Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
David, you are missing the fact that there would be more of these in the northern hemisphere, so sure there would be a balance from rotation from an unequal latitudinal (east/west) distribution, but the longitudinal (north/south) will not be balanced and given time will get the earth out of her orbit. John On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 4:10 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I suspect that a force of this nature will balance out in the long run due to the rotation of the Earth. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 15, 2015 7:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit I'm not mistaken about the gravitational impact of a fleet of flying cars suspended in the air by a reactionless propulsion, the earth would face many millions or billions of tons of net force pushing on it. The question is how long would this take to effect the earth's orbit significantly? Days? Years? Decades? Centuries? Millenna? At any rate it would eventually disturb the earth's current orbit dramatically. Something to be cautious of. John On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 6:26 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, one more jump and you will be out on the limb as far as me :_ you said [snip] In another thought, catalatic action of nano sized particles and structures could be based on time acceleration by those nano structures.[/snip].. I agree and even suggest that ALL catalytic action is based on geometry – not as powerful as a skeletal catalyst or nano powders [we don’t need relativistic levels of negative vacuum pressure to shake things up/catalyze], dynamic changes in geometry at even small Casimir levels will still oppose random motion , even looping forever in a closed irregular cavity should generate friction for trapped ambient gas [don’t ask about levitating pyramid calcium -lime blocks yet :_)]– forcing random motion [HUP] to accelerate chemical reactions thru changes in confinement. I think that simple catalytic action is actually a Heisenberg trap based on lesser geometry. It puts random motion of liquids and gas into opposition with smaller changes in negative vacuum pressure. [in supra catalysts we would call this dynamic Casimir effect and the confinement is sufficient that we hear of radioactive half lives being altered in both directions which IMHO is based on which type of partition [+ or -] the radioactive particle happens to favor based on it’s shape atomic or molecular]. In normal catalysts I don’t think the radioactive decay differential is significant – just like Lorentzian contraction and time dilation only occur near hi fractions of C, I think dilation of radioactive half lifes require a supra catalyst BUT catalytic action derives most of it’s power to drive reactions from sharp changes in the vacuum pressure packed closely together – since the geometry is stationary it requires a moving medium and sharp irregular shaped geometries pressed close together – the same as nano powders and skeletal cats but less critical and less powerful. Citations: a 2009 paper, “Pinpointing catalytic reactions on carbon nanotubes http://www.physorg.com/news159199255.html “, by Peng Chen et all from Cornell Univercity in which researchers discovered that catalytic action only occurs when this nanogeometry CHANGES at the openings and defects of a nanotube. Cavity QED http://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/_old/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf , And My blog http://froarty.scienceblog.com/32155/relativistic-interpertation-of-casimir-effect-expanded/ Fran *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, May 15, 2015 12:08 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit From a previous post except in part as follows: have referenced papers here to show how the confinement of electrons on the surface of gold nanoparticles: a nanoplasmonic mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission. See references: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=1cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CC4QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAgusg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQsig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUAbvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ Experiments showing the same mechanism as listed below: Laser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid targets in heavy water http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0830 Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the presence of Thorium aqua ions http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.4268.pdf === In these experiments, nano geometry converts light energy from the laser into vortex motion of electrons in a nanoplasmonic
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
[mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 9:50 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit Hovering does not violate Newton's laws IMHO. Energy and momentum are conserved. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit In reply to Frank Znidarsic's message of Mon, 11 May 2015 18:58:16 -0400: Hi Frank, [snip] The video states that m drive obeys Newtow's laws. It has no reaction mass. It does not obey Newton's laws. That comment was an understatement bordering on misinformation. Frank Z Which of Newton's laws does it violate? Does a car going down the road doesn't have reaction mass? Does it violate Newton's laws? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
Dear Francis X, I am coming around to your way of thinking. Regarding... “when lasers were fired through the EmDrive’s resonance chamber, some of the beams appeared to travel faster than the speed of light. If that’s true, it would mean that the EmDrive is producing a warp field or bubble. “ The resonant shape of the microwave EmDrive cavity produces a pattern of positive and negative vacuum energy that corresponds to the high and low energy pattern of microwave radiation generated by electromagnetic interference. The zone of increased positive vacuum energy may produce longer lived virtual particles whose lifetime is proportional to the false vacuum value characterize by the zone of EMF excited vacuum. But to keep energy conservation of the vacuum constant, a positive zone of vacuum energy must also correspond with and be offset by a negative zone of vacuum energy. The lifetimes of these longer lived virtual particles may be long enough to provide a reaction platform that meets the requirements of Newton’s momentum laws. Furthermore, there could be a connection between the EmDrive and the LENR reaction. That connection could be the partitioning of the vacuum into positive and negative zones. This might mean that the speed of light increases beyond its nominal value in a zone of negative vacuum energy. In a homonginous vacuum, the speed of forward photon propagation is determined by how fast the photon goes from one virtual particle creation event to the next based on the density of virtual particles produced in the vacuum by the averge virtual particle creation rate. In a homogenous vacuum, If the average rate of photon virtual particle interaction is steady, This steady rate of light’s interatcion with the particles of the vacuum will produce a steady average maximum speed of light through the vacuum. In a zone of negative vacuum energy, less virtual particles are produced. This reduces the density of virtual particles encountered by the photon per unit time. Less friction from the vacuum results, thereby increaseing the speed of light through the zone of negitive vacuum energy. Time speeds up when the speed of light in increased. LENR seems to separate the vacuum into a positive zone and a negative zone. The positive zone produces the fusion reaction, and the negative zone suppresses the gamma and stabizes the radioactive results of the fusion. LENR will dramatically increase the decay rate of radioactive isotopes. This might be caused by the entanglement of the nucleus of the radioactive atom with the zone of negitive vacuum energy. The speed of time progression in the radio active atom might be same as the speed of time in the zone of negative vacuum energy. If this reaction is true, the rate of reduction of virtual particle production in the zone of negative vacuum energy might be proportional to the speed up of the rate of radioactive decay produced by LENR. In one experiment, a radioactive isotope with a half-life of 69 years was reduced to 6 microseconds. That is 15 orders of magnitude reduction. Most halflife reductions in LENR are instantaneous. Time could be moving very rapidly in the zone of negative vacuum energy. There looks to be a way to share that increase in the speedup of the rate of time with matter through the entanglement of matter with the zone of negative vacuum...AKA the surface plasmon-polariton soliton I segest this experiment with the EmDrive to verify this theory of time acceleration. Place a gamma emmiting isotope inside an EmDrive enclosure where the microwave interference is descriptive. If the rate of gamma production is reduced and/or the half-life of the isotope is reduced then the effects of negative vacuum energy on time will be verified both in the EmDrive and in LENR. On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: We don't know enough to answer the question because we don't know enough about the origin of the force. Even if it is relativistic as Shawyer claims and the spatial area occupied by the device modifies the encompassed inertial frames that breach the isotropy there remains a strong likelihood that an equal and opposite frame is created and the device is only able to directionalize gravity to produce thrust..NOT able to accumulate a buoyancy. IMHO his use of the term thrust is probably correct and that we won't get a bubble from microwaves in a shaped cavity. Fran -Original Message- From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 9:50 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit Hovering does not violate Newton's laws IMHO. Energy and momentum are conserved. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
Axil, welcome aboard, it’s been lonely on this limb and you are much more suited than I to reinforce and champion the relativistic theory than I. You added another great insight in this post [snip] LENR seems to separate the vacuum into a positive zone and a negative zone. The positive zone produces the fusion reaction, and the negative zone suppresses the gamma and stabizes the radioactive results of the fusion.[/snip] .. everyone focuses on the cavity and the negative vacuum pressure as the active region but you additionally suggest the larger surrounding geometry [positive vacuum] responsible for the cavity provides gamma screening. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 2:34 AM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit Dear Francis X, I am coming around to your way of thinking. Regarding... “when lasers were fired through the EmDrive’s resonance chamber, some of the beams appeared to travel faster than the speed of light. If that’s true, it would mean that the EmDrive is producing a warp field or bubble. “ The resonant shape of the microwave EmDrive cavity produces a pattern of positive and negative vacuum energy that corresponds to the high and low energy pattern of microwave radiation generated by electromagnetic interference. The zone of increased positive vacuum energy may produce longer lived virtual particles whose lifetime is proportional to the false vacuum value characterize by the zone of EMF excited vacuum. But to keep energy conservation of the vacuum constant, a positive zone of vacuum energy must also correspond with and be offset by a negative zone of vacuum energy. The lifetimes of these longer lived virtual particles may be long enough to provide a reaction platform that meets the requirements of Newton’s momentum laws. Furthermore, there could be a connection between the EmDrive and the LENR reaction. That connection could be the partitioning of the vacuum into positive and negative zones. This might mean that the speed of light increases beyond its nominal value in a zone of negative vacuum energy. In a homonginous vacuum, the speed of forward photon propagation is determined by how fast the photon goes from one virtual particle creation event to the next based on the density of virtual particles produced in the vacuum by the averge virtual particle creation rate. In a homogenous vacuum, If the average rate of photon virtual particle interaction is steady, This steady rate of light’s interatcion with the particles of the vacuum will produce a steady average maximum speed of light through the vacuum. In a zone of negative vacuum energy, less virtual particles are produced. This reduces the density of virtual particles encountered by the photon per unit time. Less friction from the vacuum results, thereby increaseing the speed of light through the zone of negitive vacuum energy. Time speeds up when the speed of light in increased. LENR seems to separate the vacuum into a positive zone and a negative zone. The positive zone produces the fusion reaction, and the negative zone suppresses the gamma and stabizes the radioactive results of the fusion. LENR will dramatically increase the decay rate of radioactive isotopes. This might be caused by the entanglement of the nucleus of the radioactive atom with the zone of negitive vacuum energy. The speed of time progression in the radio active atom might be same as the speed of time in the zone of negative vacuum energy. If this reaction is true, the rate of reduction of virtual particle production in the zone of negative vacuum energy might be proportional to the speed up of the rate of radioactive decay produced by LENR. In one experiment, a radioactive isotope with a half-life of 69 years was reduced to 6 microseconds. That is 15 orders of magnitude reduction. Most halflife reductions in LENR are instantaneous. Time could be moving very rapidly in the zone of negative vacuum energy. There looks to be a way to share that increase in the speedup of the rate of time with matter through the entanglement of matter with the zone of negative vacuum...AKA the surface plasmon-polariton soliton I segest this experiment with the EmDrive to verify this theory of time acceleration. Place a gamma emmiting isotope inside an EmDrive enclosure where the microwave interference is descriptive. If the rate of gamma production is reduced and/or the half-life of the isotope is reduced then the effects of negative vacuum energy on time will be verified both in the EmDrive and in LENR. On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.commailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: We don't know enough to answer the question because we don't know enough about the origin of the force. Even if it is relativistic as Shawyer claims and the spatial area occupied by the device
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
This is a quantum vacuum disturbance, not a hot and cold disturbance. It decays. Our weather is the effect we see in our dimensions of space, which is emergent. https://sdsimonson.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/waterspout-sunset-key-1.jpg https://sdsimonson.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/download.png On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, welcome aboard, it’s been lonely on this limb and you are much more suited than I to reinforce and champion the relativistic theory than I. You added another great insight in this post [snip] LENR seems to separate the vacuum into a positive zone and a negative zone. The positive zone produces the fusion reaction, and the negative zone suppresses the gamma and stabizes the radioactive results of the fusion.[/snip] .. everyone focuses on the cavity and the negative vacuum pressure as the active region but you additionally suggest the larger surrounding geometry [positive vacuum] responsible for the cavity provides gamma screening. Fran *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, May 15, 2015 2:34 AM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit Dear Francis X, I am coming around to your way of thinking. Regarding... “when lasers were fired through the EmDrive’s resonance chamber, some of the beams appeared to travel faster than the speed of light. If that’s true, it would mean that the EmDrive is producing a warp field or bubble. “ The resonant shape of the microwave EmDrive cavity produces a pattern of positive and negative vacuum energy that corresponds to the high and low energy pattern of microwave radiation generated by electromagnetic interference. The zone of increased positive vacuum energy may produce longer lived virtual particles whose lifetime is proportional to the false vacuum value characterize by the zone of EMF excited vacuum. But to keep energy conservation of the vacuum constant, a positive zone of vacuum energy must also correspond with and be offset by a negative zone of vacuum energy. The lifetimes of these longer lived virtual particles may be long enough to provide a reaction platform that meets the requirements of Newton’s momentum laws. Furthermore, there could be a connection between the EmDrive and the LENR reaction. That connection could be the partitioning of the vacuum into positive and negative zones. This might mean that the speed of light increases beyond its nominal value in a zone of negative vacuum energy. In a homonginous vacuum, the speed of forward photon propagation is determined by how fast the photon goes from one virtual particle creation event to the next based on the density of virtual particles produced in the vacuum by the averge virtual particle creation rate. In a homogenous vacuum, If the average rate of photon virtual particle interaction is steady, This steady rate of light’s interatcion with the particles of the vacuum will produce a steady average maximum speed of light through the vacuum. In a zone of negative vacuum energy, less virtual particles are produced. This reduces the density of virtual particles encountered by the photon per unit time. Less friction from the vacuum results, thereby increaseing the speed of light through the zone of negitive vacuum energy. Time speeds up when the speed of light in increased. LENR seems to separate the vacuum into a positive zone and a negative zone. The positive zone produces the fusion reaction, and the negative zone suppresses the gamma and stabizes the radioactive results of the fusion. LENR will dramatically increase the decay rate of radioactive isotopes. This might be caused by the entanglement of the nucleus of the radioactive atom with the zone of negitive vacuum energy. The speed of time progression in the radio active atom might be same as the speed of time in the zone of negative vacuum energy. If this reaction is true, the rate of reduction of virtual particle production in the zone of negative vacuum energy might be proportional to the speed up of the rate of radioactive decay produced by LENR. In one experiment, a radioactive isotope with a half-life of 69 years was reduced to 6 microseconds. That is 15 orders of magnitude reduction. Most halflife reductions in LENR are instantaneous. Time could be moving very rapidly in the zone of negative vacuum energy. There looks to be a way to share that increase in the speedup of the rate of time with matter through the entanglement of matter with the zone of negative vacuum...AKA the surface plasmon-polariton soliton I segest this experiment with the EmDrive to verify this theory of time acceleration. Place a gamma emmiting isotope inside an EmDrive enclosure where the microwave interference is descriptive. If the rate of gamma production is reduced
