|
Hi Steven,
I cannot follow it at that level, sorry. But I
wonder how much information has been filtered by the article writers- the
reporters.
Colin
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 10:20
PM
Subject: [Vo]:
Hi Colin,
Regarding this newfangled EM Drive, some
things don't add up from my point of view. In one article it was theorized by
the researchers that the "force" only works at maximum efficiency if the
operating EMDrive is stationary, that is, when it isn't moving. They went on
to speculate that the force emanating from the EMDrive weakens as velocity
accumulates. It was therefore suggested that the EMDrive (if it could be made
strong enough while in the stationary position) could only be used as a kind
of anti/counter gravity field. Kind of like a hovercraft. It was suggested
that would then need to employ a more prosaic, secondary force to propel the
vehicle in any direction.
I have a big problem with this kind of logic.
It all comes down to what one understands about Einstin's theory of
relativity. It's all "relative", as they say. Whose is to say that the
stationary DMDRIve object is really stationary. To someone traveling at a
constant speed of 2000 mph relative to the EMDrive object, from that person's
POV the EM Drive craft is speeding at a constant speed of 2000 mph. Therefore,
from the stationary person's perspective the DMDrive should not operate as
efficiently as compared to an individual who is actually traveling at the same
speed as the DMDrive object. That's what the researchers seem to be
implying.
Such logic clearly produces two conflicting POV's, where one
individual (moving at the same speed as the object) perceives the force from
the DMDrive as greater than the forced as perceived by the other individual
(who is stationary). Huston, we have a problem.
Something doesn't add
up right here.
The only way I think they could get around this seeming
contradiction would be if the alleged weakening of the EMDrive force only
becomes noticeable as the object approaches the speed of light, that is, from
the perspective of a stationary observer. IOW, the weakening would manifest on
the same grand scale as how objects are perceived to flatten (and gain mass)
as they approach the speed of light, again as perceived by individuals at a
stationary position. However, when one reads the article this doesn't appear
to be the case. The article seems to imply that the EMDrive force weakens
pretty soon after it speeds up implying that the effects of relativity play
virtually no role whatsoever.
This would appear to be a blatant
contradiction of logic.
Regards,
Steven Vincent
Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.Zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>
> Hi Steven,
>
> Coincidentally it also appeared
in last
> week Sept.9's cover story for New Scientist.
>
http://www.newscientist.com/archive.ns
>
> Regarding it's
speculative nature...
>
>
> On the negative side:
>
> I have heard that in one of their experiments they
> utilized
an electric balance (I'm assuming a digital scale)
> and that the thick
power supply wires might have
> interfered with one of their
experiments.
> Others have noted ..
> It violates (apparently) the
law of
> momentum.There are several other possibilities of artefacts
> such as heat build-up causing hot gas to escape from the MW
cavity?
> Or possible coulomb artefact due to charge build-up
>
across the assembly?
> Or interaction with the earth's magnetic
>
field?
> And strange that it is only patented in the UK.
>
>
> On the positive side:
>
> Anyone familiar with
microwave cavity and waveguide
> work.. can inexpensively build the
unit with a kitchen microwave, sheet
> copper, and tubing.
>
> - - -
>
> In attempting to take a particular "side" in
> the controversy what are your potential rewards vs. your potential
> risks?
> **IF** we are curious AND we have building
>
experience with waveguides etc... we might decide to (quietly) attempt a
> replication. I suspect some folks are doing just that.
>
> Ridicule is anathema to science.
> So also is believing
everything we
> read.
> As in all things in
> life we must
find that 'balance'.
>
> Colin
>
> ----- Original
Message -----
>
> From:
> OrionWorks
> To:
vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 11:38
> AM
> Subject: [Vo]: EM Drives, revisited
> Recapping the
potential ramifications of the highly speculative
> "EM Drive"
proposal.See:http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Articles/Article.aspx?liArticleID=295931(Sorry,
> Tinyurl.com was down when trying to make the abbreviated version of
this
> link.)If this speculative research turns out to be true, one can
> quickly extrapolate what the possibilities might quickly lead to,
particularly
> if Mark Golde's RTS Room Temperature Superconducting
material were also to
> become available on the market soon.From my
perspective it seems
> conceivable that fast and efficient "EM Drives"
could open up commercial space
> exploration of the asteroid belt,
where everyone knows that's where the next
> Gold Gush is likely to
exist in the form unlimited raw materials just waiting
> to be
mined.Sometimes I wish I was 20 years old again.Have
> Space Suit, will
travel.Regards,Steven Vincent
>
Johnsonwww.OrionWorks.comwww.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
|
