On 9/17/06, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Of course to counter my own argument if the force remained over longer tests then this seems an unlikely explanation unless it was working as a jet somehow.
Yes, though I'd say a lot more energy as the Q I believe drops drastically.
It is however safe to say that while this is a difficulty with this reactionless drive it isn't a problem that need exist with all reactionless drives and there are 4 solutions suggested to 'fix' this issue on this list.
Agreed
I was referring to his later work with the discharge.
Also i am not aware of his first version being selective but even if it was that has no weight on what we are discussing.
I understand your idea I don't however agree with it.
My thought too, still if it produces thrust in experiment...
shocker
e are talking about going from 1 meter a second to 2 meters a second.
If they are sharp enough to notice that infinitesimal time dilation good on them, it has nothing to do with what i am talking about though.
Show me the math!
Show me how the time dilation, mass increase etc. at 2 meters a second is enough to make the conservation of energy work.
Sorry but your so so so far off the mark here it's funny.
moving at 1 or 2 meters a second, get a life ;)
It could have chosen 1 or 2 cm's a second based on the thrust from the EMDrive or a photon rocket, no relativistic effects are of ANY interest!
Yet going from 1 cm a sec to 2 cm's a sec is 4 times the energy yet takes only double the energy of 1 cm a sec, relativity IS NOT AN ISSUE AT THESE SPEEDS AND IS SO SMALL AS TO BE UNMEASURABLE.
nop
yup, we aren't talking about relativistic speeds here.
In reply to John Berry's message of Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:29:05
+1200:
Hi,
[snip]
>> BTW I also suspect that it is real, because the measured mass
>> change was +2 gm in one orientation, and -2 gm when turned upside
>> down. This is not the sort of thing that results from measurement
>> error caused by using an electronic balance.
>
>
>But what if it was just thrust from heated air + leaks?
Of course to counter my own argument if the force remained over longer tests then this seems an unlikely explanation unless it was working as a jet somehow.
Possible of course.
[snip]
>It doesn't need to be backed up as it is elementary logic, assuming you
>accept that double the velocity is quadruple the energy then you must
>explain why it won't accelerate in a linear fashion with the power supplied.
[snip]
...but I believe that if it works at all, then it will accelerate,
but power will need to be supplied.
>
>If you can stomach the idea of a Machian universal reference frame however I
>guess you have good company with Kyle.
Indeed.
[snip]
>If they based the theory that it doesn't do so well with acceleration
>because it would violate the conservation of energy
No, that wasn't the reason for that statement. The reason was that
as it starts to accelerate, the conditions in the chamber change
and the Q drops, which results in a drop in force. However they
didn't take into account (IMO) that this could be compensated for
by adding more energy.
Yes, though I'd say a lot more energy as the Q I believe drops drastically.
It is however safe to say that while this is a difficulty with this reactionless drive it isn't a problem that need exist with all reactionless drives and there are 4 solutions suggested to 'fix' this issue on this list.
>then they don't have a
>real idea as to how it should stop working just feel it should to agree with
>their philosophical beliefs.
No, they have a very definite idea as to why it would stop
working, and it has nothing to do with CofE.
Agreed
[snip]
>> >Podkletnov found the beam didn't weaken no matter how much matter it went
>> >through, and there was no counter reaction on anything.
>>
>> ...but it was able to decide which things it affected and which it
>> didn't?
>
>
>What are you talking about?
>The beam effected everything in it's path as far as I know.
>
>I.e. it didn't effect the things it passed through, but
>> did effect test objects placed in it's path???????
>> (Had the latter not been true, then how was it detected at all?)
>
>
>It moved evything it's path, it is measureb by the fact that everything else
>is not in the beams path.
>It worked just like you'd expect a parallel 'beam' of gravity to work.
Through the roof of the lab? (See first report).
I was referring to his later work with the discharge.
Also i am not aware of his first version being selective but even if it was that has no weight on what we are discussing.
[snip]
>> No, we just assume that the gain of kinetic energy is supplied by
>> the microwave power supply. Which is where I started out.