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
Yes! C is relative to the frame. We already know C becomes relative WRT gravity wells and near C spatial displacement but no one took Jan Naudts literally when his 05 paper claimed hydrinos were relativistic hydrogen. Note this would NOT be a gravity well giving hydrogen near C equivalence but rather a warp equivalence imparted to hydrogen in the “zones” . IMHO warp G equivalence is far easier to achieve than Well G equivalence although only at nano scale and only in partitioned zones or pockets of equal and opposite value. You don’t need to apply energy , you are instead shielding a zone with nano geometry..and to go all the way out on my limb the larger- longer, particle-waves are still present but rotated inside the cavity such that from their own local perspective they remain unchanged [exchanging space for time]. Any hydrogen then passing thru the cavity takes on this equivalent negative acceleration and appears to shrink from our perspective. Somehow you need to establish linkage to this altered hydrogen to extract energy from this negative acceleration or the opportunity will be lost when the hydrogen migrates out of the cavity.. somehow Rossi is making that trip asymmetrical. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 2:47 AM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit There are some more dots to connect. http://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html Speed of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicists Say The speed of light is constant, or so textbooks say. But some scientists are exploring the possibility that this cosmic speed limit changes, a consequence of the nature of the vacuum of space. On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.commailto:janap...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Francis X, I am coming around to your way of thinking. Regarding... “when lasers were fired through the EmDrive’s resonance chamber, some of the beams appeared to travel faster than the speed of light. If that’s true, it would mean that the EmDrive is producing a warp field or bubble. “ The resonant shape of the microwave EmDrive cavity produces a pattern of positive and negative vacuum energy that corresponds to the high and low energy pattern of microwave radiation generated by electromagnetic interference. The zone of increased positive vacuum energy may produce longer lived virtual particles whose lifetime is proportional to the false vacuum value characterize by the zone of EMF excited vacuum. But to keep energy conservation of the vacuum constant, a positive zone of vacuum energy must also correspond with and be offset by a negative zone of vacuum energy. The lifetimes of these longer lived virtual particles may be long enough to provide a reaction platform that meets the requirements of Newton’s momentum laws. Furthermore, there could be a connection between the EmDrive and the LENR reaction. That connection could be the partitioning of the vacuum into positive and negative zones. This might mean that the speed of light increases beyond its nominal value in a zone of negative vacuum energy. In a homonginous vacuum, the speed of forward photon propagation is determined by how fast the photon goes from one virtual particle creation event to the next based on the density of virtual particles produced in the vacuum by the averge virtual particle creation rate. In a homogenous vacuum, If the average rate of photon virtual particle interaction is steady, This steady rate of light’s interatcion with the particles of the vacuum will produce a steady average maximum speed of light through the vacuum. In a zone of negative vacuum energy, less virtual particles are produced. This reduces the density of virtual particles encountered by the photon per unit time. Less friction from the vacuum results, thereby increaseing the speed of light through the zone of negitive vacuum energy. Time speeds up when the speed of light in increased. LENR seems to separate the vacuum into a positive zone and a negative zone. The positive zone produces the fusion reaction, and the negative zone suppresses the gamma and stabizes the radioactive results of the fusion. LENR will dramatically increase the decay rate of radioactive isotopes. This might be caused by the entanglement of the nucleus of the radioactive atom with the zone of negitive vacuum energy. The speed of time progression in the radio active atom might be same as the speed of time in the zone of negative vacuum energy. If this reaction is true, the rate of reduction of virtual particle production in the zone of negative vacuum energy might be proportional to the speed up of the rate of radioactive decay produced by LENR. In one experiment, a radioactive isotope with a half-life of 69 years was reduced to 6 microseconds. That is 15 orders of magnitude reduction. Most halflife
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
From a previous post except in part as follows: have referenced papers here to show how the confinement of electrons on the surface of gold nanoparticles: a nanoplasmonic mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission. See references: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=1cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CC4QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAgusg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQsig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUAbvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ Experiments showing the same mechanism as listed below: Laser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid targets in heavy water http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0830 Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the presence of Thorium aqua ions http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.4268.pdf === In these experiments, nano geometry converts light energy from the laser into vortex motion of electrons in a nanoplasmonic soliton produced on the surface of the gold nanoparticles. Without the gold nanoparticles, laser light alone is ineffectual in this type of experiment. The soliton produces the separation of the vacuum into positive and negative zones. It also forces the entanglement of the soliton with the U232 nucleus by pumping energy into the vacuum. This vacuum energy pumping using EMF energy from microwaves also happens in the EmDrive system. - In another thought, catalatic action of nano sized particles and structures could be based on time acceleration by those nano structures. Rossi has used a nickel based catalatic micro particle and amplified its effects by using nanoparticles of lithium to amplify the catalatic time acceleration effect to a huge amount. This amplification is done through SPP asymmetric coupling, where a large soliton feeds energy superconductively into a series of smaller solitons...like a transformer. On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, You also mentioned [snip] In one experiment, a radioactive isotope with a half-life of 69 years was reduced to 6 microseconds. That is 15 orders of magnitude reduction. Most halflife reductions in LENR are instantaneous. Time could be moving very rapidly in the zone of negative vacuum energy. There looks to be a way to share that increase in the speedup of the rate of time with matter through the entanglement of matter with the zone of negative vacuum...AKA the surface plasmon-polariton soliton[/snip] I don’t know how these experiments were performed but I suspect that only a small portion of the radioactive gas can be in the most negative zones at a time such that the effect is actually greater still.. even if fully contained in a cavity [instead of cycled thru], only the gas migrating into the most confined tapestry of the nano geometry [1/plate spacing^3] would receive the realativistic levels of dilation. Fran *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, May 15, 2015 2:34 AM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit Dear Francis X, I am coming around to your way of thinking. Regarding... “when lasers were fired through the EmDrive’s resonance chamber, some of the beams appeared to travel faster than the speed of light. If that’s true, it would mean that the EmDrive is producing a warp field or bubble. “ The resonant shape of the microwave EmDrive cavity produces a pattern of positive and negative vacuum energy that corresponds to the high and low energy pattern of microwave radiation generated by electromagnetic interference. The zone of increased positive vacuum energy may produce longer lived virtual particles whose lifetime is proportional to the false vacuum value characterize by the zone of EMF excited vacuum. But to keep energy conservation of the vacuum constant, a positive zone of vacuum energy must also correspond with and be offset by a negative zone of vacuum energy. The lifetimes of these longer lived virtual particles may be long enough to provide a reaction platform that meets the requirements of Newton’s momentum laws. Furthermore, there could be a connection between the EmDrive and the LENR reaction. That connection could be the partitioning of the vacuum into positive and negative zones. This might mean that the speed of light increases beyond its nominal value in a zone of negative vacuum energy. In a homonginous vacuum, the speed of forward photon propagation is determined by how fast the photon goes from one virtual particle creation event to the next based on the density of virtual particles produced in the vacuum by the averge virtual particle creation rate. In a homogenous vacuum, If the average
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
Axil, You also mentioned [snip] In one experiment, a radioactive isotope with a half-life of 69 years was reduced to 6 microseconds. That is 15 orders of magnitude reduction. Most halflife reductions in LENR are instantaneous. Time could be moving very rapidly in the zone of negative vacuum energy. There looks to be a way to share that increase in the speedup of the rate of time with matter through the entanglement of matter with the zone of negative vacuum...AKA the surface plasmon-polariton soliton[/snip] I don’t know how these experiments were performed but I suspect that only a small portion of the radioactive gas can be in the most negative zones at a time such that the effect is actually greater still.. even if fully contained in a cavity [instead of cycled thru], only the gas migrating into the most confined tapestry of the nano geometry [1/plate spacing^3] would receive the realativistic levels of dilation. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 2:34 AM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit Dear Francis X, I am coming around to your way of thinking. Regarding... “when lasers were fired through the EmDrive’s resonance chamber, some of the beams appeared to travel faster than the speed of light. If that’s true, it would mean that the EmDrive is producing a warp field or bubble. “ The resonant shape of the microwave EmDrive cavity produces a pattern of positive and negative vacuum energy that corresponds to the high and low energy pattern of microwave radiation generated by electromagnetic interference. The zone of increased positive vacuum energy may produce longer lived virtual particles whose lifetime is proportional to the false vacuum value characterize by the zone of EMF excited vacuum. But to keep energy conservation of the vacuum constant, a positive zone of vacuum energy must also correspond with and be offset by a negative zone of vacuum energy. The lifetimes of these longer lived virtual particles may be long enough to provide a reaction platform that meets the requirements of Newton’s momentum laws. Furthermore, there could be a connection between the EmDrive and the LENR reaction. That connection could be the partitioning of the vacuum into positive and negative zones. This might mean that the speed of light increases beyond its nominal value in a zone of negative vacuum energy. In a homonginous vacuum, the speed of forward photon propagation is determined by how fast the photon goes from one virtual particle creation event to the next based on the density of virtual particles produced in the vacuum by the averge virtual particle creation rate. In a homogenous vacuum, If the average rate of photon virtual particle interaction is steady, This steady rate of light’s interatcion with the particles of the vacuum will produce a steady average maximum speed of light through the vacuum. In a zone of negative vacuum energy, less virtual particles are produced. This reduces the density of virtual particles encountered by the photon per unit time. Less friction from the vacuum results, thereby increaseing the speed of light through the zone of negitive vacuum energy. Time speeds up when the speed of light in increased. LENR seems to separate the vacuum into a positive zone and a negative zone. The positive zone produces the fusion reaction, and the negative zone suppresses the gamma and stabizes the radioactive results of the fusion. LENR will dramatically increase the decay rate of radioactive isotopes. This might be caused by the entanglement of the nucleus of the radioactive atom with the zone of negitive vacuum energy. The speed of time progression in the radio active atom might be same as the speed of time in the zone of negative vacuum energy. If this reaction is true, the rate of reduction of virtual particle production in the zone of negative vacuum energy might be proportional to the speed up of the rate of radioactive decay produced by LENR. In one experiment, a radioactive isotope with a half-life of 69 years was reduced to 6 microseconds. That is 15 orders of magnitude reduction. Most halflife reductions in LENR are instantaneous. Time could be moving very rapidly in the zone of negative vacuum energy. There looks to be a way to share that increase in the speedup of the rate of time with matter through the entanglement of matter with the zone of negative vacuum...AKA the surface plasmon-polariton soliton I segest this experiment with the EmDrive to verify this theory of time acceleration. Place a gamma emmiting isotope inside an EmDrive enclosure where the microwave interference is descriptive. If the rate of gamma production is reduced and/or the half-life of the isotope is reduced then the effects of negative vacuum energy on time will be verified both in the EmDrive and in LENR. On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 7:02
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
The reaction force would be transferred to the virtual particles that form in the vacuum. That force would accelerate these particles in a direction that opposes the force of propulsion produced by the EmDrive. When those virtual particles eventually encounter their antiparticle, the energy that comprises their mass would be produced energy from particle/antiparticle annihilation. Also all the energy added by the application of EMF would go into the vacuum. This positive energy added to the vacuum would be countered by the development of negative vacuum energy in and around the surface of the earth. Such negative vacuum energy excess may speed up the passage of time on the earth and increase the speed of light there. On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 7:08 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not mistaken about the gravitational impact of a fleet of flying cars suspended in the air by a reactionless propulsion, the earth would face many millions or billions of tons of net force pushing on it. The question is how long would this take to effect the earth's orbit significantly? Days? Years? Decades? Centuries? Millenna? At any rate it would eventually disturb the earth's current orbit dramatically. Something to be cautious of. John On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 6:26 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, one more jump and you will be out on the limb as far as me :_ you said [snip] In another thought, catalatic action of nano sized particles and structures could be based on time acceleration by those nano structures.[/snip].. I agree and even suggest that ALL catalytic action is based on geometry – not as powerful as a skeletal catalyst or nano powders [we don’t need relativistic levels of negative vacuum pressure to shake things up/catalyze], dynamic changes in geometry at even small Casimir levels will still oppose random motion , even looping forever in a closed irregular cavity should generate friction for trapped ambient gas [don’t ask about levitating pyramid calcium -lime blocks yet :_)]– forcing random motion [HUP] to accelerate chemical reactions thru changes in confinement. I think that simple catalytic action is actually a Heisenberg trap based on lesser geometry. It puts random motion of liquids and gas into opposition with smaller changes in negative vacuum pressure. [in supra catalysts we would call this dynamic Casimir effect and the confinement is sufficient that we hear of radioactive half lives being altered in both directions which IMHO is based on which type of partition [+ or -] the radioactive particle happens to favor based on it’s shape atomic or molecular]. In normal catalysts I don’t think the radioactive decay differential is significant – just like Lorentzian contraction and time dilation only occur near hi fractions of C, I think dilation of radioactive half lifes require a supra catalyst BUT catalytic action derives most of it’s power to drive reactions from sharp changes in the vacuum pressure packed closely together – since the geometry is stationary it requires a moving medium and sharp irregular shaped geometries pressed close together – the same as nano powders and skeletal cats but less critical and less powerful. Citations: a 2009 paper, “Pinpointing catalytic reactions on carbon nanotubes http://www.physorg.com/news159199255.html “, by Peng Chen et all from Cornell Univercity in which researchers discovered that catalytic action only occurs when this nanogeometry CHANGES at the openings and defects of a nanotube. Cavity QED http://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/_old/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf , And My blog http://froarty.scienceblog.com/32155/relativistic-interpertation-of-casimir-effect-expanded/ Fran *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, May 15, 2015 12:08 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit From a previous post except in part as follows: have referenced papers here to show how the confinement of electrons on the surface of gold nanoparticles: a nanoplasmonic mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission. See references: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=1cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CC4QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAgusg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQsig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUAbvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ Experiments showing the same mechanism as listed below: Laser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid targets in heavy water http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0830 Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the presence of Thorium aqua ions http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.4268.pdf === In these experiments, nano geometry
