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
