No Kyle, your mistaken.There is no way it can work with a stationary reference frame as you say.The idea behind it being unable to accelerate and I believe it is just a theory is that ACCELERATION will cause a Doppler like effect and it will no longer be in resonance hence lower Q and lower EM boun
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Jones Beene wrote:
JR As far as I know he does. He has not described the O2 in detail.
It is not stochiometric; there is extra H2 because the O2 from
electrolysis at the anode is separated out by the inverted funnel.
If it is not stochiometric then we can conclude that
Religious devotion to good or Evil? CA Akira Kawasaki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sept. 15, 2006> [Original Message]From: What's New <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Date: 9/15/2006 2:23:49 PMSubject: [BOBPARKS-WHATSNEW] What's New Friday September 15, 2006WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Pa
Sept. 15, 2006
> [Original Message]
From: What's New <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 9/15/2006 2:23:49 PM
Subject: [BOBPARKS-WHATSNEW] What's New Friday September 15, 2006
WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 15 Sep 06 Washington, DC
1. PROLIFERATION: IAEA DISPUTES HOU
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1869000,00.html
Siberian thaw to speed up global warming
The release of trapped greenhouse gases is pushing the world past the
point of no return on climate change.
- Original Message -
From: John Berry
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 6:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
What you should note is that this device if it works at all MUST violate
the conservation of energy, there is no way round it, i
FWIW, I think Robin has the correct interpretation here, much better than
the reporter(s). Not just professional scientists do that but even reporters
filter or interpret according to their own "world views". Engineers do it.
Technicians do it. In fact, we all it Even part time tinkerers lik
Premise of this quasi-Utopian vision: If the USA were to undertake a
concerted national effort, we could eliminate all oil imports in five years and
fully and completely extricate ourselves from all political and military
involvement in those hostile parts of the world which have become our w
if its based on difference in wave velocity, wouldnt stationary be
based on the surrounding radiation fields? and if so... now, uber
amateur here, im einsteinian, in that, im great with theory, weak with
mathematics, would two of these drives mounted at an angle to each
other, say, a 90 between
Sorry Robin, that's rubbish below. I won't contribute to this thread if you
can't get concrete in what you're thinking. You want cusp like changes in
field lines from shaking magnets about at low speed? Go check JJ Thompson's
construction for radiation of EM fields from a dipole (I might scan it in
I suppose KWh is a poor unit of energy to use when my example only ran for a few seconds, so change to some other suitible measure of energy.On 9/15/06, John Berry
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:No, Wesely is correct, it is an inertial anchor. (it could be used to push off or it could be used by moving
No, Wesely is correct, it is an inertial anchor. (it could be used to push off or it could be used by moving it in the direction of travel and turning it on then bringing it to rest relative to the ship, or both)The reason acceleration is tricky is not because the energy is converted into motion bu
William Beaty wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Remi Cornwall wrote:
These guys are *sincere* but mistaken amateurs.
*This is not how science is conducted.*
If they're keeping it secret, then it's not science, instead it's business
(i.e. inventors, corporate R&D, etc.)As
In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:41:50
+1000:
Hi,
[snip]
>A stationary emdrive can still push a ship in a given direction. It
>becomes an inertial anchor. An inertial anchor resists being moved but
>does not move itself. You can push down or back on it and it wont move
14 matches
Mail list logo