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
I'm not mistaken about the gravitational impact of a fleet of flying cars suspended in the air by a reactionless propulsion, the earth would face many millions or billions of tons of net force pushing on it. The question is how long would this take to effect the earth's orbit significantly? Days? Years? Decades? Centuries? Millenna? At any rate it would eventually disturb the earth's current orbit dramatically. Something to be cautious of. John On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 6:26 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, one more jump and you will be out on the limb as far as me :_ you said [snip] In another thought, catalatic action of nano sized particles and structures could be based on time acceleration by those nano structures.[/snip].. I agree and even suggest that ALL catalytic action is based on geometry – not as powerful as a skeletal catalyst or nano powders [we don’t need relativistic levels of negative vacuum pressure to shake things up/catalyze], dynamic changes in geometry at even small Casimir levels will still oppose random motion , even looping forever in a closed irregular cavity should generate friction for trapped ambient gas [don’t ask about levitating pyramid calcium -lime blocks yet :_)]– forcing random motion [HUP] to accelerate chemical reactions thru changes in confinement. I think that simple catalytic action is actually a Heisenberg trap based on lesser geometry. It puts random motion of liquids and gas into opposition with smaller changes in negative vacuum pressure. [in supra catalysts we would call this dynamic Casimir effect and the confinement is sufficient that we hear of radioactive half lives being altered in both directions which IMHO is based on which type of partition [+ or -] the radioactive particle happens to favor based on it’s shape atomic or molecular]. In normal catalysts I don’t think the radioactive decay differential is significant – just like Lorentzian contraction and time dilation only occur near hi fractions of C, I think dilation of radioactive half lifes require a supra catalyst BUT catalytic action derives most of it’s power to drive reactions from sharp changes in the vacuum pressure packed closely together – since the geometry is stationary it requires a moving medium and sharp irregular shaped geometries pressed close together – the same as nano powders and skeletal cats but less critical and less powerful. Citations: a 2009 paper, “Pinpointing catalytic reactions on carbon nanotubes http://www.physorg.com/news159199255.html “, by Peng Chen et all from Cornell Univercity in which researchers discovered that catalytic action only occurs when this nanogeometry CHANGES at the openings and defects of a nanotube. Cavity QED http://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/_old/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf , And My blog http://froarty.scienceblog.com/32155/relativistic-interpertation-of-casimir-effect-expanded/ Fran *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, May 15, 2015 12:08 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit From a previous post except in part as follows: have referenced papers here to show how the confinement of electrons on the surface of gold nanoparticles: a nanoplasmonic mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission. See references: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=1cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CC4QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAgusg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQsig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUAbvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ Experiments showing the same mechanism as listed below: Laser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid targets in heavy water http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0830 Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the presence of Thorium aqua ions http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.4268.pdf === In these experiments, nano geometry converts light energy from the laser into vortex motion of electrons in a nanoplasmonic soliton produced on the surface of the gold nanoparticles. Without the gold nanoparticles, laser light alone is ineffectual in this type of experiment. The soliton produces the separation of the vacuum into positive and negative zones. It also forces the entanglement of the soliton with the U232 nucleus by pumping energy into the vacuum. This vacuum energy pumping using EMF energy from microwaves also happens in the EmDrive system. - In another thought, catalatic action of nano sized particles and structures could be based on time acceleration by those nano structures. Rossi has used a nickel based catalatic micro particle and amplified its effects
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
I suspect that a force of this nature will balance out in the long run due to the rotation of the Earth. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 15, 2015 7:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit I'm not mistaken about the gravitational impact of a fleet of flying cars suspended in the air by a reactionless propulsion, the earth would face many millions or billions of tons of net force pushing on it. The question is how long would this take to effect the earth's orbit significantly? Days? Years? Decades? Centuries? Millenna? At any rate it would eventually disturb the earth's current orbit dramatically. Something to be cautious of. John On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 6:26 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, one more jump and you will be out on the limb as far as me :_ you said [snip] In another thought, catalatic action of nano sized particles and structures could be based on time acceleration by those nano structures.[/snip].. I agree and even suggest that ALL catalytic action is based on geometry – not as powerful as a skeletal catalyst or nano powders [we don’t need relativistic levels of negative vacuum pressure to shake things up/catalyze], dynamic changes in geometry at even small Casimir levels will still oppose random motion , even looping forever in a closed irregular cavity should generate friction for trapped ambient gas [don’t ask about levitating pyramid calcium -lime blocks yet :_)]– forcing random motion [HUP] to accelerate chemical reactions thru changes in confinement. I think that simple catalytic action is actually a Heisenberg trap based on lesser geometry. It puts random motion of liquids and gas into opposition with smaller changes in negative vacuum pressure. [in supra catalysts we would call this dynamic Casimir effect and the confinement is sufficient that we hear of radioactive half lives being altered in both directions which IMHO is based on which type of partition [+ or -] the radioactive particle happens to favor based on it’s shape atomic or molecular]. In normal catalysts I don’t think the radioactive decay differential is significant – just like Lorentzian contraction and time dilation only occur near hi fractions of C, I think dilation of radioactive half lifes require a supra catalyst BUT catalytic action derives most of it’s power to drive reactions from sharp changes in the vacuum pressure packed closely together – since the geometry is stationary it requires a moving medium and sharp irregular shaped geometries pressed close together – the same as nano powders and skeletal cats but less critical and less powerful. Citations: a 2009 paper, “Pinpointing catalytic reactions on carbon nanotubes “, by Peng Chen et all from Cornell Univercity in which researchers discovered that catalytic action only occurs when this nanogeometry CHANGES at the openings and defects of a nanotube. Cavity QED , And My blog http://froarty.scienceblog.com/32155/relativistic-interpertation-of-casimir-effect-expanded/ Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 12:08 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit From a previous post except in part as follows: have referenced papers here to show how the confinement of electrons on the surface of gold nanoparticles: a nanoplasmonic mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission. See references: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=1cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CC4QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAgusg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQsig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUAbvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ Experiments showing the same mechanism as listed below: Laser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid targets in heavy water http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0830 Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the presence of Thorium aqua ions http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.4268.pdf === In these experiments, nano geometry converts light energy from the laser into vortex motion of electrons in a nanoplasmonic soliton produced on the surface of the gold nanoparticles. Without
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
http://news.discovery.com/space/a-laser-to-rip-apart-spacetime-create-ghosts-02.htm SPACE http://news.discovery.com/space A Laser to Give the Universe a Hernia? it is hoped that theorized “ghost particles” may spill from the fissure, providing evidence for the hypothesis that extra-dimensions exist and the vacuum of space isn’t a vacuum at all — it is in fact buzzing with*virtual particles*. I beleive that we are doing this already in LENR. On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The reaction force would be transferred to the virtual particles that form in the vacuum. That force would accelerate these particles in a direction that opposes the force of propulsion produced by the EmDrive. When those virtual particles eventually encounter their antiparticle, the energy that comprises their mass would be produced energy from particle/antiparticle annihilation. Also all the energy added by the application of EMF would go into the vacuum. This positive energy added to the vacuum would be countered by the development of negative vacuum energy in and around the surface of the earth. Such negative vacuum energy excess may speed up the passage of time on the earth and increase the speed of light there. On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 7:08 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not mistaken about the gravitational impact of a fleet of flying cars suspended in the air by a reactionless propulsion, the earth would face many millions or billions of tons of net force pushing on it. The question is how long would this take to effect the earth's orbit significantly? Days? Years? Decades? Centuries? Millenna? At any rate it would eventually disturb the earth's current orbit dramatically. Something to be cautious of. John On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 6:26 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, one more jump and you will be out on the limb as far as me :_ you said [snip] In another thought, catalatic action of nano sized particles and structures could be based on time acceleration by those nano structures.[/snip].. I agree and even suggest that ALL catalytic action is based on geometry – not as powerful as a skeletal catalyst or nano powders [we don’t need relativistic levels of negative vacuum pressure to shake things up/catalyze], dynamic changes in geometry at even small Casimir levels will still oppose random motion , even looping forever in a closed irregular cavity should generate friction for trapped ambient gas [don’t ask about levitating pyramid calcium -lime blocks yet :_)]– forcing random motion [HUP] to accelerate chemical reactions thru changes in confinement. I think that simple catalytic action is actually a Heisenberg trap based on lesser geometry. It puts random motion of liquids and gas into opposition with smaller changes in negative vacuum pressure. [in supra catalysts we would call this dynamic Casimir effect and the confinement is sufficient that we hear of radioactive half lives being altered in both directions which IMHO is based on which type of partition [+ or -] the radioactive particle happens to favor based on it’s shape atomic or molecular]. In normal catalysts I don’t think the radioactive decay differential is significant – just like Lorentzian contraction and time dilation only occur near hi fractions of C, I think dilation of radioactive half lifes require a supra catalyst BUT catalytic action derives most of it’s power to drive reactions from sharp changes in the vacuum pressure packed closely together – since the geometry is stationary it requires a moving medium and sharp irregular shaped geometries pressed close together – the same as nano powders and skeletal cats but less critical and less powerful. Citations: a 2009 paper, “Pinpointing catalytic reactions on carbon nanotubes http://www.physorg.com/news159199255.html “, by Peng Chen et all from Cornell Univercity in which researchers discovered that catalytic action only occurs when this nanogeometry CHANGES at the openings and defects of a nanotube. Cavity QED http://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/_old/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf , And My blog http://froarty.scienceblog.com/32155/relativistic-interpertation-of-casimir-effect-expanded/ Fran *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, May 15, 2015 12:08 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit From a previous post except in part as follows: have referenced papers here to show how the confinement of electrons on the surface of gold nanoparticles: a nanoplasmonic mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission. See references: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=1cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CC4QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276ei=nI6UUeG1Fq
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
One test that I would expect to see performed upon the laser passing through an active EM Drive is simple yet revealing. Why not amplitude modulate the RF field within the cavity while the laser light is passing through? This should phase modulate the laser beam in a well defined manner. An interferometer would be able to detect the phase modulation and could be used to establish exactly how the RF signal within the drive effects travel time as a function of its amplitude. If there is zero modulation then the previous measurements are in error. As a second idea, how should a static large amplitude electric field or magnetic field modify the passing laser light? I have never heard of any experiment that demonstrates this particular effect, but most likely someone has. Microwaves within a resonate cavity set up a standing wave pattern. The reflections between the end surfaces cause the time domain waveform at any particular location within the cavity to vary in a sinusoidal manner. Both the magnetic component and the electric component appear like a sine wave that varies between the same maximum negative and positive peak values with time at a point in space. Static electric fields or static magnetic fields are merely at zero hertz instead of at microwave frequencies. One might ask why zero hertz behaves differently than some higher RF frequency? Of course a follow up question is:At what frequency does the effect disappear? And, how does it vary as the RF frequency is adjusted? There are many questions that people familiar with microwaves can ask, but for the moment this is enough. Dave -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 15, 2015 11:26 am Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit Axil, You also mentioned [snip] In one experiment, a radioactive isotope with a half-life of 69 years was reduced to 6 microseconds. That is 15 orders of magnitude reduction. Most halflife reductions in LENR are instantaneous. Time could be moving very rapidly in the zone of negative vacuum energy. There looks to be a way to share that increase in the speedup of the rate of time with matter through the entanglement of matter with the zone of negative vacuum...AKA the surface plasmon-polariton soliton[/snip] I don’t know how these experiments were performed but I suspect that only a small portion of the radioactive gas can be in the most negative zones at a time such that the effect is actually greater still.. even if fully contained in a cavity [instead of cycled thru], only the gas migrating into the most confined tapestry of the nano geometry [1/plate spacing^3] would receive the realativistic levels of dilation. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 2:34 AM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit Dear Francis X, I am coming around to your way of thinking. Regarding... “when lasers were fired through the EmDrive’s resonance chamber, some of the beams appeared to travel faster than the speed of light. If that’s true, it would mean that the EmDrive is producing a warp field or bubble. “ The resonant shape of the microwave EmDrive cavity produces a pattern of positive and negative vacuum energy that corresponds to the high and low energy pattern of microwave radiation generated by electromagnetic interference. The zone of increased positive vacuum energy may produce longer lived virtual particles whose lifetime is proportional to the false vacuum value characterize by the zone of EMF excited vacuum. But to keep energy conservation of the vacuum constant, a positive zone of vacuum energy must also correspond with and be offset by a negative zone of vacuum energy. The lifetimes of these longer lived virtual particles may be long enough to provide a reaction platform that meets the requirements of Newton’s momentum laws. Furthermore, there could be a connection between the EmDrive and the LENR reaction. That connection could be the partitioning of the vacuum into positive and negative zones. This might mean that the speed of light increases beyond its nominal value in a zone of negative vacuum energy. In a homonginous vacuum, the speed of forward photon propagation is determined by how fast the photon goes from one virtual particle creation event to the next based on the density of virtual particles produced in the vacuum by the averge virtual particle creation rate
