larger particles still occur between the plates but undergo Lorentzian contraction from our perspective. Fran _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 7:54 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive There is an intriguing cross-connection between two other controversial lines of anti-gravity experiment: Eugene Podkletnov (mentioned in the Wired article) and Claude Poher (not mentioned). Here is a review of Poher’s superconductor. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1101/1101.2419.pdf NASA has reportedly confirmed an effect of reactionless acceleration with Poher’s device, but nothing turns up to verify that, on a quick google search. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Poher Here is a technology that can unite all three phenomena… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_radio_frequency From: Alain Sepeda this is the 3rd test, done with different metrology, and with many cross checking documented on EmDrive (like changing turn...)…he have good hint, no more... about the theory the idea that the EmDrive is surfing, rowing, sculling on the virtual particles of the void is the most reasonable I've heard. David Roberson: I have a hangup about the conservation of momentum that makes me skeptical of this device. My guess is that the thrust will be shown to be an error once everything is taken into account. The power to generate the large amount of RF must enter the device from somewhere and that is likely the root of the thrust. Eric Walker wrote: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
Perhaps they have made the required measurements properly. The magnitude of the force is quite low and subject to error somewhat like the neutrino problem that CERN recently encountered. If they had the entire system enclosed within the drive mechanism, including all of the DC batteries and RF power generation then they might have something important. It will also be necessary that they ensure that very little RF or magnetic coupling can escape the enclosure by using excellent shielding. I have to wonder how they could separate the power source from the device? Surely anything besides a self contained source has potential to cause measurement errors that can be subtle. Something as simple as heat distribution upon the surface might be adequate to generate lift forces. It is too bad that the device did not generate enough thrust to lift from the ground by itself which would eliminate many possible issues. I will be thrilled to learn that this space drive is real but remain highly skeptical. Dave -Original Message- From: leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 5:50 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive Dave, according to teh article they separated the power source and drive to make sure that wasnt teh case. On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:45 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have a hangup about the conservation of momentum that makes me skeptical of this device. My guess is that the thrust will be shown to be an error once everything is taken into account. The power to generate the large amount of RF must enter the device from somewhere and that is likely the root of the thrust. Dave -Original Message- From: leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 4:16 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now? On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive Eric
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
If the UFO phenomena is real, and there seems to be a lot of mounting evidence to that effect, then the aliens must have some form of drive that does not require rocket fuels that we are familiar with. Perhaps this is a glimpse of how it is accomplished. Unfortunately, I remain skeptical of both of these issues at this time! Maybe someone would like to add discussions about UFOs to the list unless that is out of bounds for some reason. I suspect that we have many vorts that can contribute. Dave -Original Message- From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com To: Vortex List vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 7:22 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive this is the 3rd test, done with different metrology, and with many cross checking documented on EmDrive (like changing turn...) as Ed Storms says in his books, when a phenomenon survive to the change of the measurement setup(shawyer, chinese, nasa), and is similar in different setup(emdirve, qdrive) that share a common thing (resonance, asymmetry, microwave), there is a great chance something real linked to the core technology is happening... and not independent artifacts that conspires independently to fool scientists. however the ideas of shawyer about the theory have no strong reason to be good, so his computation on how to improve it... he have good hint, no more... about the theory the idea that the EmDrive is surfing, rowing, sculling on the virtual particles of the void is the most reasonable I've heard. I don't need no violation of any conservation law... just less unchecked assumption (as for LENR). 2014-07-31 23:45 GMT+02:00 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com: I have a hangup about the conservation of momentum that makes me skeptical of this device. My guess is that the thrust will be shown to be an error once everything is taken into account. The power to generate the large amount of RF must enter the device from somewhere and that is likely the root of the thrust. Dave -Original Message- From: leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 4:16 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now? On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive Eric
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
How much input power would it take to generate enough drive force to propel a small spaceship? It appears we are speaking about many billions of watts under the present conditions. I assume that future developments will improve the performance, provided it is real. Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 8:17 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive At 01:16 PM 7/31/2014, you wrote: Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now? They tested the Cannae version (as reported by Wired) -- 40 micronewton at 28W , but ALSO a tapered version, which is an emDrive -- 91 micronewton at 17W. See page 1 of the Nasa paper http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2014-4029
