Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

Monty Python - Tim the Enchanter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaDptmMgWQk Harry

Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Eric, you are trying to gloss over unscrupulous conduct. It stinks no > matter what name you put on it. I only wonder whether Rossi has committed fraud, illegal or otherwise. I've given at least one reason I think he

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

From: Eric Walker Ø In other words, I don't think there is a need to presume that fraud involved. Eric, you are trying to gloss over unscrupulous conduct. It stinks no matter what name you put on it. If you admit that there was deceit of any kind, I have listed circumstance which

Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

I wrote: Another difficulty I have is that there are other plausible explanations > than misdirection for why there was such a big shift in the amounts of > nickel isotopes, even assuming that Rossi intentionally made use of it. > The "it" above refers to 62Ni, which I accidentally left out.

Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 6:16 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Ø EW: There is no need to presume that there was any fraud involved… > > > > Wrong. Given the circumstance, fraud is the most logical conclusion based > on the facts. Your stance is similar to saying that OJ was innocent

[Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

If Ni-64 transmutes to Ni-65 by adding a slow neutron and then decays to Cu-65, there are no neutrons produced--only a + beta emission I think. Bob Cook -Original Message- From: H LV Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 3:00 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kamacite and natural

[Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

There appears confusion in Parkhomov's Sochi paper about chart 14. The graph on the left appears to be a fuel percentage, perhaps by atomic abundance (not weight). It includes all of the components found in any significant amount. If you go through the estimated values for the before bars, they

[Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

with that expected in natural Li. Is the Russian Li source different than the MFMP source? What do other Vorts think? Bob Cook From: Jones Beene Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 7:40 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress From: Bob Cook Ø The AP test did not run very

[Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

thing Rossi has going from him is that he does not know too much physics to stymie his experimental approach at finding conditions and materials that work. Bob Cook From: Jones Beene Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 7:40 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress From: Bob

Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

Making sense out of the way nuclear reactions occur in LENR is a fruitless endeavor. It might be that the Ni62 was produced by a single cluster fusion event with Li7 in which a trillion atoms were involved. The nickel and lithium might have been included in a Bose condensate where all the atoms

Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

AP's 15-day run should have shown a much more significant shift if the Lugano results are true. His COP is not mentioned, but noted 100W of excess for 15-days. Isn't that probably in the range of Lugano's true excess output? Also, AP's best recent results were 100W excess over 15 days. What

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

From: Bob Cook Ø The AP test did not run very long and may not have depleted the Ni to the extent of the Lugano test. Here is the comparative data. The important comparison is on slide 14. As a good scientist, you will change your view after studying this.

[Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

I am glad that Russ and Jones seem to understand the NI LENR reactions so well. I think they should write science papers on the subject. Bob Cook From: Jones Beene Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 6:16 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress From: Eric Walker Russ

[Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

the favored transmutations---I think it is not too well founded to proclaim what should be there after a few days vs a month. I agree with Eric’s assessment. Bob Cook From: Russ George Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 11:14 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress The Lugano

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

From: Eric Walker Russ George wrote: C’mon guys the Lugano report of that 64[62]Ni is an impossible bit of data … that number is bogus by gross error or intent. Get over it, just toss that piece of BS out the window into the garden where it might do some good. Ø EW: There is no need to

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Lithium Ion Failure

Have you ever taken a laptop battery apart? Each cell has a separate wire attached for equalization of charge. Since each cell has a slight different of internal resistance, it is necessary to equalize the charge periodically. Tesla does this to all 7400 cells in their car batteries. Sent from

Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

> On Mar 21, 2016, at 23:14, "Russ George" wrote: > > The Lugano issue is the mono-isotopic signature in Ni… no pure isotope Ni is > available (99%-93% pure isotopes of Ni are available). The instrumentation is > capable of seeing into the second decimal place in % so

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

which is either a gross error or worse – incompetence, mis-direction, ??? Parkhomov’s Ni isotope signatures by comparison look feasible, though anomalous. From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 9:15 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat

Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Russ George wrote: C’mon guys the Lugano report of that 64Ni is an impossible bit of data, > there is no way that only 64Ni would be recorded as it would surely not be > so pure as to not show minor tramp amounts of other nickel isotopes.