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
Axil, one more jump and you will be out on the limb as far as me :_ you said [snip] In another thought, catalatic action of nano sized particles and structures could be based on time acceleration by those nano structures.[/snip].. I agree and even suggest that ALL catalytic action is based on geometry – not as powerful as a skeletal catalyst or nano powders [we don’t need relativistic levels of negative vacuum pressure to shake things up/catalyze], dynamic changes in geometry at even small Casimir levels will still oppose random motion , even looping forever in a closed irregular cavity should generate friction for trapped ambient gas [don’t ask about levitating pyramid calcium -lime blocks yet :_)]– forcing random motion [HUP] to accelerate chemical reactions thru changes in confinement. I think that simple catalytic action is actually a Heisenberg trap based on lesser geometry. It puts random motion of liquids and gas into opposition with smaller changes in negative vacuum pressure. [in supra catalysts we would call this dynamic Casimir effect and the confinement is sufficient that we hear of radioactive half lives being altered in both directions which IMHO is based on which type of partition [+ or -] the radioactive particle happens to favor based on it’s shape atomic or molecular]. In normal catalysts I don’t think the radioactive decay differential is significant – just like Lorentzian contraction and time dilation only occur near hi fractions of C, I think dilation of radioactive half lifes require a supra catalyst BUT catalytic action derives most of it’s power to drive reactions from sharp changes in the vacuum pressure packed closely together – since the geometry is stationary it requires a moving medium and sharp irregular shaped geometries pressed close together – the same as nano powders and skeletal cats but less critical and less powerful. Citations: a 2009 paper, “Pinpointing catalytic reactions on carbon nanotubeshttp://www.physorg.com/news159199255.html “, by Peng Chen et all from Cornell Univercity in which researchers discovered that catalytic action only occurs when this nanogeometry CHANGES at the openings and defects of a nanotube. Cavity QEDhttp://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/_old/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf , And My blog http://froarty.scienceblog.com/32155/relativistic-interpertation-of-casimir-effect-expanded/ Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 12:08 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit From a previous post except in part as follows: have referenced papers here to show how the confinement of electrons on the surface of gold nanoparticles: a nanoplasmonic mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission. See references: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=1cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CC4QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAgusg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQsig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUAbvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ Experiments showing the same mechanism as listed below: Laser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid targets in heavy water http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0830 Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the presence of Thorium aqua ions http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.4268.pdf === In these experiments, nano geometry converts light energy from the laser into vortex motion of electrons in a nanoplasmonic soliton produced on the surface of the gold nanoparticles. Without the gold nanoparticles, laser light alone is ineffectual in this type of experiment. The soliton produces the separation of the vacuum into positive and negative zones. It also forces the entanglement of the soliton with the U232 nucleus by pumping energy into the vacuum. This vacuum energy pumping using EMF energy from microwaves also happens in the EmDrive system. - In another thought, catalatic action of nano sized particles and structures could be based on time acceleration by those nano structures. Rossi has used a nickel based catalatic micro particle and amplified its effects by using nanoparticles of lithium to amplify the catalatic time acceleration effect to a huge amount. This amplification is done through SPP asymmetric coupling, where a large soliton feeds energy superconductively into a series of smaller solitons...like a transformer. On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.commailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, You also mentioned [snip] In one experiment, a radioactive isotope with a half-life of 69 years was reduced to 6 microseconds. That is 15 orders of magnitude reduction. Most
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
Here is an interesting thought, if this did work to produce thrust that did not act against the earth, then the earth would be moved in the direction of the device due to attraction to the device (flying car) equal to the weight of the object (it is attracted to the whole mass of the earth, and the whole mass of the earth is attracted to it). Since more of these flying vehicles would end up existing in the Northern hemisphere, especially the US the earth would be set off course. Not sure by how much but over time it would become significant, megatons of force applied to one side of the earth for long enough would end up being disastrous I am sure. On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 4:06 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Tuesday's sermon Personally, I think it is a bogus premise to assume that Newton’s laws are not being violated when this EM device is speculated to be “hovering” a few feet above the surface of Earth. As Dave rightly points out if the “hovering” device were to be situated outside the influence of Earth’s gravity field the contraption would most certainly be caught in the act of accelerating – which presumably then means it’s violating Newton’s laws. My point is that if the EM device is presumably breaking Newton’s laws outside of Earth’s gravity field I don’t believe we can conveniently insert an exception to the rule and suddenly proclaim that within Earth’s gravity field the same EM device isn’t breaking those same laws. That makes absolutely no logical sense to me. It strikes me as a fudge factor. Nature, specifically our perception and quaint understanding of gravity fields, appears to be playing a very subtle trick on us. It’s most likely due our own ignorance hampering a better understanding of Newton’s laws being played out here, specifically the phenomenon we call gravity. Regarding gravity, our human bi-pedal brains have a very difficult time trying to grasp and understand the consequences of the simple but paradoxical equation “1/r^2”. IMHO, it is generally not perceived (or for that matter accepted) that as we stand on the surface of Earth that we are in a constant state acceleration. The point being: If we are accelerating why aren't we moving? However, according to Einstein: gravity and acceleration are precisely the same phenomenon being played out in different spatial fields. Our human perception is used to perceiving the phenomenon of acceleration as OBSERVING an object move, or more technically speaking the velocity of the object observed in a constant state of changing. We observe changes in velocity (acceleration) in *flat* spatial fields. But if you start bending (or subsequently concentrate) those spatial fields, such as what “1/r^2” does when approaching a large mass like Earth, it is possible to play tricks on our human perception. For example we perceive (and subsequently believe) stationary objects are at rest on the surface of earth, and that they have weight. It is ludicrous for our bi-pedal brains to perceive such stationary objects possessed with weight as accelerating, or moving. But according to Einstein such objects are accelerating. Therefore they are also in a constant state changing their velocity. That means they are moving! But we don't perceive them as moving! It's the curvature of the spatial field that results in such objects not appear to be moving (form our perception) which our bi-pedal brains are having a horrible time with. We are caught in a nasty paradox for which we have been trying to resolve with little success for centuries. For example, one of the most profound paradoxes we try not to think too much about is that if it takes a constant expenditure of energy (fuel) to keep a helicopter hovering 10 feet above the surface of earth – well then, where’s the energy (fuel) coming from that keeps gravity turned constantly “on” and us firmly planted on the surface of Earth? Obviously, we are missing something important here. ;-) Personally, I suspect one the subtle points we may have been glossing over is our ignorance of the consequences of manipulating spatial fields. If we can learn how to manipulate them out of the normal flat spatial planes that we typically exist in, and do so without having to consume gigawatts of energy, I think we would be in for a big surprise. I can't say what's has been happing under wraps in black ops for decades, but as far as we are concerned we don’t yet know how to bend or concentrate 3D SPACE on the human scale in the same manner that large bodies of mass have been bending spatial fields on the planetary scale since the beginning of time. But if we could learn how to do it, it will likely reap many untold benefits. Anti-gravity for example. Alas, this is a tough one. For millions of years our bi-pedal brains have had a difficult time wrapping around the concept of not falling out of the tree. Kan't be done, we
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Personally, I think it is a bogus premise to assume that Newton’s laws are not being violated when this EM device is speculated to be “hovering” a few feet above the surface of Earth. As Dave rightly points out if the “hovering” device were to be situated outside the influence of Earth’s gravity field the contraption would most certainly be caught in the act of accelerating – which presumably then means it’s violating Newton’s laws. When contemplating antigravity thought experiments, one is reminded that a device that feels the earth's gravitational pull is part of a system of two objects, which comprises the earth and the device. The two orbit around their common center of mass, which is, effectively speaking, the same as the earth's center of mass. A mechanism able to counter this equal gravitational attraction between the two objects would have the effect of separating the two from one another a little in their common orbit. I suppose that could either be accomplished by altering the fabric of spacetime for the two objects (and presumably them alone) so that spacetime is less curved; or, alternatively, by increasing the rate at which they orbit one another around their common center of mass. Regarding gravity, our human bi-pedal brains have a very difficult time trying to grasp and understand the consequences of the simple but paradoxical equation “1/r^2”. IMHO, it is generally not perceived (or for that matter accepted) that as we stand on the surface of Earth that we are in a constant state acceleration. The point being: If we are accelerating why aren't we moving? However, according to Einstein: gravity and acceleration are precisely the same phenomenon being played out in different spatial fields. You have raised a very interesting question here. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
Axil Axil http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22Axil+Axil%22 Tue, 12 May 2015 13:40:01 -0700 http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20150512 I wonder if the resonant shape of the microwave cavity produces a pattern of positive and negative vacuum energy that corresponds to the high and low energy pattern of microwave radiationn produced by interference. The zone of increased positive vacuum energy may produce longer lived virtual particle whose lifetime is proportional to the false vacuum value characterize by the zone of EMF excited vacuum. The lifetimes of these long lived virtual particles may be long enough to provide a reaction platform that meets that required by Newton’s laws. Resonant shape of the microwave cavity produces a pattern of positive and negative vacuum energy that corresponds to the high and low energy pattern of microwave radiation produced by interference, so what about using two sources of microwave radiation to produce a phase locked virtual particle soliton. Why aren't they using high power radar Klystron? http://www.radartutorial.eu/08.transmitters/Klystron.en.html
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
Axil, I not only agree but even suspect these increased positive vacuum zones would be subject to time dilation similar to the paradox twin in a deep gravity well. Your focus on positive vacuum pressure was insightful ;; I may have been wrongly focused on the negative zones due to my pet theories on ZPE wrt nano powders/DCE ect, ect.. BUT you are probably correct that a “positive” pressure should be easier to exploit when searching for a region to push against.. a positive pressure should be the opposite of a negative pressure provided by Casimir geometry so instead of restricting longer vacuum wavelengths it should encourage them to exist longer..IMHO this is also what occurs when the Paradox twin approaches C or is subjected to a large equivalent gravity well.. the VP start to build up on the windshield faster than the ether stream can pull them away in the classic Pythagorean space to time relationship for time dilation and contraction. The question is how the force of radiation can be made to interact with these regions in a biased manner to unbalance equal and opposite reactions.. If your theory is correct than there should be opportunity to optimize geometry.. and perhaps a second rf source such that one is optimized for establishing the fields and the second is optimized for interaction in a biased manner.. IMHO the use of a single source RF for both establishing the regions and trying to interact with them is limiting their effect. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 4:40 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit I wonder if the resonant shape of the microwave cavity produces a pattern of positive and negative vacuum energy that corresponds to the high and low energy pattern of microwave radiationn produced by interference. The zone of increased positive vacuum energy may produce longer lived virtual particle whose lifetime is proportional to the false vacuum value characterize by the zone of EMF excited vacuum. The lifetimes of these long lived virtual particles may be long enough to provide a reaction platform that meets that required by Newton’s laws.
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
I believe that the LENR and EmDrive reactions are related. They both involve the partitioning of the vacuum into positive and negative energy zones. Because of this connection with the manipulation of the vacuum as the ultimate cause of these two reactions, t may be possible to use EmDrive techniques to produce LENR and LENR techniques to produce EmDrive power. Now wouldn’t that be sweet? On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, I not only agree but even suspect these increased positive vacuum zones would be subject to time dilation similar to the paradox twin in a deep gravity well. Your focus on positive vacuum pressure was insightful ;; I may have been wrongly focused on the negative zones due to my pet theories on ZPE wrt nano powders/DCE ect, ect.. BUT you are probably correct that a “positive” pressure should be easier to exploit when searching for a region to push against.. a positive pressure should be the opposite of a negative pressure provided by Casimir geometry so instead of restricting longer vacuum wavelengths it should encourage them to exist longer..IMHO this is also what occurs when the Paradox twin approaches C or is subjected to a large equivalent gravity well.. the VP start to build up on the windshield faster than the ether stream can pull them away in the classic Pythagorean space to time relationship for time dilation and contraction. The question is how the force of radiation can be made to interact with these regions in a biased manner to unbalance equal and opposite reactions.. If your theory is correct than there should be opportunity to optimize geometry.. and perhaps a second rf source such that one is optimized for establishing the fields and the second is optimized for interaction in a biased manner.. IMHO the use of a single source RF for both establishing the regions and trying to interact with them is limiting their effect. Fran *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, May 12, 2015 4:40 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit I wonder if the resonant shape of the microwave cavity produces a pattern of positive and negative vacuum energy that corresponds to the high and low energy pattern of microwave radiationn produced by interference. The zone of increased positive vacuum energy may produce longer lived virtual particle whose lifetime is proportional to the false vacuum value characterize by the zone of EMF excited vacuum. The lifetimes of these long lived virtual particles may be long enough to provide a reaction platform that meets that required by Newton’s laws.