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
What if the drive fields are able to make virtual particles become real ones that can be directed backwards? At first thought, that might keep the conservation laws intact. Is this what you are suggesting Axil? This seems like a large stretch. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 9:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive The Eugene Podkletnov anti gravity theory is based on rotating magnetic fields. The connection might be that RF is produced by rotating electrons. The microwave vibrations will induce spin rotation in the matter that fills space and that might include the spins of virtual particles emerging from the vacuum. A household microwave heats water by rotating the water molecules in the food. On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: There is an intriguing cross-connection between two other controversial lines of anti-gravity experiment: Eugene Podkletnov (mentioned in the Wired article) and Claude Poher (not mentioned). Here is a review of Poher’s superconductor. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1101/1101.2419.pdf NASA has reportedly confirmed an effect of reactionless acceleration with Poher’s device, but nothing turns up to verify that, on a quick google search. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Poher Here is a technology that can unite all three phenomena… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_radio_frequency From: Alain Sepeda this is the 3rd test, done with different metrology, and with many cross checking documented on EmDrive (like changing turn...)…he have good hint, no more... about the theory the idea that the EmDrive is surfing, rowing, sculling on the virtual particles of the void is the most reasonable I've heard. David Roberson: I have a hangup about the conservation of momentum that makes me skeptical of this device. My guess is that the thrust will be shown to be an error once everything is taken into account. The power to generate the large amount of RF must enter the device from somewhere and that is likely the root of the thrust. Eric Walker wrote: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-spa ce-drive
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
I suggested something like negative gravity. The force that NASA has stumbled onto could be the force produced causing the expansion of the universe. If there is a process that produces RF all over the universe, it could be pushing matter in opposition to the attractive force of gravity. We might connect this dark energy force to LENR as a prodigious producer of RF energy as a NMR active reaction of the vacuum to the production of ubiquitous cosmological magnetism. On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: What if the drive fields are able to make virtual particles become real ones that can be directed backwards? At first thought, that might keep the conservation laws intact. Is this what you are suggesting Axil? This seems like a large stretch. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 9:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive The Eugene Podkletnov anti gravity theory is based on rotating magnetic fields. The connection might be that RF is produced by rotating electrons. The microwave vibrations will induce spin rotation in the matter that fills space and that might include the spins of virtual particles emerging from the vacuum. A household microwave heats water by rotating the water molecules in the food. On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: There is an intriguing cross-connection between two other controversial lines of anti-gravity experiment: Eugene Podkletnov (mentioned in the Wired article) and Claude Poher (not mentioned). Here is a review of Poher’s superconductor. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1101/1101.2419.pdf NASA has reportedly confirmed an effect of reactionless acceleration with Poher’s device, but nothing turns up to verify that, on a quick google search. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Poher Here is a technology that can unite all three phenomena… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_radio_frequency From: Alain Sepeda this is the 3rd test, done with different metrology, and with many cross checking documented on EmDrive (like changing turn...)…he have good hint, no more... about the theory the idea that the EmDrive is surfing, rowing, sculling on the virtual particles of the void is the most reasonable I've heard. David Roberson: I have a hangup about the conservation of momentum that makes me skeptical of this device. My guess is that the thrust will be shown to be an error once everything is taken into account. The power to generate the large amount of RF must enter the device from somewhere and that is likely the root of the thrust. Eric Walker wrote: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-spa ce-drive http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-spa%20ce-drive
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
Along this line of thought...If dark matter and energy are real they must have mass distributed throughout space. Perhaps it is possible to push this mass backwards by some electromagnetic process and thereby conserve the momentum overall. It is not clear to me how one can push something that he can not feel, and it seems equally weird to understand exactly what happens if you send some of this dark material into motion. Do we see any effect in nature by observation of the universe to suggest that anything like this is remotely possible? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 1, 2014 12:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive I suggested something like negative gravity. The force that NASA has stumbled onto could be the force produced causing the expansion of the universe. If there is a process that produces RF all over the universe, it could be pushing matter in opposition to the attractive force of gravity. We might connect this dark energy force to LENR as a prodigious producer of RF energy as a NMR active reaction of the vacuum to the production of ubiquitous cosmological magnetism. On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: What if the drive fields are able to make virtual particles become real ones that can be directed backwards? At first thought, that might keep the conservation laws intact. Is this what you are suggesting Axil? This seems like a large stretch. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 9:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive The Eugene Podkletnov anti gravity theory is based on rotating magnetic fields. The connection might be that RF is produced by rotating electrons. The microwave vibrations will induce spin rotation in the matter that fills space and that might include the spins of virtual particles emerging from the vacuum. A household microwave heats water by rotating the water molecules in the food. On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: There is an intriguing cross-connection between two other controversial lines of anti-gravity experiment: Eugene Podkletnov (mentioned in the Wired article) and Claude Poher (not mentioned). Here is a review of Poher’s superconductor. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1101/1101.2419.pdf NASA has reportedly confirmed an effect of reactionless acceleration with Poher’s device, but nothing turns up to verify that, on a quick google search. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Poher Here is a technology that can unite all three phenomena… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_radio_frequency From: Alain Sepeda this is the 3rd test, done with different metrology, and with many cross checking documented on EmDrive (like changing turn...)…he have good hint, no more... about the theory the idea that the EmDrive is surfing, rowing, sculling on the virtual particles of the void is the most reasonable I've heard. David Roberson: I have a hangup about the conservation of momentum that makes me skeptical of this device. My guess is that the thrust will be shown to be an error once everything is taken into account. The power to generate the large amount of RF must enter the device from somewhere and that is likely the root of the thrust. Eric Walker wrote: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-spa ce-drive
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
If a reaction with a virtual particle is involved, the virtual particle will provide the counter momentum in the instantaneous period of time while it is in existence. Then the virtual particle will disappear back into the vacuum. The vacuum will then absorb the counter force. It will appear that there is no counter momentum produced but it is did exist, and not apparent because it was absorbed by a seemingly invisible particle. On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 3:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Along this line of thought...If dark matter and energy are real they must have mass distributed throughout space. Perhaps it is possible to push this mass backwards by some electromagnetic process and thereby conserve the momentum overall. It is not clear to me how one can push something that he can not feel, and it seems equally weird to understand exactly what happens if you send some of this dark material into motion. Do we see any effect in nature by observation of the universe to suggest that anything like this is remotely possible? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 1, 2014 12:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive I suggested something like negative gravity. The force that NASA has stumbled onto could be the force produced causing the expansion of the universe. If there is a process that produces RF all over the universe, it could be pushing matter in opposition to the attractive force of gravity. We might connect this dark energy force to LENR as a prodigious producer of RF energy as a NMR active reaction of the vacuum to the production of ubiquitous cosmological magnetism. On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: What if the drive fields are able to make virtual particles become real ones that can be directed backwards? At first thought, that might keep the conservation laws intact. Is this what you are suggesting Axil? This seems like a large stretch. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 9:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive The Eugene Podkletnov anti gravity theory is based on rotating magnetic fields. The connection might be that RF is produced by rotating electrons. The microwave vibrations will induce spin rotation in the matter that fills space and that might include the spins of virtual particles emerging from the vacuum. A household microwave heats water by rotating the water molecules in the food. On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: There is an intriguing cross-connection between two other controversial lines of anti-gravity experiment: Eugene Podkletnov (mentioned in the Wired article) and Claude Poher (not mentioned). Here is a review of Poher’s superconductor. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1101/1101.2419.pdf NASA has reportedly confirmed an effect of reactionless acceleration with Poher’s device, but nothing turns up to verify that, on a quick google search. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Poher Here is a technology that can unite all three phenomena… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_radio_frequency From: Alain Sepeda this is the 3rd test, done with different metrology, and with many cross checking documented on EmDrive (like changing turn...)…he have good hint, no more... about the theory the idea that the EmDrive is surfing, rowing, sculling on the virtual particles of the void is the most reasonable I've heard. David Roberson: I have a hangup about the conservation of momentum that makes me skeptical of this device. My guess is that the thrust will be shown to be an error once everything is taken into account. The power to generate the large amount of RF must enter the device from somewhere and that is likely the root of the thrust. Eric Walker wrote: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-spa ce-drive http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-spa%20ce-drive
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
