In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 30 Nov 2014 02:48:09 -0500:
Hi Dave,
Robin, don't beat yourself up too badly about having a short term mental block
since it happens to all of us.
:)
[snip]
We started this discussion considering the operation of UFO type devices as an
example.
In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 28 Nov 2014 23:24:51 -0500:
Hi Dave,
[snip]
OK, I have read several of those physics books and my position is sound. The
formula for kinetic energy as seen by an observer is E=1/2*M*V*V. That V is
not a difference, but the final relative velocity.
Robin, don't beat yourself up too badly about having a short term mental block
since it happens to all of us.
Energy can be conserved in an elastic collision such as you mentioned. Of
course the momentum is modified in that case because the velocity changes
direction.
We started this
In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 27 Nov 2014 23:47:17 -0500:
Hi Dave,
[snip]
The v in the formula Ek = 1/2 mv^2 actually applies to the change in velocity,
not velocity in any absolute sense. For the sake of convenience, we normally
choose a frame of reference in which the initial
In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 27 Nov 2014 22:48:46 -0500:
Hi Dave,
[snip]
Robin, you were fortunate enough to see something strange that day. My wife
and I witnessed some type of UFO a few years ago as well. I was driving and
she was in the passengers seat. All I saw was a red
That is not correct Robin. Kinetic energy is calculated directly by the
magnitude of relative velocity of the ship to the observer and therefore the
second guy sees essentially no net change in kinetic energy once the drive
cycle is completed. Also notice that the energy is nonlinear with
In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 28 Nov 2014 16:23:23 -0500:
Hi Dave,
[snip]
Kinetic energy is calculated directly by the magnitude of relative velocity of
the ship to the observer and therefore the second guy sees essentially no net
change in kinetic energy once the drive cycle is
OK, I have read several of those physics books and my position is sound. The
formula for kinetic energy as seen by an observer is E=1/2*M*V*V. That V is
not a difference, but the final relative velocity. If you want to find out
how much the kinetic energy changes you must calculate the
Professor Alfieo Di Bella at the University of Genoa, Italy. Invented a
mobius reactionless drive US 3404854Device for Imparting Motion to a
Body. USPTO indicated tests to overcome a US35-101 rejection..involved a
lifting balloon experiment.
Ad astra,
Ron Kita, Chiralex
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at
In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 27 Nov 2014 01:15:27 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
It would be refreshing to find that the energy is returned, but I harbor no
expectation of that occurring. Consider that what we consider acceleration is
exactly the same as deceleration as far as a ship is
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 1:37 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
I have seen an operating UFO.
Can you elaborate on this detail?
Eric
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Thu, 27 Nov 2014 14:09:42 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 1:37 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
I have seen an operating UFO.
Can you elaborate on this detail?
Eric
I have previously on this list, but will again, as it was before your time.
It
Robin, you were fortunate enough to see something strange that day. My wife
and I witnessed some type of UFO a few years ago as well. I was driving and
she was in the passengers seat. All I saw was a red ball moving through the
trees that appeared much like the way a laser does when shined
Robin, I just came up with a thought experiment that lends support to the idea
that a reactionless drive is not likely to exist. Take 2 different observers,
one that is moving beside the ship at the same velocity as it has prior to
activating the drive. The second one is moving at a
Eric--
You have indicated that the space where pair production occurs is not empty.
You indicate the space must have an electromagnetic field which interacts with
an incoming photon.
We have assumed different conditions necessary for pair production. You may be
correct that empty space
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 23 Nov 2014 22:44:46 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
If the particles appear and then annihilate each other so that nothing is left
then they would not carry away any momentum or energy. Normal drives require
that an amount of momentum that equals that which is
In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 24 Nov 2014 00:06:09 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
I agree Axil. And those particles that are produced are then given the
momentum required to balance out that obtained by the ship. Also, they must
remain in existence as real particles and not disappear after
One issue that tends to support the thought that the internal energy can vanish
without a visible trace is that the man onboard the ship can detect that he is
undergoing acceleration while the drive is active. If it is eventually
confirmed that a force arises from the activation of the drive
In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:08:27 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Bob, consider the following sequence of maneuvers taken by the spaceship and
the guy within. First, he decided to move in one direction for an extended
length of time. Then he decides to return to his starting
Here I have to disagree. It makes more sense to assume that he looses energy
during both accelerations. If that energy goes into the zpe field then it will
just vanish as far as any observer can determine. The guy on the ship is
satisfied that he used up some of the mass of his vehicle to
In reply to David Roberson's message of Wed, 26 Nov 2014 17:43:00 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Here I have to disagree. It makes more sense to assume that he looses energy
during both accelerations. If that energy goes into the zpe field then it
will just vanish as far as any observer can determine.