RE: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
From Mixent: I suspect you are confusing centripetal and centrifugal. (They are opposites). I suspect your suspection is correct. I meant centrifugal. A part-time dyslexic like me is occasionally prone to mangle or substitute wording. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
Steven you seems to understand this with gravity. I have to confess I understand very little. As you say my two pedal brain cannot see what gravity is. Perhaps you can help me (I am sure many others can also) but I cannot even understand that gravity does not impact my body (or any body) different when the centripetal forces are so different depending on my position on this planet. At the equator I am travelling at the speed of sound or better. Standing at the north pole I am cannot see there is any centripetal forces. In my simple mind this makes no sense if the force of gravity is not a result of movement of the mass (rotation - seeing away from the planet moving around the sun ). However, I understand that I am wrong and as I ask the question I have had many answers - none I understood. Perhaps it is because every time I let go of the branch I have fallen.:) Grateful if my 2 pedal brain can adopt the answer so do not make it too complex. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Tuesday's sermon Personally, I think it is a bogus premise to assume that Newton’s laws are not being violated when this EM device is speculated to be “hovering” a few feet above the surface of Earth. As Dave rightly points out if the “hovering” device were to be situated outside the influence of Earth’s gravity field the contraption would most certainly be caught in the act of accelerating – which presumably then means it’s violating Newton’s laws. My point is that if the EM device is presumably breaking Newton’s laws outside of Earth’s gravity field I don’t believe we can conveniently insert an exception to the rule and suddenly proclaim that within Earth’s gravity field the same EM device isn’t breaking those same laws. That makes absolutely no logical sense to me. It strikes me as a fudge factor. Nature, specifically our perception and quaint understanding of gravity fields, appears to be playing a very subtle trick on us. It’s most likely due our own ignorance hampering a better understanding of Newton’s laws being played out here, specifically the phenomenon we call gravity. Regarding gravity, our human bi-pedal brains have a very difficult time trying to grasp and understand the consequences of the simple but paradoxical equation “1/r^2”. IMHO, it is generally not perceived (or for that matter accepted) that as we stand on the surface of Earth that we are in a constant state acceleration. The point being: If we are accelerating why aren't we moving? However, according to Einstein: gravity and acceleration are precisely the same phenomenon being played out in different spatial fields. Our human perception is used to perceiving the phenomenon of acceleration as OBSERVING an object move, or more technically speaking the velocity of the object observed in a constant state of changing. We observe changes in velocity (acceleration) in *flat* spatial fields. But if you start bending (or subsequently concentrate) those spatial fields, such as what “1/r^2” does when approaching a large mass like Earth, it is possible to play tricks on our human perception. For example we perceive (and subsequently believe) stationary objects are at rest on the surface of earth, and that they have weight. It is ludicrous for our bi-pedal brains to perceive such stationary objects possessed with weight as accelerating, or moving. But according to Einstein such objects are accelerating. Therefore they are also in a constant state changing their velocity. That means they are moving! But we don't perceive them as moving! It's the curvature of the spatial field that results in such objects not appear to be moving (form our perception) which our bi-pedal brains are having a horrible time with. We are caught in a nasty paradox for which we have been trying to resolve with little success for centuries. For example, one of the most profound paradoxes we try not to think too much about is that if it takes a constant expenditure of energy (fuel) to keep a helicopter hovering 10 feet above the surface of earth – well then, where’s the energy (fuel) coming from that keeps gravity turned constantly “on” and us firmly planted on the surface of Earth? Obviously, we are missing something important here. ;-) Personally, I suspect one the subtle points we may have been glossing over is our ignorance of the consequences of manipulating spatial fields. If we can learn how to manipulate them out of the normal flat spatial planes that we typically exist in, and do so without having to consume gigawatts of energy, I think we would be in for a big surprise. I can't say
RE: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
Tuesday's sermon Personally, I think it is a bogus premise to assume that Newton’s laws are not being violated when this EM device is speculated to be “hovering” a few feet above the surface of Earth. As Dave rightly points out if the “hovering” device were to be situated outside the influence of Earth’s gravity field the contraption would most certainly be caught in the act of accelerating – which presumably then means it’s violating Newton’s laws. My point is that if the EM device is presumably breaking Newton’s laws outside of Earth’s gravity field I don’t believe we can conveniently insert an exception to the rule and suddenly proclaim that within Earth’s gravity field the same EM device isn’t breaking those same laws. That makes absolutely no logical sense to me. It strikes me as a fudge factor. Nature, specifically our perception and quaint understanding of gravity fields, appears to be playing a very subtle trick on us. It’s most likely due our own ignorance hampering a better understanding of Newton’s laws being played out here, specifically the phenomenon we call gravity. Regarding gravity, our human bi-pedal brains have a very difficult time trying to grasp and understand the consequences of the simple but paradoxical equation “1/r^2”. IMHO, it is generally not perceived (or for that matter accepted) that as we stand on the surface of Earth that we are in a constant state acceleration. The point being: If we are accelerating why aren't we moving? However, according to Einstein: gravity and acceleration are precisely the same phenomenon being played out in different spatial fields. Our human perception is used to perceiving the phenomenon of acceleration as OBSERVING an object move, or more technically speaking the velocity of the object observed in a constant state of changing. We observe changes in velocity (acceleration) in flat spatial fields. But if you start bending (or subsequently concentrate) those spatial fields, such as what “1/r^2” does when approaching a large mass like Earth, it is possible to play tricks on our human perception. For example we perceive (and subsequently believe) stationary objects are at rest on the surface of earth, and that they have weight. It is ludicrous for our bi-pedal brains to perceive such stationary objects possessed with weight as accelerating, or moving. But according to Einstein such objects are accelerating. Therefore they are also in a constant state changing their velocity. That means they are moving! But we don't perceive them as moving! It's the curvature of the spatial field that results in such objects not appear to be moving (form our perception) which our bi-pedal brains are having a horrible time with. We are caught in a nasty paradox for which we have been trying to resolve with little success for centuries. For example, one of the most profound paradoxes we try not to think too much about is that if it takes a constant expenditure of energy (fuel) to keep a helicopter hovering 10 feet above the surface of earth – well then, where’s the energy (fuel) coming from that keeps gravity turned constantly “on” and us firmly planted on the surface of Earth? Obviously, we are missing something important here. ;-) Personally, I suspect one the subtle points we may have been glossing over is our ignorance of the consequences of manipulating spatial fields. If we can learn how to manipulate them out of the normal flat spatial planes that we typically exist in, and do so without having to consume gigawatts of energy, I think we would be in for a big surprise. I can't say what's has been happing under wraps in black ops for decades, but as far as we are concerned we don’t yet know how to bend or concentrate 3D SPACE on the human scale in the same manner that large bodies of mass have been bending spatial fields on the planetary scale since the beginning of time. But if we could learn how to do it, it will likely reap many untold benefits. Anti-gravity for example. Alas, this is a tough one. For millions of years our bi-pedal brains have had a difficult time wrapping around the concept of not falling out of the tree. Kan't be done, we tell ourselves. Our instincts quite rightly tell us we will most surely drop like a rock if we let go of the branch. ;-) But yeah, I think we can learn to let go of the branch. Eventually. /Tuesday's sermon Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
I wonder if the resonant shape of the microwave cavity produces a pattern of positive and negative vacuum energy that corresponds to the high and low energy pattern of microwave radiationn produced by interference. The zone of increased positive vacuum energy may produce longer lived virtual particle whose lifetime is proportional to the false vacuum value characterize by the zone of EMF excited vacuum. The lifetimes of these long lived virtual particles may be long enough to provide a reaction platform that meets that required by Newton’s laws.
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
In reply to John Berry's message of Tue, 12 May 2015 17:50:30 +1200: Hi, Yes, the reaction mass is the earth. Yes it is, and perhaps with the EM drive it still is. Or maybe the Sun, or maybe the Milky Way, or maybe the entire universe, or maybe the space-time continuum itself. Perhaps our laws of physics are the way they are because up until now, we have had no means of getting a grip on the slippery space-time continuum? On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:44 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Frank Znidarsic's message of Mon, 11 May 2015 18:58:16 -0400: Hi Frank, [snip] The video states that m drive obeys Newtow's laws. It has no reaction mass. It does not obey Newton's laws. That comment was an understatement bordering on misinformation. Frank Z Which of Newton's laws does it violate? Does a car going down the road doesn't have reaction mass? Does it violate Newton's laws? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
I recall reading that the inventor used some form of tortion measurement system that operates at right angles to the gravitational forces present. This makes sense if one wishes to make a very accurate measurement of the drive force since the gravitational vector effects can be balanced out with this technique. Also, if true, a measurement of the force generated by the drive that would lead to normal accelerations is being conducted instead of a form of anti gravity. Unfortunately I remain skeptical of the claims thus far. It is much too easy to be tricked by forces arising from the external connections that supply the power for the drive unless it can be shown to operate with internal batteries. On the other hand, if the generated force is great enough then it should be easy to prove that it originates within the device. Does anyone know of an iron clad demonstration that answers to my objections? I would like to see a test that ensures that magnetic, gravitational, and any forces due to external power supply connections and measurements are taken into account.I suppose my EM Drive objections sound remarkably similar to those we sense from LENR skeptics! Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 12, 2015 11:50 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit Dave-- I believe there are 2 forces that are involved in moving a massive object in space/time system. One is the inertial force required to achieve a velocity relative to some point and the other is the force to overcome a gravitational attraction to a large body as a result of a significant gravitation force field. If the EM drive only voids the gravitation field, there would still be a need to overcome the inertial force to achieve motion in the space/time coordinate system(F=MA). It is my understanding that the EM drive only voids the gravitation field and thus eliminates that force of gravity on a massive object. How it does this trick is the hard-to-believe phenomena being stated by the inventor. It seems there is a conjecture that the invention bends or cancels the gravitational field so that it does not act on the object being shielded. Bob - Original Message - From:David Roberson To:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 10:31 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit I agree that hovering does not violate Newton's laws. That is a special case. Take away the gravitational attractive mass and that is no longer true. That same force should cause the ship to accelerate, which then violates the laws. Most of the uses for an EM Drive appear to involve accelerating the mass of the ship in regions of space that are not balanced by gravitational forces. Why concentrate upon a very special case instead of the more general applications for these drives? Hovering is useful, but it is not going to enable one to travel among the stars. Is there any reason to suspect that the typical EM Drives that we are discussing are only useful to balance gravitational forces? Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 11, 2015 9:49 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit Hovering does not violate Newton's laws IMHO. Energy and momentum are conserved. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit In reply to Frank Znidarsic's message of Mon, 11 May 2015 18:58:16 -0400: Hi Frank, [snip] The video states that m drive obeys Newtow's laws. It has no reaction mass. It does not obey Newton's laws. That comment was an understatement bordering on misinformation. Frank Z Which of Newton's laws does it violate? Does a car going down the road doesn't have reaction mass? Does it violate Newton's laws? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
Lennart, I don’t wish to portray myself out as an expert on gravitry. I’m definitely not. All I can say is that I have been interested in the subject for most of my life. (I’m 62.) As such, it should not come as a surprise that I have come up with a few eccentric observations. As a freshly minted retiree who is still in training, I’m currently refreshing my education of calculus, so perhaps I may end up doing some damage here before I die. With that disclaimer firmly in place there might be certain visualizations I can offer up here that might help make some of my points a little clearer to some. For example: Let’s pretend there exists hidden underground somewhere in a secret base out in the deserts of Nevada… a black ops program where they have secretly constructed a gravity lens. (It’s probably next to a fully operational Star Gate device, but that’s literally a different story. ;-) ) Ok… Now, our gravity lens is basically in the shape of a large tube. It’ 200 meters long and 10 meters wide. Lots of machinery is involved in running the contraption. Probably a lot of electricity too. Perhaps the Lights in Reno flicker just a tad when they fire up the tube. Let’s pretend that when the scientists finally got the device operational they tossed a baseball into one end of the tube. They observed the baseball shooting out at the other end 1.5 seconds later at the significantly accelerated speed of 300 mph. The Gravity lens operates like a cannon. After additional experiments the scientists decided it’s time to get a human volunteer to jump into the device to see what he experiences. One dark night, under cover, they transport the machine outside and prop it up at a 30 degree incline. They make sure the brave volunteer wears a parachute that hopefully will deploy seconds after he is jettisoned. Fortunately, our brave volunteer survives the experience of being the first human cannon ball jettisoned out of the “barrel” of a gravity lens machine. Later when they ask him did he feel the effects of acceleration he tells the scientists he felt absolutely nothing during the 1.5 seconds he was still inside the gravity lens. He only felt an acute sense of deceleration after exiting the gravity lens, after his parachute deployed brining him safely back to earth, well... except for a sprained ankle. (He gets a bonus check for his brave efforts.) So, why didn't our volunteer feel any acceleration while inside the gravity lens? Read on. Granted, our mysterious gravity lens machine is a hypothetical construction. Presumably, we don’t know how to build one. That said, we can easily construct something that can mimic the accelerator effects of a gravity lens. In fact any gardener watering his lawn with a hose employs the trick all the time. The following analogy might be considered crude by some, but still, I think it gets the point across. Pretend our gravity lens device consists of a very elongated funnel filled with water. A steady stream of water is being introduced at the large end of the funnel. The water is subsequently being forced under pressure to exit the other end where the diameter opening is significantly smaller. If you insert a ball (with the same buoyancy as water) at the large end of the funnel you will notice that as the object begins to travel down the length of the funnel it moves at ever increasing speeds. It is in fact accelerating even though within the medium of water immediately surrounding the ball - the medium of volume remains perfectly still. Eventually the ball spits out the tiny opening of the funnel travelling significantly faster speed than its initial stationary position. Keep in mind all during this time the water surrounding the ball remains relatively stationary. It’s as if the ball experiences no effects of acceleration. Of course it really is experiencing acceleration, but again, this is just an analogy. A better analogy I’m trying to make here is that the volume of water is literally being forced to accelerate in order to conform to the decreasing diameter constraints of the funnel wall. It’s important to point out this is acceleration effect is happening within the constraints of a slice of time held at a constant rate. My analogy is equivalent to Nature essentially attempting to compress (or funnel) gravity lines of 3D space due to the effects a large nearby planetary mass. If nature attempts to compress (or funnel) the lines of 3D space, 3D “space” compensates by spending less time occupying the same AREA of 3D space during the same unit of time. We actually see this phenomenon being played out all the time in Kepler’s 2nd law of planetary motion, where an imaginary line joining a planet and the sun sweeps out an equal area of space in equal amounts of time. The closer the satellite is to the central body of mass, the faster the satellite has to travel during the same period of time. It is similar to water