I was not aware of Poher, but given that shouldn't Morton be considered a further and earlier verification of this effect? Sure it might be harder to directly replicate his results, but the same force from an asymmetrical spark discharge was noted. It might also be worth noting Piggot: http://www.rexresearch.com/piggott/piggott.htm On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: There is an intriguing cross-connection between two other controversial lines of anti-gravity experiment: Eugene Podkletnov (mentioned in the Wired article) and Claude Poher (not mentioned). Here is a review of Poher’s superconductor. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1101/1101.2419.pdf NASA has reportedly confirmed an effect of reactionless acceleration with Poher’s device, but nothing turns up to verify that, on a quick google search. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Poher Here is a technology that can unite all three phenomena… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_radio_frequency From: Alain Sepeda this is the 3rd test, done with different metrology, and with many cross checking documented on EmDrive (like changing turn...)…he have good hint, no more... about the theory the idea that the EmDrive is surfing, rowing, sculling on the virtual particles of the void is the most reasonable I've heard. David Roberson: I have a hangup about the conservation of momentum that makes me skeptical of this device. My guess is that the thrust will be shown to be an error once everything is taken into account. The power to generate the large amount of RF must enter the device from somewhere and that is likely the root of the thrust. Eric Walker wrote: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-spa ce-drive
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
I don't know about that. Momentum would not be conserved unless something gets set into motion in the opposite direction. If the virtual particle were to disappear then it seems unlikely that it can do that without depositing the momentum somewhere that makes a difference. Perhaps a tiny region of space and its invisible energy is stretched or moved in some manner. (One that remains skeptical.) Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 1, 2014 3:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive If a reaction with a virtual particle is involved, the virtual particle will provide the counter momentum in the instantaneous period of time while it is in existence. Then the virtual particle will disappear back into the vacuum. The vacuum will then absorb the counter force. It will appear that there is no counter momentum produced but it is did exist, and not apparent because it was absorbed by a seemingly invisible particle. On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 3:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Along this line of thought...If dark matter and energy are real they must have mass distributed throughout space. Perhaps it is possible to push this mass backwards by some electromagnetic process and thereby conserve the momentum overall. It is not clear to me how one can push something that he can not feel, and it seems equally weird to understand exactly what happens if you send some of this dark material into motion. Do we see any effect in nature by observation of the universe to suggest that anything like this is remotely possible? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 1, 2014 12:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive I suggested something like negative gravity. The force that NASA has stumbled onto could be the force produced causing the expansion of the universe. If there is a process that produces RF all over the universe, it could be pushing matter in opposition to the attractive force of gravity. We might connect this dark energy force to LENR as a prodigious producer of RF energy as a NMR active reaction of the vacuum to the production of ubiquitous cosmological magnetism. On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: What if the drive fields are able to make virtual particles become real ones that can be directed backwards? At first thought, that might keep the conservation laws intact. Is this what you are suggesting Axil? This seems like a large stretch. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 9:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive The Eugene Podkletnov anti gravity theory is based on rotating magnetic fields. The connection might be that RF is produced by rotating electrons. The microwave vibrations will induce spin rotation in the matter that fills space and that might include the spins of virtual particles emerging from the vacuum. A household microwave heats water by rotating the water molecules in the food. On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: There is an intriguing cross-connection between two other controversial lines of anti-gravity experiment: Eugene Podkletnov (mentioned in the Wired article) and Claude Poher (not mentioned). Here is a review of Poher’s superconductor. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1101/1101.2419.pdf NASA has reportedly confirmed an effect of reactionless acceleration with Poher’s device, but nothing turns up to verify that, on a quick google search. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Poher Here is a technology that can unite all three phenomena… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_radio_frequency From: Alain Sepeda this is the 3rd test, done with different metrology, and with many cross checking documented on EmDrive (like changing turn...)…he have good hint, no more... about the theory the idea that the EmDrive is surfing, rowing, sculling on the virtual particles of the void is the most reasonable I've heard. David Roberson: I have a hangup about the conservation of momentum that makes me skeptical of this device. My guess is that the thrust will be shown to be an error once everything is taken into account. The power to generate the large amount of RF must enter the device from somewhere and that is likely the root of the thrust. Eric Walker wrote: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-spa ce-drive
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
The Ni/H reactor produces prodigious amounts of RF. This level of production could even be increased by adding NMR active materials to the structure of the reactor. This current disadvantage in Ni/H technology might well be turned into an important feature. The Ni/H reaction could provide a direct application of RF propulsion without the need to go to electrical power first. On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive Eric