It would be refreshing to find that the energy is returned, but I harbor no
expectation of that occurring. Consider that what we consider acceleration is
exactly the same as deceleration as far as a ship is concerned. In either
situation the ship is changing velocity as a function of time
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:
Pair production, which I assume you agree is real, creates mass from empty
space. What is the source of this mass, or the equivalent energy? What
is the mechanism that makes this happen?
In the case of an incoming
If the spaceman can detect the microwave photons exiting the cavity with lots
of momentum the drive would not be considered reactionless. A true
reactionless drive does not exhaust any significant form of matter or energy
that can be detected by the guy when it operates. Of course heat can
Another idea based on the same concept, some forms of energy do not seem to
contribute to rest mass, I doubt a compressed spring would have a different
rest mass due to it's energy storage than the same spring uncompressed.
Actually the spring is supposed to have a greater amount of rest mass
Ok, so a charged battery is more massive than a discharged battery...
A bowling ball on a shelf is more massive than the same bowling ball on the
ground (greater potential energy).
A spring compressed or stretched is more massive than one under no tension.
I was wondering as I typed the
Just to clarify that further, if the mass of something depended on it's
energy, and if that includes potential energy then anything that provides
potential energy to other objects increases the potential of every object
that could fall into this potential field at any at any point.
And since some
Bob, well said, I would only add that this is also not a matter of ejecting
mass but energy consumed to directionalize an existing media like an airplane
or boat prop re-directionalize air or water - it is giving the spacecraft
linkage to the ether against which it can simply push. Although
David--
If Dirac was correct about his negative energy sea containing epos with its
below energy electron-positron pairs (epos), then there might be negative
energy momentum--my term--as well, which is where the momentum of virtual
particles in the spaceman's 3-D space disappear to upon
David--
You stated:
After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and comes to rest
in space. Even though the new velocity is different than the old one before the
drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not determine that he is moving.
Yes he can determine he is moving. All
There is ambiguity here based upon a 3D vs 4D perspective but maybe some of
these patents regarding remediation of radioactive gas in a catalyst could shed
some light. I would posit that this reaction is actually based upon
relativistic effects on radioactive gas when local vacuum wavelengths
Bob, consider the following sequence of maneuvers taken by the spaceship and
the guy within. First, he decided to move in one direction for an extended
length of time. Then he decides to return to his starting point by reversing
the drive. After all of his mechanizations the final result is
Yes, he can determine that he has changed velocity by looking outside the ship
at other objects. That is why I proposed the recent posting where he returns
to the original location and velocity. That procedure counters the thought
that a final velocity change can obscure any problems due to
David--
The guy need only account for the loss of mass energy by adding the amount of
energy transferred to the negative energy sea.
Of course, if he does not consider a negative energy sea exists, he cannot
properly account. He is stuck with an observation that makes no sense to him.
His
When the ship was moving in one direction only we calculate that all of the
missing mass ends up as kinetic energy of the ship. But now that two
directions are used and we end up at the original starting point and velocity
we decide that all of that energy is imparted to the negative energy
David, I take it you now accept that energy can be stored without
increasing mass?
I can see you have avoided tackling the subject so I assume this is an
admission that you can't.
This then means we can produce a reactionless drive by changing between
forms of energy that do and do not
John, I suspect that you are reading my lack of answer the wrong way. I have
been quite busy writing a post about how to test an ECAT like device during a
lot of that time.
Pushing a mass against gravity is a way to store potential energy. Without
going into details I suspect that energy
David--
In your going and coming trip:
The spaceman uses energy by speeding up and slowing down in each
direction--going out and coming back. He notices a loss of mass to somewhere,
but not account for by any particles or mass he can measure that has left the
space craft in going and coming
I suppose that if one can assume that mass can just vanish into somewhere
without leaving a trace that it may be possible for a drive of this sort to
operate. It is easy for the guy on the ship to detect that he is accelerating
which takes a force and therefore energy from somewhere. That
David--
Pair production, which I assume you agree is real, creates mass from empty
space. What is the source of this mass, or the equivalent energy? What is the
mechanism that makes this happen?
