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

Dave-- Your right. I got the P's mixed up. Bob -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2016 1:13 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) In reply to Bob Cook's message of Sat, 26 Mar 2016 12:20:53 -0700: Hi, [snip

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

In reply to Bob Cook's message of Sat, 26 Mar 2016 12:20:53 -0700: Hi, [snip] >Dave-- > >Puthoff I think made a machine that produced a gravity pulse, which displaced >things at a distance and apparently traveled at a velocity greater than >light—I think it was reported to be 64 times c. I

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

its ability to carry momentum per the Puthoff reports. Bob Cook From: David Roberson Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 2:15 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) It is true that the car will eventually come to a rest in its reference frame once its fuel

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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

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

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)

, including those that can project gravity impulses at more than the speed of light, should not be forgotten. I think its inventor was named Podkletnov. From: Russ George Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 10:00 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) I believe that anyone with eyes

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

t 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 classi

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) Perhaps "when" did the mass go answers the question better to explain the spatial imbalance. -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 5:15 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: R

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(

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

Message- From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, Mar 15, 2016 12:00 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 14 Mar 2016 20:49:21 -0400: Hi, [snip] >The problem would show up if the space ship th

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

vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 10:36 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: If a pulsed magnetic field is involved in the EM drive it may be that effective momentum is sent off into

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

Perhaps "when" did the mass go answers the question better to explain the spatial imbalance. -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 5:15 PM 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 1:45 AM, Russ George 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 visible light, no massive sound so no acoustic, live lab

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

such that it provides so little thrust. From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 10:17 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com>

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

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Russ George wrote: If you listen to Shawyer speak (find his interview on Youtube) he goes > overboard on stating how dangerous the microwave radiation is and how great > care must be taken to avoid it. > I think you misunderstood my

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

@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote: Given the apparent healthy condition of the experimentalists and the presence and proximity of the intense microwaves they ar

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

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Russ George wrote: Given the apparent healthy condition of the experimentalists and the > presence and proximity of the intense microwaves they are convincing living > lab rat detectors. For the sake of argument, the EM radiation need

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

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

In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 14 Mar 2016 20:49:21 -0400: Hi, [snip] >The problem would show up if the space ship then reversed his maneuver and >returned back to that original frame. Both people would again calculate >approximately the same mass conversion that occurs due to

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

seconds with your freezing hands in the oven brings them nicely back up to warm! Don’t dare leave them in longer! One would notice a long exposure :( From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 8:47 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s

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

]:Re: EM Drive(s) On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 10:37 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote: Alas the paradox of the EM drive thrust is that nothing observable or known escapes the sealed system, so no photons leaving… I have little rea

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

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 10:37 PM, Russ George wrote: Alas the paradox of the EM drive thrust is that nothing observable or known > escapes the sealed system, so no photons leaving… I have little reason to doubt that you are correct. But do other people agree that this is

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

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com <mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com> > wrote: If a pulsed magnetic field is involved in the EM drive it may be that effective momentum is sent off into space as a pulsed magnetic fie

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

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Bob Cook wrote: If a pulsed magnetic field is involved in the EM drive it may be that > effective momentum is sent off into space as a pulsed magnetic field with > some effective mass associated with the average intensity of the magnetic

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

and it was not obvious how the problems were controlled. Dave -Original Message- From: Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 8:45 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) I think you are ‘over thinking’ watch the

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

from the rocket. > > -Original Message- > 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 accelerati

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

- From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 5:15 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:44:33 -0400: Hi, [snip] >From the EM drive's point of view the CoE must be v

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

. Where did the energy go? Dave -Original Message- From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 5:06 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) In reply to Vibrator !'s message of Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:03:43 +: Hi, [s

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

Monday, March 14, 2016 5:30 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) I am just pointing out that when wires are attached it is simply too easy for outside forces to interfere with the results. How confident are you that the overall force he measures does not have a signi

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

Mon, Mar 14, 2016 4:21 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) Are you saying ‘why doesn’t this experimentalist do his experiment your way?’ That’s a bit presumptuous, clearly this guy has put in a lot of effort and diligence. His results are consistent with what other diligent experimentalists in th