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now? On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive Eric
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
Of course microwave RF energy is a form of electrical power. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 3:46 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive The Ni/H reactor produces prodigious amounts of RF. This level of production could even be increased by adding NMR active materials to the structure of the reactor. This current disadvantage in Ni/H technology might well be turned into an important feature. The Ni/H reaction could provide a direct application of RF propulsion without the need to go to electrical power first. On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive Eric
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
I have a hangup about the conservation of momentum that makes me skeptical of this device. My guess is that the thrust will be shown to be an error once everything is taken into account. The power to generate the large amount of RF must enter the device from somewhere and that is likely the root of the thrust. Dave -Original Message- From: leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 4:16 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now? On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive Eric
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
Dave, according to teh article they separated the power source and drive to make sure that wasnt teh case. On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:45 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have a hangup about the conservation of momentum that makes me skeptical of this device. My guess is that the thrust will be shown to be an error once everything is taken into account. The power to generate the large amount of RF must enter the device from somewhere and that is likely the root of the thrust. Dave -Original Message- From: leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 4:16 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now? On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive Eric
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
Axil, Is there any data to backup your prodigious RF statement of fact? Spectrum analyzer etc. Ron --On Thursday, July 31, 2014 3:45 PM -0400 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The Ni/H reactor produces prodigious amounts of RF. This level of production could even be increased by adding NMR active materials to the structure of the reactor. This current disadvantage in Ni/H technology might well be turned into an important feature. The Ni/H reaction could provide a direct application of RF propulsion without the need to go to electrical power first. On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible -space-drive Eric
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
this is the 3rd test, done with different metrology, and with many cross checking documented on EmDrive (like changing turn...) as Ed Storms says in his books, when a phenomenon survive to the change of the measurement setup(shawyer, chinese, nasa), and is similar in different setup(emdirve, qdrive) that share a common thing (resonance, asymmetry, microwave), there is a great chance something real linked to the core technology is happening... and not independent artifacts that conspires independently to fool scientists. however the ideas of shawyer about the theory have no strong reason to be good, so his computation on how to improve it... he have good hint, no more... about the theory the idea that the EmDrive is surfing, rowing, sculling on the virtual particles of the void is the most reasonable I've heard. I don't need no violation of any conservation law... just less unchecked assumption (as for LENR). 2014-07-31 23:45 GMT+02:00 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com: I have a hangup about the conservation of momentum that makes me skeptical of this device. My guess is that the thrust will be shown to be an error once everything is taken into account. The power to generate the large amount of RF must enter the device from somewhere and that is likely the root of the thrust. Dave -Original Message- From: leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 4:16 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now? On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive Eric
RE: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
There is an intriguing cross-connection between two other controversial lines of anti-gravity experiment: Eugene Podkletnov (mentioned in the Wired article) and Claude Poher (not mentioned). Here is a review of Poher’s superconductor. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1101/1101.2419.pdf NASA has reportedly confirmed an effect of reactionless acceleration with Poher’s device, but nothing turns up to verify that, on a quick google search. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Poher Here is a technology that can unite all three phenomena… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_radio_frequency From: Alain Sepeda this is the 3rd test, done with different metrology, and with many cross checking documented on EmDrive (like changing turn...)…he have good hint, no more... about the theory the idea that the EmDrive is surfing, rowing, sculling on the virtual particles of the void is the most reasonable I've heard. David Roberson: I have a hangup about the conservation of momentum that makes me skeptical of this device. My guess is that the thrust will be shown to be an error once everything is taken into account. The power to generate the large amount of RF must enter the device from somewhere and that is likely the root of the thrust. Eric Walker wrote: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-spa ce-drive attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
At 01:16 PM 7/31/2014, you wrote: Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now? They tested the Cannae version (as reported by Wired) -- 40 micronewton at 28W , but ALSO a tapered version, which is an emDrive -- 91 micronewton at 17W. See page 1 of the Nasa paper http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2014-4029
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