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

21, 2016 7:20 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress On the contrary ... The planted particle benefits from being larger than the typical nickel fuel particle as part of a plan which makes it likely to be tested. Having enriched isotope already inside the tube

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

theoretical notion/exercise, as is isotope separation. Perhaps the Lugano 64Ni data if fully presented in raw form with the necessary calibration data might reveal more. From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 5:38 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

On the contrary ... The planted particle benefits from being larger than the typical nickel fuel particle as part of a plan which makes it likely to be tested. Having enriched isotope already inside the tube prior to the loading is not enough, and you want to make sure it gets noticed at

Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

The Ni62 ash particle is unlikely to be a plant because it is a huge paticle(600 by 1000 microns) far larger than any fuel particle in the fuel load and it was melted onto the surface of the center of alumina tube. On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Jones Beene wrote: >

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

From: Russ George Ø Ø C’mon guys the Lugano report of that 64Ni is an impossible bit of data, there is no way that only 64Ni would be recorded as it would surely not be so pure as to not show minor tramp amounts of other nickel isotopes. That number is bogus by gross error or

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

that piece of BS out the window into the garden where it might do some good. From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 1:52 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress Jones etal.-- I agree with Alain and Lennart for what its worth. I

[Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

Russ and others-- A. Renoir went through the same kind of attacks when he started painting in the 1870’s. The art critics were vicious. Nevertheless one of the large paintings (Au Moulin de la Galette) he made early on (which now occupies a prominent position in the Impressionists Wing of

[Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

Jones etal.-- I agree with Alain and Lennart for what its worth. I doubt the potential salting of the Lugano reactor with Ni-64 had much to do with the excess heat that was apparently observed and believed to have been produced by the Swedes and Italians involved. In addition I consider the

[Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

Adrian-- I tend to agree with you about the establishment knowing a lot about LENR. For example, if you assume Ed Storms was involved with the Establishment via LANL and listen carefully to his recent on-line interview, Ed notes that LANL was making tritium early, on apparently with D and H

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

rocket then all of the original energy and mass can be accounted for in the exhaust. Nothing vanishes. Dave -Original Message- From: H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 12:36 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re

Re: [Vo]:Re: Parhomov paper

We could ask Parkhomov through Bob Greenyer if the Ni powder he used was enriched in 64Ni. However, as far as we know, and in particular during these reported runs, Parkhomov was on a shoestring budget that would have precluded buying isotopically enriched Ni. As far as we know all of his

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

Question:- "Why would gravity warp spacetime, but not electric and magnetic fields? According to Axil and Fran, they warp spacetime big time. (SPPs) ;)" *http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.08377.pdf * *"Starting from a five dimensional Kaluza-Klein theory, which is

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

-Original Message- From: Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Mar 16, 2016 10:34 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) >If i slide my beer across the table, it could land on the floor, or my lap. >Its PE depends on which

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

In reply to Bob Cook's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 15:00:38 -0700: Hi, [snip] >Robin's example of the electric car is different than the EM drive since it >allows the evaluation of the conservation of momentum. The road increases >its momentum in the opposite direction the car does. In the EM

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

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

RE: [Vo]:Re: Parhomov paper

Well, we must await further explanation on this very important issue - but it is difficult to make a well-coordinated mistake on both ends of two measurements (the before and after percentages), such that the mistake is not completely out-of-line, and obviously wrong. In this case, there really

RE: [Vo]:Re: Parhomov paper

Bob, you know the protocol - if the author finds an error of that severity, he withdraws the paper. Since they have not done so after a year, isn’t it fair to assume that the enrichment in the heavy isotope was deliberate? In Moscow, there is a famous lab (Kurchatov) which does most of the