The parameter of spin associated with the electron and the positron that are
produced in the
Pair production is fairly well established from what I have read. In that case
energy is converted into mass but I do not recall any mention of the real pair
appearing without some type of input.
In particle accelerators mass is created in the form of new particles from the
energy contained
please see
http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~dunne/dunne_schwinger.html
*The Schwinger effect: non-perturbative vacuum pair production*
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:
David--
Pair production, which I assume you agree is real, creates mass from empty
more...
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.5965.pdf
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
please see
http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~dunne/dunne_schwinger.html
*The Schwinger effect: non-perturbative vacuum pair production*
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Bob Cook
That is a great link. Axil thanks.
The voltage requirement may be reached in SPP's as they collapse and their
intense magnetic field changes rapidly. Has the voltage between two pair
electrons or protons been calculated. The electric field must be pretty great
up close to a pair of
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1032v1.pdf
A EMF field that equals or exceeds the mass equivalent of a meson (140 MeV)
will produce mesons from the vacuum. This is the cold fusion mechanism in a
nutshell.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:
That is a great
Axil--
You mean we just stumbled on it? Inside the nutshell that is?
Bob
- Original Message -
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1032v1.pdf
A EMF field that
I've thought enough--I'm headed for bed--:)
- Original Message -
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1032v1.pdf
A EMF field that equals or exceeds the mass
In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that the
mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to
the local observer at least. I include the mass that
In reply to H Veeder's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 11:30:46 -0500:
Hi Harry,
I think there might be some nuclear/chemical effects at very close range, but
that's just a guess. The range would be determined by the lifetime of the
virtual particles.
[snip]
What I was wondering is if the reaction
That is the point Robin. In the case of a car you can find where all of the
original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity. It might
not be easy, but it can be done.
The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed to
be converted into energy
Dave I do not understand what you are talking about.
But if consider the following, it might? Generate the same conundrum while
not violating the conservation of momentum or energy.
Take a spring, compress it.
As the spring is allowed to decompress generates light (by either friction,
or
No one knows what is going on in the vacuum. If real particles are being
produced by EMF in the vacuum, then the drive is not reactionless.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
That is the point Robin. In the case of a car you can find where all of
the
Ok, just a thought...
But if there are particles popping into (semi)existence for a moment...
If it were full existence their annihilation would not be so eventless.
Then could these particles be effected by magnetic and electric fields?
Could they react as other materials do?
Could they
If the created particles were mesons, these particles would decay into
electrons and neutrinos. I suspect that an experiment can be prepared to
detect those electrons. Also the mesons would effect the rate of nuclear
decay of radioactive isotopes.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 5:56 PM, John Berry
Dave--
If the mass is converted into mass of virtual particles in the Dirac space, it
is obvious that the man in the space ship would never see the results. The
standard conversion of energy normally happens in a measurable 3-D space the
space man knows. The other situation involves the
Wait, virtual particle don't decay though, they annihilate don't they? (I
am unsure what the significant difference might be)
And annihilation of virtual particles don't create any energy since there
was none...
But this makes me wonder, what about particles that there isn't an
antimatter
No problem with that concept John. Pressing the spring initially adds the
energy that is latter released. Notice that the light energy carries mass
which of course has momentum. The momentum that is imparted upon the ship is
matched by that of the light. That is a normal propulsion system.
Yes, and the faster the ship moves the lower frequency an observer in the
initial frame will see the exhaust.
I have no problem as I said in understanding how this conserves momentum
and energy.
But I have no idea what you were talking about with relative mass changes
etc...
On Mon, Nov 24,
Yes Axil. The drive would then qualify as a standard one and the problem
dissolves. This does not appear to what the proponents of a reactionless drive
believe is occurring from what I have determined. They suggest that there is
nothing available to carry away the balancing momentum. Why
If the particles appear and then annihilate each other so that nothing is left
then they would not carry away any momentum or energy. Normal drives require
that an amount of momentum that equals that which is imparted into the ship be
ejected in an opposite direction.
Dave
OK Bob, I tend to think outside of the box quite often, but sometimes that does
not get me to where I would like to go. I would love to find that a
reactionless drive is possible, but so far the evidence is strongly against
that concept.
You must become the spaceman inside his ship in order
There is no such think as a reactionless drive. Particles must be being
produced in the vacuum by EMF.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Yes Axil. The drive would then qualify as a standard one and the problem
dissolves. This does not appear to what
I am sorry that my thoughts are not being clearly put into writing. Perhaps as
the subject is further discussed you can determine exactly what I am thinking
and accept or reject my ideas.
My tendency is to choose an observation frame that simplifies the understanding
of a problem. In this
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I encourage anyone out there with knowledge about how to overcome the
obvious problems to offer their input.
One thought here -- the reactionless drive that I am aware of being in
the recent news is the EmDrive. That
I agree Axil. And those particles that are produced are then given the
momentum required to balance out that obtained by the ship. Also, they must
remain in existence as real particles and not disappear after a brief time
interval. The folks who speak of reactionless drives claim that their
The fact that energy can be extracted from the battery to drive the microwave
source is certainly possible. No one will ague against that point. The
problem is that this energy can be depleted without having anything to show for
its loss. If taken to the extreme most of the ship can be
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 9:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
With a normal drive the guy can see the exhaust that is moving relative to
him which contains all of the converted energy.
If the guy with the spaceship with the EmDrive could bend the laws of
physics for a moment and
First off I believe that Newtons laws break down with regular engineering,
there are multiple mechanical devices that do genuinely appear to create a
net thrust.
However these can not be proven from conjecture, they must be accurately
replicated to maybe prove they work, and disproof may barely
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:27 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
At least the Church never questioned Galileo's intelligence.
Heretic yes. Moron no.
Harry
***Sure they did. From Wikipedia:
In 1616, an Inquisitorial commission unanimously declared heliocentrism to
be foolish and
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:27 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
At least the Church never questioned Galileo's intelligence.
Heretic yes. Moron no.
Harry
***Sure they did. From Wikipedia:
In
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 4:18 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to H Veeder's message of Thu, 20 Nov 2014 13:27:00 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
?Newton's laws of motion are effectively violated unless the reaction of
these virtual particles can be observed in another way.
...it just means you
It seems to me that the reactionless type of drive does seem to violate common
sense. By this statement I mean that if we assume that internal energy is
converted into kinetic energy by using the drive then the mass of the spaceship
would appear to be different according to different
Dave, I disagree but I like that you utilize the local observer becoming the
remote observer because I think Shawyer's claim of a relativistic component is
correct. Think SR, time dilation and Lorentzian contraction via vacuum
engineering instead of near C velocity. Even if the modification is
Fran, it is OK to disagree with me and I have been wrong more than enough times
to justify your feelings. There may well be some process such as you are
considering and hopefully one day it will be brought into the light.
My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation
Another example is the reactionless
engine that NASA has just tested that supposedly violates Newton's
Laws of Motion.
Sorry for being picky, but they haven't tested a reactionless engine. They
have measured anomalous thrust in a test pendulum setup.
I agree that it is just anomalous measurement letting fear/hope
reactionless engine.
the problem is that most skeptics don't simply ast for
REPLICATE IT MORE TO PROVE IT BAD
but DONT WASTE MONEY REPLICATING...
they als claim it is a student error ignoring all de things that have
been checked,
From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 6:59:56 AM
there is a huge problem with lugano that McKubre have spotted, bad calibration,
but that one have to consider numerically...
what is the error of emissivity required, and what is the real temperature if
When the thing being measured has been designed to be a reactionless thrust
producing engine, then yes that is what they have been testing.
I guess you could say a proposed experimental reactionless engine.
But since that is the intention and goal of the device measured to have
apparently
Has anyone seen data from a test of one of these devices that is generated
within a system that is totally isolated from outside power sources and
connections? I suppose that will require a battery of some type. Also, it
will gain much credibility if operated within a vacuum chamber which
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Many, if not most, of the LENR detractors/skeptics base their viewpoint on
a position that LENR can’t work because it contradicts the laws of physics.
The heart of the matter lies in engineering. A good engineer will use the
In reply to H Veeder's message of Thu, 20 Nov 2014 13:27:00 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
?Newton's laws of motion are effectively violated unless the reaction of
these virtual particles can be observed in another way.
...it just means you are pushing against the mass of the universe.
Effectively, all the
81 matches
Mail list logo