The Eugene Podkletnov anti gravity theory is based on rotating magnetic fields. The connection might be that RF is produced by rotating electrons. The microwave vibrations will induce spin rotation in the matter that fills space and that might include the spins of virtual particles emerging from the vacuum. A household microwave heats water by rotating the water molecules in the food. On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: There is an intriguing cross-connection between two other controversial lines of anti-gravity experiment: Eugene Podkletnov (mentioned in the Wired article) and Claude Poher (not mentioned). Here is a review of Poher’s superconductor. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1101/1101.2419.pdf NASA has reportedly confirmed an effect of reactionless acceleration with Poher’s device, but nothing turns up to verify that, on a quick google search. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Poher Here is a technology that can unite all three phenomena… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_radio_frequency From: Alain Sepeda this is the 3rd test, done with different metrology, and with many cross checking documented on EmDrive (like changing turn...)…he have good hint, no more... about the theory the idea that the EmDrive is surfing, rowing, sculling on the virtual particles of the void is the most reasonable I've heard. David Roberson: I have a hangup about the conservation of momentum that makes me skeptical of this device. My guess is that the thrust will be shown to be an error once everything is taken into account. The power to generate the large amount of RF must enter the device from somewhere and that is likely the root of the thrust. Eric Walker wrote: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-spa ce-drive
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
Well, since we're talking about NASA impossible space drives... Excerpt of heavily encrypted PDF file Proposal by Quantum Potential Corporation in response to 2011 NASA http://www.quantum-potential.com/ACT%20NASA.pdf NASA, U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force have commissioned a number of interesting yet disjointed studies on asymmetric capacitors with the goal of evaluating their usefulness to propulsion applications. The nature of propulsive forces arising in asymmetric capacitors under high voltage was attributed to mysterious Biefeld–Brown effect, which hinted at new physics. Thorough examination by the aforementioned government agencies have conclusively proved that thrust in atmosphere is definitely due to ionic wind as the magnitude of the observed force closely matches ion transport calculations. Consequently, no thrust was observed in high vacuum. However, propulsive forces were noted when an electric arc jumped between the capacitor electrodes. Because ablation was the only logical conventional explanation, none of the studies pursued the subject further. The 2004 NASA study commissioned by NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Project was the only one to cast a shadow of doubt on the ablation hypothesis: the calculated mass loss was not supported by observations. Clearly, some other hitherto unknown mechanism must be at play. If this mechanism is genuine, it may be a manifestation of “new physics” with far reaching consequences and immediate applications in space propulsion (e.g., purely electromagnetic momentum exchange propellantless propulsion). Because of the potential importance of an unambiguous identification of the nature of the propulsive force arising from an asymmetric capacitor arcing in vacuum, we propose an experiment that will a) accurately measure thrust resulting from the arc (better than 104 N); b) accurately measure material loss due to ablation (better than 104 g); c) account for parasitic effects due to electrostatic/electromagnetic interaction with vacuum chamber walls . To our knowledge no such experiment has been performed. The experiment will be performed in a bell jar vacuum chamber (105 Torr) using torsion balance similar to the one employed in the 2004 NASA study. Confirmation of thrust without ablation will be a truly significant accomplishment of American science (with significant public benefit) indicating that new and hitherto unrecognized phenomena may be at play. This discovery will have far reaching consequences for science and technology and thus corresponds for high payoff research. We may be only $116,000 dollars away from the next major technological breakthrough. At a very minimum successful confirmation of ablationless propulsive force will lead to development of new generation of propellantless thrusters for near Earth maneuvering and deep space travel that will markedly reduce the cost of space missions and may even solve the space junk problem (see Section 10). Numerous other applications will follow. On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 01:16 PM 7/31/2014, you wrote: Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now? They tested the Cannae version (as reported by Wired) -- 40 micronewton at 28W , but ALSO a tapered version, which is an emDrive -- 91 micronewton at 17W. See page 1 of the Nasa paper http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/ 10.2514/6.2014-4029
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: NASA has reportedly confirmed an effect of reactionless acceleration with Poher’s device ... I have to hand it to groups at NASA for being relatively independent of the opinion of the physics mainstream. Apparently there is a culture of willingness to look at devices that are long-shots and whose inventors have not yet established their credibility. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
Whithout any technical knowledge I agree with you Eric. I wonder how they could keep the good spirit in this big organization once Lwerner Brown and Na8sa was the same, was that how much he colored the culture as he was certaily a contrarian. On Jul 31, 2014 8:31 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: NASA has reportedly confirmed an effect of reactionless acceleration with Poher’s device ... I have to hand it to groups at NASA for being relatively independent of the opinion of the physics mainstream. Apparently there is a culture of willingness to look at devices that are long-shots and whose inventors have not yet established their credibility. Eric