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

, 2016 2:13 PM To: Vortex List Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) the claim of shawyer is that the energy inside the cavity is destroyed by acceleration. he propose something linked to doppler detuning. this is one theory. MiHsC have another vision where vacuum energy, information, horizon

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

: Monday, March 14, 2016 2:13 PM To: Vortex List Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) the claim of shawyer is that the energy inside the cavity is destroyed by acceleration. he propose something linked to doppler detuning. this is one theory. MiHsC have another vision where vacuum energy

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

We can adore Shawyer for his engineering, that doesn’t mean we have to love his physics ;) From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Alain Sepeda Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 2:13 PM To: Vortex List Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) the claim

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

In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:20:14 -0700: Hi, [snip] >If so, and the EM drive is moving in aether, then leaving a wake (bow wave, >eddy turbulence, kelvin wake, etc) also leaves a mass-equivalence. The cause of red-shift perhaps? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk

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

In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:44:33 -0400: Hi, [snip] >From the EM drive's point of view the CoE must be violated because as it >accelerates in space a portion of it's mass must be converted into energy that >is used to power the drive. When it ceases to use the

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

rat...@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 over an ever-greater distan

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

In reply to Vibrator !'s message of Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:03:43 +: Hi, [snip] >And so the question arises, how does the EM drive "know" what its reference >frame is? Shawyer claims (or seems to imply) that the unit cost of >acceleration increases as we would normally expect (distance over

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

to produce a facsimile of the thrust reported by the differential in the wires push and pull. From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 12:57 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) I would love to see a real EM Drive

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

: Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 3:42 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) Here’s a link to a great EM Drive DIY experiment http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/#comment-10348 From: Da

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

:36 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) I suppose we will have to discover that aether before we can have confidence in that possibility. Would you expect a normal rocket to behave in the same manner if it had to push the aether out of its way? Why would that not requir

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

the true absolute reference frame of the universe. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 3:20 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) Stated another way – does the aether have

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

around in resonance it slowly accumulates a time dilation and a corresponding imbalance in radiation pressure wrt spatial axii. From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 2:15 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) OK. I have

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

Stated another way – does the aether have mass or mass-equivalence (virtual mass or effective mass)? If so, and the EM drive is moving in aether, then leaving a wake (bow wave, eddy turbulence, kelvin wake, etc) also leaves a mass-equivalence. From: David Roberson Good

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

hat is speeding rapidly away from the rocket. Dave -Original Message- 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

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

n. The real issue is what happens in a coherent system. Can a nano particle convert spin—angular momentum--- to linear momentum? Bob Cook From: David Roberson Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 10:49 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) Bob, if you take the kid

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

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) Yes, and this is why KE = 1/2 MV^2 - ie., why the acceleration unit cost escalates; a given force has to be applied over

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

The common wisdom is that the laws of motion are not necessarily in effect when a mind is moved. In this situation a given action does not necessarily result in an equal and opposite reaction. Action instigates a response which from the point of view of the action appears as an under or an over

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 over an ever-greater distance as velocity (time rate of change of position) increases. Alternatively, we could hold displacement constant and progressively raise the force

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

"Acceleration produces a force. Force times distance = energy. " I am aware that this is a well-vetted, common equation; but if used in this case, then an object accelerating at 1 m/s^2 for 10 seconds, and travelling at 200 m/s, with respect to a common point, would require approximately

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

In reply to Craig Haynie's message of Sun, 13 Mar 2016 21:08:43 -0400: Hi, [snip] Note the use of the word "acceleration". Acceleration produces a force. Force times distance = energy. >This doesn't make any sense: > >"For a given acceleration period, the higher the mean velocity, the

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

by the day. *From:*Vibrator ! [mailto:mrvibrat...@gmail.com <mailto:mrvibrat...@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Sunday, March 13, 2016 10:14 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) @Jones - i have no doubt the efficacy of the

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

y > the day. > > > > > > *From:* Vibrator ! [mailto:mrvibrat...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, March 13, 2016 10:14 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) > > > > @Jones - i have no doubt the efficacy of the principle can be tested in

  1   2   >