Harry Veeder wrote:
- Original Message
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 11:18:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Reactionless propulsion
At 03:14 PM 11/10/2009, Harry Veeder wrote:
Wheteher
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:
Yes. I was thinking smaller than the 15kg device.
Or is this smallest you can make it given the wavelength of the
microwaves??
I'm sure it's optimized for the magnetron frequency. You could make a
smaller device with
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote
To cause an acceleration means to exert a force. Pressure is the term he
uses, force per unit area.
I agree with Harry that Only a force can cause an acceleration if the law of
inertia is absolutely correct in all situations. However, I think it is
dangerous
- Original Message
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 11:18:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Reactionless propulsion
At 03:14 PM 11/10/2009, Harry Veeder wrote:
Wheteher or not his theory is coherent
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:
Its is too bad he hasn't made a smaller device. He might find a bigger
effect with less power.
Did you look at the article from previous discussions on this list:
http://www.shelleys.demon.co.uk/fdec02em.htm
Terry
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, November 13, 2009 9:47:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Reactionless propulsion
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:
Its is too bad he hasn't made a smaller device. He might find a bigger
At 03:14 PM 11/10/2009, Harry Veeder wrote:
Wheteher or not his theory is coherent and consistent, maybe what he
discovered is that the pattern doesn't have to exert a pressure to
cause an acceleration. That would make it a truly reactionless drive.
What has he discovered? He doesn't show
- Original Message -
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: froarty...@comcast.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2009 10:04:25 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Reactionless propulsion
At 09:53 AM 11/8/2009, Frank Roarty wrote:
At 1
At 09:43 AM 11/10/2009, froarty...@comcast.net wrote:
Abd,
You are correct that Shawyer does not specifically make any
claim regarding space-time. My interpretation should have been
clearly demarcated. My intent was to suggest a possible scenario
where the EM drive might be plausible
Not
- Original Message
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, November 8, 2009 8:28:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Reactionless propulsion
At 07:14 AM 11/8/2009, Michel Jullian wrote:
The group velocity
- Original Message
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, November 8, 2009 8:28:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Reactionless propulsion
At 07:14 AM 11/8/2009, Michel Jullian wrote:
The group velocity
2009/11/9 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com:
...
Using a rotational measurement introduced lots of complications, eh? If the
device wasn't perfectly balanced on the bearing, if it wasn't perfectly
level, it could rotate just from that
And even if it was perfectly level, in addition
2009/11/8 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com:
...
Suppose the spinning of the assembly was caused by the counter-rotation of
the motor shaft and what is attached to it. What would happen when the pump
was turned off? The rotation would stop as the pump rotor slowed down and
stopped.
For those interested in prior discussions on the emdrive, here is the first:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg15755.html
which references an article from 2002:
http://www.shelleys.demon.co.uk/fdec02em.htm
with piccys of the early experiment.
Terry
At 1:14 AM on , November 08, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote
To: froarty...@comcast.net; vortex-l@eskimo.com
At 06:07 PM 11/7/2009, Frank Roarty wrote:
Abd,
I have to take exception with your arguments. The claim is the EM
drive is an open system based on Relativity.
What does that mean and
On Nov 8, 2009, at 3:14 AM, Michel Jullian wrote:
2009/11/8 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax abd @ lomax design. com:
...
Suppose the spinning of the assembly was caused by the counter-
rotation of
the motor shaft and what is attached to it. What would happen when
the pump
was turned off? The rotation
At 07:14 AM 11/8/2009, Michel Jullian wrote:
2009/11/8 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com:
...
Suppose the spinning of the assembly was caused by the counter-rotation of
the motor shaft and what is attached to it. What would happen when the pump
was turned off? The rotation would stop
At 09:41 AM 11/8/2009, Terry Blanton wrote:
For those interested in prior discussions on the emdrive, here is the first:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg15755.html
which references an article from 2002:
http://www.shelleys.demon.co.uk/fdec02em.htm
with piccys of the early
At 09:53 AM 11/8/2009, Frank Roarty wrote:
At 1:14 AM on , November 08, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote
To: froarty...@comcast.net; vortex-l@eskimo.com
At 06:07 PM 11/7/2009, Frank Roarty wrote:
Abd,
I have to take exception with your arguments. The claim is the EM
drive is an open system
At 08:55 PM 11/6/2009, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Kyle Mcallister's message of Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:01:47
-0800 (PST):
Hi,
[snip]
Any experiment report indicating that the
thing's thrust is different in different directions, or varies
depending on some (possibly absolute) velocity
I would rule this one as somewhat plausible.
Regards
Fran
-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 1:57 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Reactionless propulsion
At 08:55 PM 11/6/2009
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:56:54 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
First, let me state for the record that I have serious doubts that this device
works, however I'm trying to keep an open mind, and envisage a way in which it
*might* work. The reason for this is their claim
At 06:35 PM 11/7/2009, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
First, let me state for the record that I have serious doubts that this device
works, however I'm trying to keep an open mind, and envisage a way in which it
*might* work. The reason for this is their claim to have measured 16
mN of force
and
At 06:07 PM 11/7/2009, Frank Roarty wrote:
Abd,
I have to take exception with your arguments. The claim is the EM
drive is an open system based on Relativity.
What does that mean and how does it apply to the emdrive?
You can't say free fall in deep space, so that gravitational
V,
I'll try this again. In my previous post in the other thread, I made a few
points relating to some things being argued, but as is usual, there was no
response to what I said whatsoever, save one private message effectively
calling me a racist for posting a link to the (I thought) humorous
25 matches
Mail list logo