[Vo]:Re: Parhomov paper

Parhomov paperJones-- I agree with you about the report of the Ni-64 ratios presented in the report. They should be asked to confirm the original Ni-64 ratio. I doubt it is correct, since it would have taken some effort to start with the enriched Ni-64, which they would surely have noted as a

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

In reply to Eric Walker's message of Fri, 18 Mar 2016 22:20:20 -0500: Hi, [snip] >On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 3:19 PM, wrote: > >If the presence of an object warps spacetime (General Relativity), then >> something must be present to warp? >> > >General relativity provides a

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

, 2016 3:42 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) People riding in a Emdrive spaceship could compare their motion to background stars before and after the acceleration to determine how much their speed has changed. Or they could use an onboard accelerometer

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

: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:58:43 -0400: Hi, [snip] Of course the EM drive ship that remains in this extreme case(actually nothing at all if zero exhaust is present) is at rest which means it has zero kinetic energy relative to itself

RE: [Vo]:Re: Parhomov paper

From: Bob Higgins * * Of course, differential analysis of Rossi's Lugano fuel vs. ash is very questionable due to the likely situation of the reactor having been pre-loaded with some materials. [This was not a Rossi "deception"; he just didn't bother to bring up this fact, nor

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

In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:58:43 -0400: Hi, [snip] >Of course the EM drive ship that remains in this extreme case(actually nothing >at all if zero exhaust is present) is at rest which means it has zero kinetic >energy relative to itself. Again, this is not a

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

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

Re: [Vo]:Re: Parhomov paper

Jones, I think this observation is very interesting. In fact, what the Lugano analysis showed was probably even more astonishing. In Parkhomov's analysis, he reported the 64Ni going from 4.4% to 2.6%, a decrease to 59% of original [I checked the Russian original to insure I had not made a

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

> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Vibrator ! wrote: >> But the PE of the system in question is 1 kg * 1 G * 1 meter, not the full >> distance from heaven to hell. >> > I wrote: > Measure PE relative to the place where the force of gravity is zero > inside the Earth. That

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

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:58 AM, David Roberson wrote: A normal rocket obeys CoE and CoM whereas the EM Drive ship does not. > I don't think this conclusion has been established yet. If it can be shown that the EM drive emits its mass in the form of > radiation out the

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

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Vibrator ! wrote: > But the PE of the system in question is 1 kg * 1 G * 1 meter, not the full > distance from heaven to hell. > Measure PE relative to the place where the force of gravity is zero inside the Earth. That place has an

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

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Bob Cook wrote: If its neutrinos, then they would seem to have some mass that is magnified > by their high velocity and special relativity. > I don't think it is necessary that the neutrinos be relativistic, although surely they will

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

17, 2016 5:43 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) In reply to Bob Cook's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 15:00:38 -0700: Hi, [snip] Robin's example of the electric car is different than the EM drive since it allows the evaluation of the conservation of momentum

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

that collide with targets and are stopped? Bob Cook From: Eric Walker Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 3:56 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:58 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: A normal rocket obeys CoE a

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

In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:19:13 -0400: Hi, [snip] >When might somehow be important but if you take the process to the extreme you >get a result that doesn't make any sense. For example, if the spaceship >continues to use up its mass in a constant acceleration

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

of measurable reaction mass equivalent is involved. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 4:26 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu,

Re: [Vo]:Re: Parhomov paper

My final analysis of the Lugano report was not that the experiment was junk. I estimated that there was excess heat, just not as much as the Lugano team estimated by flawed thermal analysis. Actually the thermal analysis was far more flawed than simply the error in the values and use of the

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

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

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

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:43 PM, wrote: See my reply to David. Everyone is making the assumption that a force can > only > act against another object, because that has always been our experience. > This > may be the first tangible experience of a force acting against the

Re: [Vo]:Re: Declaration from Eindhoven University of Technology related to M. Yildiz magnet motor

In reply to John Berry's message of Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:20:48 +1300: Hi, [snip] >Including the energy contained in electric, gravitational and magnetic >potential energy? Yes. (Might as well fall off the end of my limb. ;) A flow of spacetime from one object to another could result in a force