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
OK Vincent I beat you with ten years and I try to avoid being retired. I really think you made a good analogy withe funnel and water. A new one to me.My objective is not to impact the science world. However, I have a clear liking of new ventures. LENR to me is a new venture. I understand that my question about how gravity ought to be different in different areas of the planet is perhaps to simple. Trying to have an understanding I assume you say that gravity is a force much larger than for example the centripetal force on a body on this planet. Understanding that in a funnel with a output of 5cm and a ball of 5mm at the outer edge (1cm from the center for example) the increase in speed is almost the same as it is just close to the ball. Trying to use your analogy to understand why the gravity is the same all over the place even as the reaction force do differ. There is a Swedish say that one idiot can ask more questions than ten wise man can answer.:) Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Lennart, I don’t wish to portray myself out as an expert on gravitry. I’m definitely not. All I can say is that I have been interested in the subject for most of my life. (I’m 62.) As such, it should not come as a surprise that I have come up with a few eccentric observations. As a freshly minted retiree who is still in training, I’m currently refreshing my education of calculus, so perhaps I may end up doing some damage here before I die. With that disclaimer firmly in place there might be certain visualizations I can offer up here that might help make some of my points a little clearer to some. For example: Let’s pretend there exists hidden underground somewhere in a secret base out in the deserts of Nevada… a black ops program where they have secretly constructed a gravity lens. (It’s probably next to a fully operational Star Gate device, but that’s literally a different story. ;-) ) Ok… Now, our gravity lens is basically in the shape of a large tube. It’ 200 meters long and 10 meters wide. Lots of machinery is involved in running the contraption. Probably a lot of electricity too. Perhaps the Lights in Reno flicker just a tad when they fire up the tube. Let’s pretend that when the scientists finally got the device operational they tossed a baseball into one end of the tube. They observed the baseball shooting out at the other end 1.5 seconds later at the significantly accelerated speed of 300 mph. The Gravity lens operates like a cannon. After additional experiments the scientists decided it’s time to get a human volunteer to jump into the device to see what he experiences. One dark night, under cover, they transport the machine outside and prop it up at a 30 degree incline. They make sure the brave volunteer wears a parachute that hopefully will deploy seconds after he is jettisoned. Fortunately, our brave volunteer survives the experience of being the first human cannon ball jettisoned out of the “barrel” of a gravity lens machine. Later when they ask him did he feel the effects of acceleration he tells the scientists he felt absolutely nothing during the 1.5 seconds he was still inside the gravity lens. He only felt an acute sense of deceleration after exiting the gravity lens, after his parachute deployed brining him safely back to earth, well... except for a sprained ankle. (He gets a bonus check for his brave efforts.) So, why didn't our volunteer feel any acceleration while inside the gravity lens? Read on. Granted, our mysterious gravity lens machine is a hypothetical construction. Presumably, we don’t know how to build one. That said, we can easily construct something that can mimic the accelerator effects of a gravity lens. In fact any gardener watering his lawn with a hose employs the trick all the time. The following analogy might be considered crude by some, but still, I think it gets the point across. Pretend our gravity lens device consists of a very elongated funnel filled with water. A steady stream of water is being introduced at the large end of the funnel. The water is subsequently being forced under pressure to exit the other end where the diameter opening is significantly smaller. If you insert a ball (with the same buoyancy as water) at the large end of the funnel you will notice that as the object begins to travel down the length of the funnel it moves at ever increasing speeds. It is in fact accelerating even though within the medium of water immediately surrounding the ball - the medium of volume remains perfectly still. Eventually the ball spits out the tiny opening of the funnel travelling
RE: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
Hello again, Lennart, A couple of quick follow-ups before I retire for the night. Trying to have an understanding I assume you say that gravity is a force much larger than for example the centripetal force on a body on this planet. It depends. In an elliptical orbit centripetal force appears to us as greater than the force of gravity during perihelion, the closest approach of the satellite. Gravity, OTOH, appears to us as the greater force as compared to centripetal force at aphelion, the farthest distance from the satellite. I made a rather obscure observation, (or re-discovery) while performing some computer simulations of orbital mechanics a couple of years ago. It had to do with observing elliptical orbits on a traditional x,y Cartesian plane, and not with typical polar coordinates. Using an iterative feed-back algebraic algorithm, (where I’m not using calculus), I discovered I can mimic the exact interplay of these two forces (gravity and centripetal) using the following algebraic expression: r = -+1/r^2 - 1/r^3. The attractive effects of gravity are observed in the formula part of 1/r^2 where the force of gravity is the inverse square of the distance. Meanwhile, the negative or repulsive effects of centripetal forces are shown in the algebraic expression -1/r^3, the inverse cube of the distance. You can see a more technical explanation of this effect by going to the following link titled Orbits in 2D: http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/orbit/orbit.2d.html Scroll down to the bottom of the page and you will see the graphic that looks like the tracing of a bouncing ball. That’s the plot of an elliptical orbital where time is expressed in equal slices (in calculus terms: dy/dt). This is charted in the x axis and y (or radius), is the radius distance of the satellite from the central mass. The author uses different terminology that my own, where he explains the effect as the conservation of energy… which is a perfectly legitimate explanation. However, my observations, while I’m not disputing the author’s claims, seems to come up with different observations and conclusions. I’m still working on the particulars. There is a Swedish say[ing] that one idiot can ask more questions than ten wise man can answer.:) Ah, but in my book any idiot that’s willing to ask questions is in a far better place than the idiot who answers them. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 8:00 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit OK Vincent I beat you with ten years and I try to avoid being retired. I really think you made a good analogy withe funnel and water. A new one to me.My objective is not to impact the science world. However, I have a clear liking of new ventures. LENR to me is a new venture. I understand that my question about how gravity ought to be different in different areas of the planet is perhaps to simple. Trying to have an understanding I assume you say that gravity is a force much larger than for example the centripetal force on a body on this planet. Understanding that in a funnel with a output of 5cm and a ball of 5mm at the outer edge (1cm from the center for example) the increase in speed is almost the same as it is just close to the ball. Trying to use your analogy to understand why the gravity is the same all over the place even as the reaction force do differ. There is a Swedish say that one idiot can ask more questions than ten wise man can answer.:) Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com http://www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com mailto:lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
Why concentrate upon a very special case instead of the more general applications for these drives? Hovering is useful, but it is not going to enable one to travel among the stars. Hovering gives us flying cars. On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:50 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, the reaction mass is the earth. On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:44 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Frank Znidarsic's message of Mon, 11 May 2015 18:58:16 -0400: Hi Frank, [snip] The video states that m drive obeys Newtow's laws. It has no reaction mass. It does not obey Newton's laws. That comment was an understatement bordering on misinformation. Frank Z Which of Newton's laws does it violate? Does a car going down the road doesn't have reaction mass? Does it violate Newton's laws? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
And easier access to orbit, or indeed removing the need for orbit all together. On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: Why concentrate upon a very special case instead of the more general applications for these drives? Hovering is useful, but it is not going to enable one to travel among the stars. Hovering gives us flying cars. On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:50 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, the reaction mass is the earth. On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:44 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Frank Znidarsic's message of Mon, 11 May 2015 18:58:16 -0400: Hi Frank, [snip] The video states that m drive obeys Newtow's laws. It has no reaction mass. It does not obey Newton's laws. That comment was an understatement bordering on misinformation. Frank Z Which of Newton's laws does it violate? Does a car going down the road doesn't have reaction mass? Does it violate Newton's laws? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
We don't know enough to answer the question because we don't know enough about the origin of the force. Even if it is relativistic as Shawyer claims and the spatial area occupied by the device modifies the encompassed inertial frames that breach the isotropy there remains a strong likelihood that an equal and opposite frame is created and the device is only able to directionalize gravity to produce thrust..NOT able to accumulate a buoyancy. IMHO his use of the term thrust is probably correct and that we won't get a bubble from microwaves in a shaped cavity. Fran -Original Message- From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 9:50 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit Hovering does not violate Newton's laws IMHO. Energy and momentum are conserved. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit In reply to Frank Znidarsic's message of Mon, 11 May 2015 18:58:16 -0400: Hi Frank, [snip] The video states that m drive obeys Newtow's laws. It has no reaction mass. It does not obey Newton's laws. That comment was an understatement bordering on misinformation. Frank Z Which of Newton's laws does it violate? Does a car going down the road doesn't have reaction mass? Does it violate Newton's laws? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Tue, 12 May 2015 16:39:37 -0400: Hi, [snip] I wonder if the resonant shape of the microwave cavity produces a pattern of positive and negative vacuum energy that corresponds to the high and low energy pattern of microwave radiationn produced by interference. The zone of increased positive vacuum energy may produce longer lived virtual particle whose lifetime is proportional to the false vacuum value characterize by the zone of EMF excited vacuum. The lifetimes of these long lived virtual particles may be long enough to provide a reaction platform that meets that required by Newtons laws. No need to wonder. IIRC, there was a post here recently about the drive creating and Alcubierre style warp field. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
Dave-- I believe there are 2 forces that are involved in moving a massive object in space/time system. One is the inertial force required to achieve a velocity relative to some point and the other is the force to overcome a gravitational attraction to a large body as a result of a significant gravitation force field. If the EM drive only voids the gravitation field, there would still be a need to overcome the inertial force to achieve motion in the space/time coordinate system(F=MA). It is my understanding that the EM drive only voids the gravitation field and thus eliminates that force of gravity on a massive object. How it does this trick is the hard-to-believe phenomena being stated by the inventor. It seems there is a conjecture that the invention bends or cancels the gravitational field so that it does not act on the object being shielded. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 10:31 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit I agree that hovering does not violate Newton's laws. That is a special case. Take away the gravitational attractive mass and that is no longer true. That same force should cause the ship to accelerate, which then violates the laws. Most of the uses for an EM Drive appear to involve accelerating the mass of the ship in regions of space that are not balanced by gravitational forces. Why concentrate upon a very special case instead of the more general applications for these drives? Hovering is useful, but it is not going to enable one to travel among the stars. Is there any reason to suspect that the typical EM Drives that we are discussing are only useful to balance gravitational forces? Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 11, 2015 9:49 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit Hovering does not violate Newton's laws IMHO. Energy and momentum are conserved. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit In reply to Frank Znidarsic's message of Mon, 11 May 2015 18:58:16 -0400: Hi Frank, [snip] The video states that m drive obeys Newtow's laws. It has no reaction mass. It does not obey Newton's laws. That comment was an understatement bordering on misinformation. Frank Z Which of Newton's laws does it violate? Does a car going down the road doesn't have reaction mass? Does it violate Newton's laws? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
Or the reality of the conservation of energy. It is just a theory. On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 4:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It concerns me that an observer on Earth will notice that the mass and thus energy of the stationary car held up by the drive is becoming lower with time. He will not find where that energy is being deposited as the mass drops. The heat due to cavity loss can be calculated directly, but any other energy due to mass conversion will not be accounted for. This is a major issue with regard to accepting the reality of EM Drives. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 10, 2015 10:48 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit In reply to Craig Haynie's message of Sun, 10 May 2015 18:07:28 -0400: Hi, [snip] It doesn't cost any energy at all to support a car. The ground does this just fine with no energy expenditure. E = F . d. If d = 0, then E = 0. I'm not sure how this applies to an EM drive (if at all), but perhaps it needs to be taken into consideration? Hello! I was hoping the Vorts could help me with this. Roger Shawyer, at minute 2:56 in this video, claims that the next generation EM Drive could generation 1 tonne of thrust per kilowatt of power. This means that a 1 tonne car should be able to hover above the ground for the price of one kilowatt. However, my calculation shows that to be about 48 times a theoretical maximum. Here is the video where he makes the claim at 2:56. http://tinyurl.com/ko5v6h7 But here is my calculation for a theoretical maximum, calculated two different ways: - A joule is a watt-second - A watt is a joule / second - The power required to hover an object is the same power required to increase the speed of the object from rest, in a weightless environment, to 9.8 m/s in one second. We know this because the pull of gravity is 9.8 meters/second2. - The kinetic energy in an object travelling at 9.8 m/s = 1/2 * m * v2. So for a car of 1000 kg, the energy = 1000 / 2 * 9.82 = 48,020 joules = 48 kilowatts to do this in one second. - This power should be 1/2 the power to raise an object of the same mass, to a height of 9.8 meters in one second, since it would require twice as much energy to do this. - The formula to determining how much energy it takes to raise something to height = E = m * g (gravitational constant) * h = 1000 * 9.8 * 9.8 = 96,040 watts-seconds = 96 kilowatts to do this in one second. So it agrees with the previous result. So, I don't understand how any device could hover an object with the mass of a tonne for less than a theoretical 48 kilowatts. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. Craig Haynie ( Manchester, NH) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 11 May 2015 00:56:53 -0400: Hi Dave, [snip] It concerns me that an observer on Earth will notice that the mass and thus energy of the stationary car held up by the drive is becoming lower with time. What mass loss are you talking about? He will not find where that energy is being deposited as the mass drops. The heat due to cavity loss can be calculated directly, but any other energy due to mass conversion will not be accounted for. Why should there be any other energy? This is a major issue with regard to accepting the reality of EM Drives. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 10, 2015 10:48 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit In reply to Craig Haynie's message of Sun, 10 May 2015 18:07:28 -0400: Hi, [snip] It doesn't cost any energy at all to support a car. The ground does this just fine with no energy expenditure. E = F . d. If d = 0, then E = 0. I'm not sure how this applies to an EM drive (if at all), but perhaps it needs to be taken into consideration? Hello! I was hoping the Vorts could help me with this. Roger Shawyer, at minute 2:56 in this video, claims that the next generation EM Drive could generation 1 tonne of thrust per kilowatt of power. This means that a 1 tonne car should be able to hover above the ground for the price of one kilowatt. However, my calculation shows that to be about 48 times a theoretical maximum. Here is the video where he makes the claim at 2:56. http://tinyurl.com/ko5v6h7 But here is my calculation for a theoretical maximum, calculated two different ways: - A joule is a watt-second - A watt is a joule / second - The power required to hover an object is the same power required to increase the speed of the object from rest, in a weightless environment, to 9.8 m/s in one second. We know this because the pull of gravity is 9.8 meters/second2. - The kinetic energy in an object travelling at 9.8 m/s = 1/2 * m * v2. So for a car of 1000 kg, the energy = 1000 / 2 * 9.82 = 48,020 joules = 48 kilowatts to do this in one second. - This power should be 1/2 the power to raise an object of the same mass, to a height of 9.8 meters in one second, since it would require twice as much energy to do this. - The formula to determining how much energy it takes to raise something to height = E = m * g (gravitational constant) * h = 1000 * 9.8 * 9.8 = 96,040 watts-seconds = 96 kilowatts to do this in one second. So it agrees with the previous result. So, I don't understand how any device could hover an object with the mass of a tonne for less than a theoretical 48 kilowatts. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. Craig Haynie ( Manchester, NH) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
The video states that m drive obeys Newtow's laws. It has no reaction mass. It does not obey Newton's laws. That comment was an understatement bordering on misinformation. Frank Z
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
I agree that hovering does not violate Newton's laws. That is a special case. Take away the gravitational attractive mass and that is no longer true. That same force should cause the ship to accelerate, which then violates the laws. Most of the uses for an EM Drive appear to involve accelerating the mass of the ship in regions of space that are not balanced by gravitational forces. Why concentrate upon a very special case instead of the more general applications for these drives? Hovering is useful, but it is not going to enable one to travel among the stars. Is there any reason to suspect that the typical EM Drives that we are discussing are only useful to balance gravitational forces? Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 11, 2015 9:49 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit Hovering does not violate Newton's laws IMHO. Energy and momentum are conserved. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit In reply to Frank Znidarsic's message of Mon, 11 May 2015 18:58:16 -0400: Hi Frank, [snip] The video states that m drive obeys Newtow's laws. It has no reaction mass. It does not obey Newton's laws. That comment was an understatement bordering on misinformation. Frank Z Which of Newton's laws does it violate? Does a car going down the road doesn't have reaction mass? Does it violate Newton's laws? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
Yes, the reaction mass is the earth. On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:44 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Frank Znidarsic's message of Mon, 11 May 2015 18:58:16 -0400: Hi Frank, [snip] The video states that m drive obeys Newtow's laws. It has no reaction mass. It does not obey Newton's laws. That comment was an understatement bordering on misinformation. Frank Z Which of Newton's laws does it violate? Does a car going down the road doesn't have reaction mass? Does it violate Newton's laws? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
Hovering does not violate Newton's laws IMHO. Energy and momentum are conserved. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit In reply to Frank Znidarsic's message of Mon, 11 May 2015 18:58:16 -0400: Hi Frank, [snip] The video states that m drive obeys Newtow's laws. It has no reaction mass. It does not obey Newton's laws. That comment was an understatement bordering on misinformation. Frank Z Which of Newton's laws does it violate? Does a car going down the road doesn't have reaction mass? Does it violate Newton's laws? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
In reply to Frank Znidarsic's message of Mon, 11 May 2015 18:58:16 -0400: Hi Frank, [snip] The video states that m drive obeys Newtow's laws. It has no reaction mass. It does not obey Newton's laws. That comment was an understatement bordering on misinformation. Frank Z Which of Newton's laws does it violate? Does a car going down the road doesn't have reaction mass? Does it violate Newton's laws? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
It concerns me that an observer on Earth will notice that the mass and thus energy of the stationary car held up by the drive is becoming lower with time. He will not find where that energy is being deposited as the mass drops. The heat due to cavity loss can be calculated directly, but any other energy due to mass conversion will not be accounted for. This is a major issue with regard to accepting the reality of EM Drives. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 10, 2015 10:48 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit In reply to Craig Haynie's message of Sun, 10 May 2015 18:07:28 -0400: Hi, [snip] It doesn't cost any energy at all to support a car. The ground does this just fine with no energy expenditure. E = F . d. If d = 0, then E = 0. I'm not sure how this applies to an EM drive (if at all), but perhaps it needs to be taken into consideration? Hello! I was hoping the Vorts could help me with this. Roger Shawyer, at minute 2:56 in this video, claims that the next generation EM Drive could generation 1 tonne of thrust per kilowatt of power. This means that a 1 tonne car should be able to hover above the ground for the price of one kilowatt. However, my calculation shows that to be about 48 times a theoretical maximum. Here is the video where he makes the claim at 2:56. http://tinyurl.com/ko5v6h7 But here is my calculation for a theoretical maximum, calculated two different ways: - A joule is a watt-second - A watt is a joule / second - The power required to hover an object is the same power required to increase the speed of the object from rest, in a weightless environment, to 9.8 m/s in one second. We know this because the pull of gravity is 9.8 meters/second2. - The kinetic energy in an object travelling at 9.8 m/s = 1/2 * m * v2. So for a car of 1000 kg, the energy = 1000 / 2 * 9.82 = 48,020 joules = 48 kilowatts to do this in one second. - This power should be 1/2 the power to raise an object of the same mass, to a height of 9.8 meters in one second, since it would require twice as much energy to do this. - The formula to determining how much energy it takes to raise something to height = E = m * g (gravitational constant) * h = 1000 * 9.8 * 9.8 = 96,040 watts-seconds = 96 kilowatts to do this in one second. So it agrees with the previous result. So, I don't understand how any device could hover an object with the mass of a tonne for less than a theoretical 48 kilowatts. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. Craig Haynie ( Manchester, NH) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
In reply to Craig Haynie's message of Sun, 10 May 2015 23:19:42 -0400: Hi, I'm suggesting that in theory no energy is required as long as there is no movement. IOW he creates a force, but as long as that force doesn't act over a distance, then it need do no work. E = F x d; F = m x a. E = m x a x d. You have calculated the mass times acceleration part of it. OTOH a rocket would most definitely expend energy just to hover, as do helicopters etc. but they also accelerate mass downward to produce the thrust (air in the case of helicopters). So I think it just depends on exactly how the thrust is generated, i.e. how the drive interacts with the space-time continuum. His claim is 1 tonne of thrust per kilowatt. One tonne of thrust will accelerate an object. An object under the acceleration of gravity will be countered by the thrust, costing 48 kilowatts of power in the process. This is not the same as suspending an object by a rope or something. Are you suggesting that there is no theoretical limit as to how much power, applied as thrust, is needed to suspend an object weighing a tonne? Or are you suggesting that my math is wrong and that there is a lower number? If the number is lower, then how do you arrive at it? Craig On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 10:48 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Craig Haynie's message of Sun, 10 May 2015 18:07:28 -0400: Hi, [snip] It doesn't cost any energy at all to support a car. The ground does this just fine with no energy expenditure. E = F . d. If d = 0, then E = 0. I'm not sure how this applies to an EM drive (if at all), but perhaps it needs to be taken into consideration? Hello! I was hoping the Vorts could help me with this. Roger Shawyer, at minute 2:56 in this video, claims that the next generation EM Drive could generation 1 tonne of thrust per kilowatt of power. This means that a 1 tonne car should be able to hover above the ground for the price of one kilowatt. However, my calculation shows that to be about 48 times a theoretical maximum. Here is the video where he makes the claim at 2:56. http://tinyurl.com/ko5v6h7 But here is my calculation for a theoretical maximum, calculated two different ways: - A joule is a watt-second - A watt is a joule / second - The power required to hover an object is the same power required to increase the speed of the object from rest, in a weightless environment, to 9.8 m/s in one second. We know this because the pull of gravity is 9.8 meters/second2. - The kinetic energy in an object travelling at 9.8 m/s = 1/2 * m * v2. So for a car of 1000 kg, the energy = 1000 / 2 * 9.82 = 48,020 joules = 48 kilowatts to do this in one second. - This power should be 1/2 the power to raise an object of the same mass, to a height of 9.8 meters in one second, since it would require twice as much energy to do this. - The formula to determining how much energy it takes to raise something to height = E = m * g (gravitational constant) * h = 1000 * 9.8 * 9.8 = 96,040 watts-seconds = 96 kilowatts to do this in one second. So it agrees with the previous result. So, I don't understand how any device could hover an object with the mass of a tonne for less than a theoretical 48 kilowatts. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. Craig Haynie ( Manchester, NH) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
IOW he creates a force, but as long as that force doesn't act over a distance, then it need do no work. I'm the one who suggests that the thrust created by the EM Drive could be used to levitate an object. Shawyer is saying that the EM Drive could create 1 tonne of thrust for 1 kilowatt of power, implying that this thrust would be used to accelerate a spacecraft. He's not siting these numbers as an example of levitation. So he's implying that the thrust will be used to do work, and therefore should not be able to violate a theoretical amount of power needed to do that work. On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 11:35 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Craig Haynie's message of Sun, 10 May 2015 23:19:42 -0400: Hi, I'm suggesting that in theory no energy is required as long as there is no movement. IOW he creates a force, but as long as that force doesn't act over a distance, then it need do no work. E = F x d; F = m x a. E = m x a x d. You have calculated the mass times acceleration part of it. OTOH a rocket would most definitely expend energy just to hover, as do helicopters etc. but they also accelerate mass downward to produce the thrust (air in the case of helicopters). So I think it just depends on exactly how the thrust is generated, i.e. how the drive interacts with the space-time continuum. His claim is 1 tonne of thrust per kilowatt. One tonne of thrust will accelerate an object. An object under the acceleration of gravity will be countered by the thrust, costing 48 kilowatts of power in the process. This is not the same as suspending an object by a rope or something. Are you suggesting that there is no theoretical limit as to how much power, applied as thrust, is needed to suspend an object weighing a tonne? Or are you suggesting that my math is wrong and that there is a lower number? If the number is lower, then how do you arrive at it? Craig On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 10:48 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Craig Haynie's message of Sun, 10 May 2015 18:07:28 -0400: Hi, [snip] It doesn't cost any energy at all to support a car. The ground does this just fine with no energy expenditure. E = F . d. If d = 0, then E = 0. I'm not sure how this applies to an EM drive (if at all), but perhaps it needs to be taken into consideration? Hello! I was hoping the Vorts could help me with this. Roger Shawyer, at minute 2:56 in this video, claims that the next generation EM Drive could generation 1 tonne of thrust per kilowatt of power. This means that a 1 tonne car should be able to hover above the ground for the price of one kilowatt. However, my calculation shows that to be about 48 times a theoretical maximum. Here is the video where he makes the claim at 2:56. http://tinyurl.com/ko5v6h7 But here is my calculation for a theoretical maximum, calculated two different ways: - A joule is a watt-second - A watt is a joule / second - The power required to hover an object is the same power required to increase the speed of the object from rest, in a weightless environment, to 9.8 m/s in one second. We know this because the pull of gravity is 9.8 meters/second2. - The kinetic energy in an object travelling at 9.8 m/s = 1/2 * m * v2. So for a car of 1000 kg, the energy = 1000 / 2 * 9.82 = 48,020 joules = 48 kilowatts to do this in one second. - This power should be 1/2 the power to raise an object of the same mass, to a height of 9.8 meters in one second, since it would require twice as much energy to do this. - The formula to determining how much energy it takes to raise something to height = E = m * g (gravitational constant) * h = 1000 * 9.8 * 9.8 = 96,040 watts-seconds = 96 kilowatts to do this in one second. So it agrees with the previous result. So, I don't understand how any device could hover an object with the mass of a tonne for less than a theoretical 48 kilowatts. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. Craig Haynie ( Manchester, NH) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
In reply to Craig Haynie's message of Sun, 10 May 2015 23:43:04 -0400: Hi, IOW he creates a force, but as long as that force doesn't act over a distance, then it need do no work. I'm the one who suggests that the thrust created by the EM Drive could be used to levitate an object. Shawyer is saying that the EM Drive could create 1 tonne of thrust for 1 kilowatt of power, implying that this thrust would be used to accelerate a spacecraft. He's not siting these numbers as an example of levitation. So he's implying that the thrust will be used to do work, and therefore should not be able to violate a theoretical amount of power needed to do that work. ...but he isn't stating how much work is done, and hence how much power would be required. He is just saying that his device even at it's most efficient still requires that some power be expended to create a force, even though in theory no power expenditure is required to create a force, see e.g. gravity , or even a simple spring, which will happily create a constant force, without expending any energy. IOW the (in)efficiency of the device is what causes the power requirement. What I am trying to say is that the power requirement that he gives, is for a device doing no work. If it has to do work as well, then the power requirement will increase accordingly. Consider for a moment the ultimate form of the drive, which is constructed from a perfect superconductor with a consequent infinite Q. As the Q increases so does the force. Or looked at from a different perspective, the power requirement to obtain a given force decreases as the Q increases. IOW in a perfect device, the power requirement would approach zero (as long as no additional work need be done). Which is exactly what a spring does. (And also a current in a superconducting loop BTW.) BTW, IIRC (it was some time ago that I read this) he does say somewhere that the power consumption changes as work is done, and that consequently the limits on the input power also limit the amount of work that can be done. Note also that the tests to date, have been done on stationary devices, i.e. anchored to the work bench, so that they could not move (as I understand it), and hence did no work. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