>> Think of it like this. The moment it starts to move, the Doppler
>> shift is going to slightly reduce the amplitude of the standing
>> wave. By adding more microwave power, the amplitude is restored,
>> ensuring that the force is maintained and enabling the motion to
>> continue. If you wish, you can think of it as infinitely many
>> infinitely small steps.
>
>
>I think I understand what your saying i don't however have a clue how what
>your saying here backs up your idea that a reactionless drive would conserve
>energy.
Look at the whole thing as a black box. You put microwave energy
in, and kinetic energy comes out. Effectively it's just a linear
motor (to use your own example).
It's just that space itself forms the "rails".
I understand your idea I don't however agree with it.
Mind you, I still wonder if they took the force on the sloping
walls into account. :)
My thought too, still if it produces thrust in experiment...
(BTW, once again, I don't think it's a "reactionless" drive. In
fact I think such a thing is a contradiction in terms.)
>
>[snip]
>> >But a reactionless drive is not tied to a reference frame.
>>
>> Such a drive is paradoxical, and therefore doesn't exist. (Since
>> it has no frame of reference, no energy at all would be needed to
>> accelerate it to infinite velocity - one simply "declares" it to
>> be traveling at the desired speed :).
>> In short everything in the universe has a frame of reference,
>> specifically, at least the frame of reference of the observer.
>>
>> I submit that the frame of reference to use in the case of this
>> drive is that of the microwave background.
>>
>> >
>> >Now try this on for size, fact: If you disregard relativity the energy
>> >needed from a photon rocket to to get to 1 meter a second is half that
>> >needed to get to 2 meters a second and 1/10th that needed to get to 10
>> >meters a second because it is reactionless. (or kinda)
>>
>> Please show the math for this.
>
>
>You shouldn't need the math for this!
>It's so basic it hurts.
>
>You run the flashlight for 2 minutes it has double the velocity it would
>have running it for one minute.
Power = E/t. Photon momentum = E/c = Power x t / c. Momentum
transfer per unit time = Power / c. However dp/dt is also force
(where p stands for momentum), hence the force operating is Power
/ c = constant (assuming constant power output). Constant force
operating on a constant mass yields constant acceleration, which
would indeed double your velocity in double the time.
shocker
However from the point of view of an outsider, your clock is
ticking slower
e are talking about going from 1 meter a second to 2 meters a second.
If they are sharp enough to notice that infinitesimal time dilation good on them, it has nothing to do with what i am talking about though.
>, and your power output is dropping, so your force
is dropping and your mass is increasing, both of which serve to
reduce your acceleration.
Show me the math!
Show me how the time dilation, mass increase etc. at 2 meters a second is enough to make the conservation of energy work.
Sorry but your so so so far off the mark here it's funny.
>The only way you can view this as untrue is if you decide that the reaction
>from emitting a photon is dependant on your velocity relative to your
>reference frame and that is working with facts not in evidence.
[snip]
>Constant to the photon rocket ships power indicators.
I think this is the source of the problem. You have chosen the
vessel itself as the frame of reference, whereas Kyle has chosen
an external stationary observer as the frame of reference.
moving at 1 or 2 meters a second, get a life ;)
It could have chosen 1 or 2 cm's a second based on the thrust from the EMDrive or a photon rocket, no relativistic effects are of ANY interest!
Yet going from 1 cm a sec to 2 cm's a sec is 4 times the energy yet takes only double the energy of 1 cm a sec, relativity IS NOT AN ISSUE AT THESE SPEEDS AND IS SO SMALL AS TO BE UNMEASURABLE.
Speculative:
From his point of view it takes ever more energy to accelerate
(initially 1/2 m V^2 - which is actually the first order
derivative of Einstein's famous equation), whereas from your point
of view there is no maximum speed. Since you carry your fuel
onboard, it is also getting more massive (from Kyle's point of
view), as you go faster, which means that you have more mass to
convert into energy.
IOW you are both right, but seen from different points of view.
nop
However it's afternoon, I feel sleepy, and can't escape the
feeling that I've overlooked something very important and
trivially obvious.
yup, we aren't talking about relativistic speeds here.
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/
Competition provides the motivation,
Cooperation provides the means.