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

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

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

so does that PE's corresponding relativistic mass fluctuate as i move it around? On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:28 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > -Original Message- > From: Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> &g

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

In reply to Eric Walker's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:59:12 -0500: Hi, [snip] >On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:43 PM, wrote: > >See my reply to David. Everyone is making the assumption that a force can >> only >> act against another object, because that has always been our

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

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 5:23 AM, Roarty, Francis X < francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: Which takes something physically present to do the warping…ok if it can > remain spatially fixed but I suspect it will have to dilate on temporal > axis to maintain equal and opposite action across frames. >

RE: [Vo]:Re: Parhomov paper

Yes – I hope Bob will clear this up. The fact that the 64Ni data appear in three different places in the slides makes it all the more certain that it cannot be some kind of typo. However, the inclusion of this data could be based on real results which slipped in on preparation of the

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

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 6:29 PM, wrote: Wasn't there something quoted here not too long ago about laser possibly > revealing a warping in the neighborhood of an operating drive? > I don't remember it, but if there was such a report, I think it would be outside of the realm

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

In reply to Eric Walker's message of Fri, 18 Mar 2016 10:05:31 -0500: Hi, [snip] >On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 5:23 AM, Roarty, Francis X < >francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > >Which takes something physically present to do the warping…ok if it can >> remain spatially fixed but I suspect it will have

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

then all is well. But thus far it is suggested that nothing is performing that function. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Mar 16, 2016 9:29 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) In reply to Davi

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

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:43 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com<mailto:mix...@bigpond.com>> wrote: See my reply to David. Everyone is making the assumption that a force can only act against another object, because that has alw

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

aust then all is well. But thus far it is suggested that nothing > is performing that function. > > Dave > > -Original Message- > From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Wed, Mar 16, 2016 9:29 pm > Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: R

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

But the PE of the system in question is 1 kg * 1 G * 1 meter, not the full distance from heaven to hell. Suppose we had a scale sensitive enough to register a relativistic mass increase due to PE, and then we roll a dice to decide how mach mass to drop, or how far... is the reading on the scale

[Vo]:Re: Parhomov paper

Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 9:26 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Parhomov paper We could ask Parkhomov through Bob Greenyer if the Ni powder he used was enriched in 64Ni. However, as far as we know, and in particular during these reported runs, Parkhomov was on a shoestring

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

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 3:22 PM, wrote: >Does this require that the vacuum be something other than a frictionless > >superfluid? > > Not sure about that (literally). How do you feel about a solid lattice > rather > than a superfluid? > I feel doubtful, although I have no

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

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 3:19 PM, wrote: If the presence of an object warps spacetime (General Relativity), then > something must be present to warp? > General relativity provides a unified description of gravity and spacetime. The EM Drive makes use first and foremost of

[Vo]:Re: Parhomov paper

I still consider that the transition to a more stable isotope is via an anharmonic coupling that responds to local hydrogen loading in the Ni lattice, magnetic fields and spin coupling to a zillion electron in the nano particle, and thermal motion in preferred direction associated with the

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

-Original Message- From: Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, Mar 15, 2016 10:32 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) ... >For instance, i dig a 1 meter-deep hole next to a 1 kg mass, at 1 G the system >no

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

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Vibrator ! wrote: > That's conflating relativistic mass with rest mass. I know the conclusion > that potential energy raises a system's mass is commonly accepted as an > inevitable implication of GR, but it's one frought with pitfalls: > >

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

>From a static observer's POV, such a craft would be able to gain more KE than the PE it was provided with. So spacetime would have to be positively contributing energy, rather than the craft simply swimming in quantum goo. On board the craft, CoE holds - the correct amount of work is being

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

-- > From: Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 7:03 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) > > Yes, and this is why KE = 1/2 MV^2 - ie., why the acceleration unit cost > escalates; a given force has to be applied

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

terminology…. Your description is of course more popularly known as > the ‘warp bubble’;) > > > > > > *From:* Vibrator ! [mailto:mrvibrat...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, March 14, 2016 4:04 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) > > >