Ok, well if it is used for static thrust only, it is then a coin toss if it would work opposing gravity as static on the surface of the earth experiences 1G of acceleration. According to the equivalence principle... On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Robin. You're right. He does say that this force of 1 tonne per kilowatt is for 'static thrust'. I found an answer from the website. He is referring specifically to a 'static thrust', not used to do work. The static thrust/power ratio is calculated assuming a superconducting EmDrive with a Q of 5 x 109. This Q value is routinely achieved in superconducting cavities. Note however, because the EmDrive obeys the law of conservation of energy, this thrust/power ratio rapidly decreases if the EmDrive is used to accelerate the vehicle along the thrust vector. (See Equation 16 of the theory paper). Whilst the EmDrive can provide lift to counter gravity, (and is therefore not losing kinetic energy), auxiliary propulsion is required to provide the kinetic energy to accelerate the vehicle. Craig On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 12:19 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Craig Haynie's message of Sun, 10 May 2015 23:43:04 -0400: Hi, IOW he creates a force, but as long as that force doesn't act over a distance, then it need do no work. I'm the one who suggests that the thrust created by the EM Drive could be used to levitate an object. Shawyer is saying that the EM Drive could create 1 tonne of thrust for 1 kilowatt of power, implying that this thrust would be used to accelerate a spacecraft. He's not siting these numbers as an example of levitation. So he's implying that the thrust will be used to do work, and therefore should not be able to violate a theoretical amount of power needed to do that work. ...but he isn't stating how much work is done, and hence how much power would be required. He is just saying that his device even at it's most efficient still requires that some power be expended to create a force, even though in theory no power expenditure is required to create a force, see e.g. gravity , or even a simple spring, which will happily create a constant force, without expending any energy. IOW the (in)efficiency of the device is what causes the power requirement. What I am trying to say is that the power requirement that he gives, is for a device doing no work. If it has to do work as well, then the power requirement will increase accordingly. Consider for a moment the ultimate form of the drive, which is constructed from a perfect superconductor with a consequent infinite Q. As the Q increases so does the force. Or looked at from a different perspective, the power requirement to obtain a given force decreases as the Q increases. IOW in a perfect device, the power requirement would approach zero (as long as no additional work need be done). Which is exactly what a spring does. (And also a current in a superconducting loop BTW.) BTW, IIRC (it was some time ago that I read this) he does say somewhere that the power consumption changes as work is done, and that consequently the limits on the input power also limit the amount of work that can be done. Note also that the tests to date, have been done on stationary devices, i.e. anchored to the work bench, so that they could not move (as I understand it), and hence did no work. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
Thanks Robin. You're right. He does say that this force of 1 tonne per kilowatt is for 'static thrust'. I found an answer from the website. He is referring specifically to a 'static thrust', not used to do work. The static thrust/power ratio is calculated assuming a superconducting EmDrive with a Q of 5 x 109. This Q value is routinely achieved in superconducting cavities. Note however, because the EmDrive obeys the law of conservation of energy, this thrust/power ratio rapidly decreases if the EmDrive is used to accelerate the vehicle along the thrust vector. (See Equation 16 of the theory paper). Whilst the EmDrive can provide lift to counter gravity, (and is therefore not losing kinetic energy), auxiliary propulsion is required to provide the kinetic energy to accelerate the vehicle. Craig On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 12:19 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Craig Haynie's message of Sun, 10 May 2015 23:43:04 -0400: Hi, IOW he creates a force, but as long as that force doesn't act over a distance, then it need do no work. I'm the one who suggests that the thrust created by the EM Drive could be used to levitate an object. Shawyer is saying that the EM Drive could create 1 tonne of thrust for 1 kilowatt of power, implying that this thrust would be used to accelerate a spacecraft. He's not siting these numbers as an example of levitation. So he's implying that the thrust will be used to do work, and therefore should not be able to violate a theoretical amount of power needed to do that work. ...but he isn't stating how much work is done, and hence how much power would be required. He is just saying that his device even at it's most efficient still requires that some power be expended to create a force, even though in theory no power expenditure is required to create a force, see e.g. gravity , or even a simple spring, which will happily create a constant force, without expending any energy. IOW the (in)efficiency of the device is what causes the power requirement. What I am trying to say is that the power requirement that he gives, is for a device doing no work. If it has to do work as well, then the power requirement will increase accordingly. Consider for a moment the ultimate form of the drive, which is constructed from a perfect superconductor with a consequent infinite Q. As the Q increases so does the force. Or looked at from a different perspective, the power requirement to obtain a given force decreases as the Q increases. IOW in a perfect device, the power requirement would approach zero (as long as no additional work need be done). Which is exactly what a spring does. (And also a current in a superconducting loop BTW.) BTW, IIRC (it was some time ago that I read this) he does say somewhere that the power consumption changes as work is done, and that consequently the limits on the input power also limit the amount of work that can be done. Note also that the tests to date, have been done on stationary devices, i.e. anchored to the work bench, so that they could not move (as I understand it), and hence did no work. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
A reactionless drive tends to break the conservation of energy by just existing. Since there is no equal and opposite energy does not balance, double the velocity would be achieved with double the energy but yield 4 times the stored energy, eventually that leads to excess energy out. Now in the case of a non-moving hover, a reactionless thrust against gravity would not build up any energy, it gains no velocity or height and would not be entirely dissimilar to a superconducting hover, or orbital velocity. Except if it operates the same in free space or in any other direction then yes it would breach the conservation of energy but by default this tends to occur anyway. John On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 3:35 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Craig Haynie's message of Sun, 10 May 2015 23:19:42 -0400: Hi, I'm suggesting that in theory no energy is required as long as there is no movement. IOW he creates a force, but as long as that force doesn't act over a distance, then it need do no work. E = F x d; F = m x a. E = m x a x d. You have calculated the mass times acceleration part of it. OTOH a rocket would most definitely expend energy just to hover, as do helicopters etc. but they also accelerate mass downward to produce the thrust (air in the case of helicopters). So I think it just depends on exactly how the thrust is generated, i.e. how the drive interacts with the space-time continuum. His claim is 1 tonne of thrust per kilowatt. One tonne of thrust will accelerate an object. An object under the acceleration of gravity will be countered by the thrust, costing 48 kilowatts of power in the process. This is not the same as suspending an object by a rope or something. Are you suggesting that there is no theoretical limit as to how much power, applied as thrust, is needed to suspend an object weighing a tonne? Or are you suggesting that my math is wrong and that there is a lower number? If the number is lower, then how do you arrive at it? Craig On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 10:48 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Craig Haynie's message of Sun, 10 May 2015 18:07:28 -0400: Hi, [snip] It doesn't cost any energy at all to support a car. The ground does this just fine with no energy expenditure. E = F . d. If d = 0, then E = 0. I'm not sure how this applies to an EM drive (if at all), but perhaps it needs to be taken into consideration? Hello! I was hoping the Vorts could help me with this. Roger Shawyer, at minute 2:56 in this video, claims that the next generation EM Drive could generation 1 tonne of thrust per kilowatt of power. This means that a 1 tonne car should be able to hover above the ground for the price of one kilowatt. However, my calculation shows that to be about 48 times a theoretical maximum. Here is the video where he makes the claim at 2:56. http://tinyurl.com/ko5v6h7 But here is my calculation for a theoretical maximum, calculated two different ways: - A joule is a watt-second - A watt is a joule / second - The power required to hover an object is the same power required to increase the speed of the object from rest, in a weightless environment, to 9.8 m/s in one second. We know this because the pull of gravity is 9.8 meters/second2. - The kinetic energy in an object travelling at 9.8 m/s = 1/2 * m * v2. So for a car of 1000 kg, the energy = 1000 / 2 * 9.82 = 48,020 joules = 48 kilowatts to do this in one second. - This power should be 1/2 the power to raise an object of the same mass, to a height of 9.8 meters in one second, since it would require twice as much energy to do this. - The formula to determining how much energy it takes to raise something to height = E = m * g (gravitational constant) * h = 1000 * 9.8 * 9.8 = 96,040 watts-seconds = 96 kilowatts to do this in one second. So it agrees with the previous result. So, I don't understand how any device could hover an object with the mass of a tonne for less than a theoretical 48 kilowatts. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. Craig Haynie ( Manchester, NH) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
Hello! I was hoping the Vorts could help me with this. Roger Shawyer, at minute 2:56 in this video, claims that the next generation EM Drive could generation 1 tonne of thrust per kilowatt of power. This means that a 1 tonne car should be able to hover above the ground for the price of one kilowatt. However, my calculation shows that to be about 48 times a theoretical maximum. Here is the video where he makes the claim at 2:56. http://tinyurl.com/ko5v6h7 But here is my calculation for a theoretical maximum, calculated two different ways: - A joule is a watt-second - A watt is a joule / second - The power required to hover an object is the same power required to increase the speed of the object from rest, in a weightless environment, to 9.8 m/s in one second. We know this because the pull of gravity is 9.8 meters/second2. - The kinetic energy in an object travelling at 9.8 m/s = 1/2 * m * v2. So for a car of 1000 kg, the energy = 1000 / 2 * 9.82 = 48,020 joules = 48 kilowatts to do this in one second. - This power should be 1/2 the power to raise an object of the same mass, to a height of 9.8 meters in one second, since it would require twice as much energy to do this. - The formula to determining how much energy it takes to raise something to height = E = m * g (gravitational constant) * h = 1000 * 9.8 * 9.8 = 96,040 watts-seconds = 96 kilowatts to do this in one second. So it agrees with the previous result. So, I don't understand how any device could hover an object with the mass of a tonne for less than a theoretical 48 kilowatts. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. Craig Haynie ( Manchester, NH)
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
His claim is 1 tonne of thrust per kilowatt. One tonne of thrust will accelerate an object. An object under the acceleration of gravity will be countered by the thrust, costing 48 kilowatts of power in the process. This is not the same as suspending an object by a rope or something. Are you suggesting that there is no theoretical limit as to how much power, applied as thrust, is needed to suspend an object weighing a tonne? Or are you suggesting that my math is wrong and that there is a lower number? If the number is lower, then how do you arrive at it? Craig On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 10:48 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Craig Haynie's message of Sun, 10 May 2015 18:07:28 -0400: Hi, [snip] It doesn't cost any energy at all to support a car. The ground does this just fine with no energy expenditure. E = F . d. If d = 0, then E = 0. I'm not sure how this applies to an EM drive (if at all), but perhaps it needs to be taken into consideration? Hello! I was hoping the Vorts could help me with this. Roger Shawyer, at minute 2:56 in this video, claims that the next generation EM Drive could generation 1 tonne of thrust per kilowatt of power. This means that a 1 tonne car should be able to hover above the ground for the price of one kilowatt. However, my calculation shows that to be about 48 times a theoretical maximum. Here is the video where he makes the claim at 2:56. http://tinyurl.com/ko5v6h7 But here is my calculation for a theoretical maximum, calculated two different ways: - A joule is a watt-second - A watt is a joule / second - The power required to hover an object is the same power required to increase the speed of the object from rest, in a weightless environment, to 9.8 m/s in one second. We know this because the pull of gravity is 9.8 meters/second2. - The kinetic energy in an object travelling at 9.8 m/s = 1/2 * m * v2. So for a car of 1000 kg, the energy = 1000 / 2 * 9.82 = 48,020 joules = 48 kilowatts to do this in one second. - This power should be 1/2 the power to raise an object of the same mass, to a height of 9.8 meters in one second, since it would require twice as much energy to do this. - The formula to determining how much energy it takes to raise something to height = E = m * g (gravitational constant) * h = 1000 * 9.8 * 9.8 = 96,040 watts-seconds = 96 kilowatts to do this in one second. So it agrees with the previous result. So, I don't understand how any device could hover an object with the mass of a tonne for less than a theoretical 48 kilowatts. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. Craig Haynie ( Manchester, NH) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
In reply to Craig Haynie's message of Sun, 10 May 2015 18:07:28 -0400: Hi, [snip] It doesn't cost any energy at all to support a car. The ground does this just fine with no energy expenditure. E = F . d. If d = 0, then E = 0. I'm not sure how this applies to an EM drive (if at all), but perhaps it needs to be taken into consideration? Hello! I was hoping the Vorts could help me with this. Roger Shawyer, at minute 2:56 in this video, claims that the next generation EM Drive could generation 1 tonne of thrust per kilowatt of power. This means that a 1 tonne car should be able to hover above the ground for the price of one kilowatt. However, my calculation shows that to be about 48 times a theoretical maximum. Here is the video where he makes the claim at 2:56. http://tinyurl.com/ko5v6h7 But here is my calculation for a theoretical maximum, calculated two different ways: - A joule is a watt-second - A watt is a joule / second - The power required to hover an object is the same power required to increase the speed of the object from rest, in a weightless environment, to 9.8 m/s in one second. We know this because the pull of gravity is 9.8 meters/second2. - The kinetic energy in an object travelling at 9.8 m/s = 1/2 * m * v2. So for a car of 1000 kg, the energy = 1000 / 2 * 9.82 = 48,020 joules = 48 kilowatts to do this in one second. - This power should be 1/2 the power to raise an object of the same mass, to a height of 9.8 meters in one second, since it would require twice as much energy to do this. - The formula to determining how much energy it takes to raise something to height = E = m * g (gravitational constant) * h = 1000 * 9.8 * 9.8 = 96,040 watts-seconds = 96 kilowatts to do this in one second. So it agrees with the previous result. So, I don't understand how any device could hover an object with the mass of a tonne for less than a theoretical 48 kilowatts. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. Craig Haynie ( Manchester, NH) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