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

The problem in trying to tap spin is that it's an elementary, higher-dimensional construct.. for instance a full rotation of a half-spin particle requires 720°... so it's quite unlike the mechanical property. And while we can spin off quasi particles such as spinons or polaritons etc., these are

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

think, was measured by Puthoff. It was Podkletnov that hooked up with NASA to investigate anti-gravity I believe. Bob Cook From: Bob Cook Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 11:33 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) The anti gravity devices that have been described

[Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

: RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) I believe that anyone with eyes and experience can see in the many EM drive reports the apparent evidence for the absence of emissions inside and outside of the microwave spectrum of the several EM drives that have been widely reported on. There is no joy in beating

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

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 coher

[Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

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

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

I wrote: > Another interpretation regarding the EmDrive is that the thrust is > real but the effect (for whatever reason) requires an external source > of electricity. On the plus side the thrust could not be explained > away as an artifact of the electrical forces between the input wires, > but

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

be manipulated easily to relativistic values in regions large enough to contain hydrogen gas and control its decay rate thru time dilation. Fran From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 11:32 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s

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

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Russ George wrote: I believe that anyone with eyes and experience can see in the many EM drive > reports the apparent evidence for the absence of emissions inside and > outside of the microwave spectrum of the several EM drives that have

[Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)Jones-- I do not have a reference to the entire book edited by Vonsovskii. However, I would think that spin waves would have mass, since they have some energy associated with them. I would like to get a free library reference to the book. It may be in Jed collection

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

Another interpretation regarding the EmDrive is that the thrust is real but the effect (for whatever reason) requires an external source of electricity. On the plus side the thrust could not be explained away as an artifact of the electrical forces between the input wires, but on the down side it

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

nearly breathless in anticipation. From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 11:48 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:45 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com>

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

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 equival

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

mo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) A related but alternative bit of insight comes from John Wallace in the cited paper on spin waves. I thought Bob Cook was aware of it, but maybe not since he did not bring up the most important detail - mass. It would be relevant to Shawyer’s drive if the F

[Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)Jones-- Spin waves are discussed in the Ferromagnetism book I identified in this thread-- Ferromagnetic Resonance: The Phenomenon of Resonant Absorption of a High ... edited by S. V. Vonsovskii I did not want to raise any more controversy! Thanks of keeping me

[Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

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

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

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:24 AM, David Roberson wrote: I would assume that the guys working on these devices have the expertise to > ensure that a very minimum amount of RF is escaping from their shielded > cavity. This is not too difficult to achieve in real life with

[Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:45 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote: Well since most microwave leak detectors are actually pretty broadband rf detectors so most rf can be ruled out, no appreciable heating is seen so no ir, no v

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

A related but alternative bit of insight comes from John Wallace in the cited paper on spin waves. I thought Bob Cook was aware of it, but maybe not since he did not bring up the most important detail - mass. It would be relevant to Shawyer’s drive if the Frustum were to have an iron liner

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

is extremely tiny due to their low mass when compared to the overall device. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, Mar 15, 2016 11:08 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) On Tue, Mar 15, 201

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

I wrote: There was an interesting YouTube video that was mentioned here within the > last year, maybe, that showed how RF could readily escape from a metal > trashcan that was being used as a Faraday cage if electrical conducting > tape was not used to carefully tape down the lid. > Sorry, that

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

the earlier stage rocket frames are left behind to contribute components to the center of mass equation. Dave -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X <francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, Mar 15, 2016 8:08 am Subject: RE: EXTERNAL:

[Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

Eric and Russ etal.-- Check out the following link: http://www.andrijar.com/cherenkov/cherenkov.htm I am surprised Axil has not already noted this. Bob Cook From: Eric Walker Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 8:46 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) On Mon, Mar 14, 2016

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

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 8:48 AM, David Roberson wrote: Of course thrust would be generated if RF is directed away from the drive > into space. Unfortunately, this is not happening in these devices since > they are well shielded and keep the RF from escaping. > There was an

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

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(

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >