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

2016-03-26 Thread Bob Cook 

Dave--

Your right.  I got the P's mixed up.

Bob

-Original Message- 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2016 1:13 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Sat, 26 Mar 2016 12:20:53 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]

Dave--

Puthoff I think made a machine that produced a gravity pulse, which 
displaced things at a distance and apparently traveled at a velocity 
greater than light—I think it was reported to be 64 times c.


I think that's Podkletnov not Puthoff.
(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov)
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

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

2016-03-26 Thread mixent 
In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Sat, 26 Mar 2016 12:20:53 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Dave--
>
>Puthoff I think made a machine that produced a gravity pulse, which displaced 
>things at a distance and apparently traveled at a velocity greater than 
>light—I think it was reported to be 64 times c.

I think that's Podkletnov not Puthoff. 
(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov)
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

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

2016-03-26 Thread Bob Cook 
Dave--

Puthoff I think made a machine that produced a gravity pulse, which displaced 
things at a distance and apparently traveled at a velocity greater than light—I 
think it was reported to be 64 times c.

If an EM drive produced such a pulse it would seem to have some effective mass, 
given its ability to carry momentum per the Puthoff  reports.  

Bob Cook

From: David Roberson 
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 2:15 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

It is true that the car will eventually come to a rest in its reference frame 
once its fuel is exhausted.  But, observers in other frames will notice that it 
has kinetic energy and momentum gained during the acceleration period.  They 
can all determine that the car mass and energy plus the energy that it imparted 
to other objects during its motion adds up to the beginning amount of mass and 
energy.  This is clearly a different situation than that expected for an EM 
drive vehicle.

You should note that the car we are discussing is not capable of accelerating 
unless it is using a road or some electromagnetic force that is not terminated 
within the car itself.  That other object acts as the reaction matter that 
replaces the exhausted fuel of the rocket concept.  An EM drive operating in 
deep space does not have any tangible object to generate a force against.

If someone can show that the EM drive interacts with the earth's gravitational 
field in a manner that generates a force then perhaps that might make sense.   
Of course, then the earth would act as the reaction mass.  So far I do not 
recall that being seriously discussed.

I suppose that an EM drive that generates gravitational waves and radiates them 
out the rear would offer a possibility.  The recent detection of these waves 
from the black hole combination radiated an enormous amount of energy and thus 
mass into space.   The radiation converted PE of the pair into radiation that 
is difficult to detect.  But, at least the magnitude of the missing mass is 
accounted for in the energy of the radiation.

I remain skeptical that EM drives are a reality but it does little damage to 
speculate upon some possible modes of operation.  If they eventually are proven 
real then my bets are that some form of measurable reaction mass equivalent is 
involved.

Dave





-Original Message-
From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 4:26 pm
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:58:43 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>Of course the EM drive ship that remains in this extreme case(actually nothing 
>at all if zero exhaust is present) is at rest which means it has zero kinetic 
>energy relative to itself. Again, this is not a problem for a normal rocket 
>that spits out reaction mass. In that case all the missing mass and energy can 
>be located by analyzing the exhaust stream. This is true regardless of what 
>reference frame you choose. A normal rocket obeys CoE and CoM whereas the EM 
>Drive ship does not.

An electric car speeding down the road will also eventually exhaust all it's
stored energy, while remaining motionless in it's own rest frame (BTW everything
is always motionless in it's own rest frame, that's why it's called "rest"),
nevertheless it has considerable kinetic energy relative to the road. I fail to
see the difference between this and the EM drive vehicle. Note that the car used
it's energy to change the relationship between it's own frame of reference and
that of it's surroundings. So did the EM drive vehicle.

Kinetic energy always depends on the frame of reference chosen. When either
vehicle starts out with a full fuel load, the "correct" frame of reference is
the initial frame in which the "fuel tank" was full. If we stick to that frame
instead of swapping and changing when we feel like it, then the kinetic energy
gained, as the fuel is used, becomes apparent.

For the EM drive ship, the "exhaust" is the universe itself. Just think of
spacetime as invisible "train tracks", and it all becomes clear.

(Made beautifully visible in a Dr. Who episode about the Orient Express. :) )

Acceleration requires force, and all lines of force have two ends. If one end is
attached to the EM drive, then the other end must be attached to something. The
only thing that would make sense is the fabric of spacetime itself.
In short IMO, if it works at all, then this is how it would have to work.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

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

2016-03-20 Thread David Roberson 
If nothing is remaining of the ship then it can not have a finite value of 
kinetic energy relative to any observer.  Remember this was an example of 
carrying the process to the extreme.  That technique can point out problems in 
many visual concepts.

If you apply the same technique to a normal rocket then all of the original 
energy and mass can be accounted for in the exhaust.  Nothing vanishes.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 12:36 pm
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

Relative to its initial state it has gained kinetic energy. If the
Emdrive needs and external source of energy then it may work by
preserving CoE but by violating CoM.

Harry

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:58 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> Of course the EM drive ship that remains in this extreme case(actually
> nothing at all if zero exhaust is present) is at rest which means it has
> zero kinetic energy relative to itself.  Again, this is not a problem for a
> normal rocket that spits out reaction mass.  In that case all the missing
> mass and energy can be located by analyzing the exhaust stream.  This is
> true regardless of what reference frame you choose.  A normal rocket obeys
> CoE and CoM whereas the EM Drive ship does not.
>
> If it can be shown that the EM drive emits its mass in the form of radiation
> out the exhaust then all is well.  But thus far it is suggested that nothing
> is performing that function.
>
> Dave
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Wed, Mar 16, 2016 9:29 pm
> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
>
> In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:19:13 -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>>When might somehow be important but if you take the process to the extreme
>> you get a result that doesn't make any sense. For example, if the spaceship
>> continues to use up its mass in a constant acceleration process that
>> requires power and thus energy to be expended for the drive, then eventually
>> there will be no mass left at all. All of the original mass is lost if this
>> takes place. That does not make sense.
>
> The process stops, when all the mass has been converted into kinetic energy.
>
> The only thing I know of that only has kinetic energy and no mass is EM
> radiation.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>

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

2016-03-20 Thread ChemE Stewart 
Question:-

"Why would gravity warp spacetime, but not electric and magnetic fields?
According to Axil and Fran, they warp spacetime big time. (SPPs) ;)"



*http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.08377.pdf *

*"Starting from a five dimensional Kaluza-Klein theory, which is toroidally
compactified to yield an effective four dimensional dilaton-Maxwell theory,
we find exact background solutions describing a dilatonic domain wall which
entraps magnetic flux, which has previously been described by Gibbons and
Wells [1]. This type of domain wall is interesting, not only because it
traps magnetic flux, but also because it is nontopological in origin, i.e.,
the solution is not stabilized by a nontrivial topology of the vacuum
manifold. "*

*My best guess at a "low pressure" Vacuum Manifold:*

*https://sdsimonson.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/waterspout-sunset-key-1.jpg
*


*https://i.imgur.com/gotFHg0.jpg *
*The vacuum ain't stable*


On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 4:27 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Fri, 18 Mar 2016 22:20:20 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 3:19 PM,  wrote:
> >
> >If the presence of an object warps spacetime (General Relativity), then
> >> something must be present to warp?
> >>
> >
> >General relativity provides a unified description of gravity and
> >spacetime.  The EM Drive makes use first and foremost of the
> >electromagnetic interaction.  What about the EM Drive would be causing the
> >warping of spacetime?
> >
> >Eric
>
> The interactions between photons and spacetime? Just guessing.
>
> Question:-
>
> Why would gravity warp spacetime, but not electric and magnetic fields?
> According to Axil and Fran, they warp spacetime big time. (SPPs) ;)
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

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

2016-03-20 Thread mixent 
In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 15:00:38 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Robin's example of the electric car is different than the EM drive since it 
>allows the evaluation of the conservation of momentum.  The road increases 
>its momentum in the opposite direction the car does.  In the EM case there 
>is no apparent conservation of momentum--at least I do not know how to 
>calculate it.  Does the entire space time existence change its momentum? 
>Maybe Robin could identify how momentum is conserved in the EM drive.
>
>Bob Cook

See my reply to David. Everyone is making the assumption that a force can only
act against another object, because that has always been our experience. This
may be the first tangible experience of a force acting against the vacuum
itself, rather than another object.

If we can warp spacetime, we can also push against it.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

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

2016-03-20 Thread mixent 
In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 21:36:33 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>So the vacuum's momentum changes in the opposite direction of the increased 
>momentum of the ship.  The issue is COM in my mind, not an absolute increase 
>in momentum.  That suggests  momentum is not conserved.
>
>bob Cook

If you are able to push against spacetime, why would momentum not be conserved?
Imagine pushing against the mass of the entire universe.

Another useful visual model might be a group of ice-skaters. You can move by
pushing or pulling another skater, but you can also move by pushing a sharp
object into the ice and pushing against that. Perhaps the EM drive is a sharp
object?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

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

2016-03-19 Thread mixent 
In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Fri, 18 Mar 2016 22:20:20 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 3:19 PM,  wrote:
>
>If the presence of an object warps spacetime (General Relativity), then
>> something must be present to warp?
>>
>
>General relativity provides a unified description of gravity and
>spacetime.  The EM Drive makes use first and foremost of the
>electromagnetic interaction.  What about the EM Drive would be causing the
>warping of spacetime?
>
>Eric

The interactions between photons and spacetime? Just guessing.

Question:-

Why would gravity warp spacetime, but not electric and magnetic fields?
According to Axil and Fran, they warp spacetime big time. (SPPs) ;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

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

2016-03-19 Thread Bob Cook 
Harry--

If the space ship is between galaxies looking at star will be of no help.  The 
will are be observed as receding from you given the expansion of space.  And 
what’s more, how does an accelerometer work that must contend with an 
increasing space volume as one is trying to accelerate?  If there is a 
measurable gravitational field you would conclude you are it would be getting 
smaller with time, assuming time is not expanding with the space.  Unless your 
EM drive would go faster than the expansion of space you would be lost for 
ever.  We are lucky that space within a galaxy does not expand like space 
between galaxies as we know happens according to the Big Bang theory.  Anybody 
traveling between galaxies should stay away from the boundary that separates 
him from a zone of  expansion of space that is more than his ship can handle.  

Bob Cook

Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 3:42 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

People riding in a Emdrive  spaceship could compare their motion to background 
stars before and after the acceleration to determine how much their speed has 
changed. Or they could use an onboard accelerometer to compute their new 
velocity from the prior period of acceleration.

As you pointed out all the tests todate use an external energy supply so until 
the drive operates with an onboard energy supply I think it is also plausible 
to say it may only work with an external energy supply. The external energy 
supply might create acceleration by *increasing* the mass of the drive instead 
of reducing the mass of the drive. Figuratively speaking the drive would "suck".

On Mar 17, 2016 12:56 PM, "David Roberson" <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

  If nothing is remaining of the ship then it can not have a finite value of 
kinetic energy relative to any observer.  Remember this was an example of 
carrying the process to the extreme.  That technique can point out problems in 
many visual concepts.

  If you apply the same technique to a normal rocket then all of the original 
energy and mass can be accounted for in the exhaust.  Nothing vanishes.

  Dave




  -Original Message-
  From: H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com>
  To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
  Sent: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 12:36 pm
  Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

  Relative to its initial state it has gained kinetic energy. If the
  Emdrive needs and external source of energy then it may work by
  preserving CoE but by violating CoM.

  Harry

  On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:58 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
  > Of course the EM drive ship that remains in this extreme case(actually
  > nothing at all if zero exhaust is present) is at rest which means it has
  > zero kinetic energy relative to itself. Again, this is not a problem for a
  > normal rocket that spits out reaction mass. In that case all the missing
  > mass and energy can be located by analyzing the exhaust stream. This is
  > true regardless of what reference frame you choose. A normal rocket obeys
  > CoE and CoM whereas the EM Drive ship does not.
  >
  > If it can be shown that the EM drive emits its mass in the form of radiation
  > out the exhaust then all is well. But thus far it is suggested that nothing
  > is performing that function.
  >
  > Dave
  >
  > -Original Message-
  > From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com>
  > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
  > Sent: Wed, Mar 16, 2016 9:29 pm
  > Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
  >
  > In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:19:13 -0400:
  > Hi,
  > [snip]
  >>When might somehow be important but if you take the process to the extreme
  >> you get a result that doesn't make any sense. For example, if the spaceship
  >> continues to use up its mass in a constant acceleration process that
  >> requires power and thus energy to be expended for the drive, then 
eventually
  >> there will be no mass left at all. All of the original mass is lost if this
  >> takes place. That does not make sense.
  >
  > The process stops, when all the mass has been converted into kinetic energy.
  >
  > The only thing I know of that only has kinetic energy and no mass is EM
  > radiation.
  >
  > Regards,
  >
  > Robin van Spaandonk
  >
  > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
  >

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

2016-03-19 Thread Bob Cook 
Robin's example of the electric car is different than the EM drive since it 
allows the evaluation of the conservation of momentum.  The road increases 
its momentum in the opposite direction the car does.  In the EM case there 
is no apparent conservation of momentum--at least I do not know how to 
calculate it.  Does the entire space time existence change its momentum? 
Maybe Robin could identify how momentum is conserved in the EM drive.


Bob Cook

-Original Message- 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 1:26 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:58:43 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
Of course the EM drive ship that remains in this extreme case(actually 
nothing at all if zero exhaust is present) is at rest which means it has 
zero kinetic energy relative to itself.  Again, this is not a problem for a 
normal rocket that spits out reaction mass.  In that case all the missing 
mass and energy can be located by analyzing the exhaust stream.  This is 
true regardless of what reference frame you choose.  A normal rocket obeys 
CoE and CoM whereas the EM Drive ship does not.


An electric car speeding down the road will also eventually exhaust all it's
stored energy, while remaining motionless in it's own rest frame (BTW 
everything

is always motionless in it's own rest frame, that's why it's called "rest"),
nevertheless it has considerable kinetic energy relative to the road. I fail 
to
see the difference between this and the EM drive vehicle. Note that the car 
used
it's energy to change the relationship between it's own frame of reference 
and

that of it's surroundings. So did the EM drive vehicle.

Kinetic energy always depends on the frame of reference chosen. When either
vehicle starts out with a full fuel load, the "correct" frame of reference 
is
the initial frame in which the "fuel tank" was full. If we stick to that 
frame
instead of swapping and changing when we feel like it, then the kinetic 
energy

gained, as the fuel is used, becomes apparent.

For the EM drive ship, the "exhaust" is the universe itself. Just think of
spacetime as invisible "train tracks", and it all becomes clear.

(Made beautifully visible in a Dr. Who episode about the Orient Express. 
:) )


Acceleration requires force, and all lines of force have two ends. If one 
end is
attached to the EM drive, then the other end must be attached to something. 
The

only thing that would make sense is the fabric of spacetime itself.
In short IMO, if it works at all, then this is how it would have to work.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

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

2016-03-19 Thread mixent 
In reply to  David Roberson's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:58:43 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>Of course the EM drive ship that remains in this extreme case(actually nothing 
>at all if zero exhaust is present) is at rest which means it has zero kinetic 
>energy relative to itself.  Again, this is not a problem for a normal rocket 
>that spits out reaction mass.  In that case all the missing mass and energy 
>can be located by analyzing the exhaust stream.  This is true regardless of 
>what reference frame you choose.  A normal rocket obeys CoE and CoM whereas 
>the EM Drive ship does not.

An electric car speeding down the road will also eventually exhaust all it's
stored energy, while remaining motionless in it's own rest frame (BTW everything
is always motionless in it's own rest frame, that's why it's called "rest"),
nevertheless it has considerable kinetic energy relative to the road. I fail to
see the difference between this and the EM drive vehicle. Note that the car used
it's energy to change the relationship between it's own frame of reference and
that of it's surroundings. So did the EM drive vehicle.

Kinetic energy always depends on the frame of reference chosen. When either
vehicle starts out with a full fuel load, the "correct" frame of reference is
the initial frame in which the "fuel tank" was full. If we stick to that frame
instead of swapping and changing when we feel like it, then the kinetic energy
gained, as the fuel is used, becomes apparent.

For the EM drive ship, the "exhaust" is the universe itself. Just think of
spacetime as invisible "train tracks", and it all becomes clear.

(Made beautifully visible in a Dr. Who episode about the Orient Express. :) )

Acceleration requires force, and all lines of force have two ends. If one end is
attached to the EM drive, then the other end must be attached to something. The
only thing that would make sense is the fabric of spacetime itself.
In short IMO, if it works at all, then this is how it would have to work.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

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

2016-03-19 Thread H LV 
People riding in a Emdrive  spaceship could compare their motion to
background stars before and after the acceleration to determine how much
their speed has changed. Or they could use an onboard accelerometer to
compute their new velocity from the prior period of acceleration.

As you pointed out all the tests todate use an external energy supply so
until the drive operates with an onboard energy supply I think it is also
plausible to say it may only work with an external energy supply. The
external energy supply might create acceleration by *increasing* the mass
of the drive instead of reducing the mass of the drive. Figuratively
speaking the drive would "suck".
On Mar 17, 2016 12:56 PM, "David Roberson" <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

> If nothing is remaining of the ship then it can not have a finite value of
> kinetic energy relative to any observer.  Remember this was an example of
> carrying the process to the extreme.  That technique can point out problems
> in many visual concepts.
>
> If you apply the same technique to a normal rocket then all of the
> original energy and mass can be accounted for in the exhaust.  Nothing
> vanishes.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 12:36 pm
> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
>
> Relative to its initial state it has gained kinetic energy. If the
> Emdrive needs and external source of energy then it may work by
> preserving CoE but by violating CoM.
>
> Harry
>
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:58 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
> wrote:
> > Of course the EM drive ship that remains in this extreme case(actually
> > nothing at all if zero exhaust is present) is at rest which means it has
> > zero kinetic energy relative to itself. Again, this is not a problem for
> a
> > normal rocket that spits out reaction mass. In that case all the missing
> > mass and energy can be located by analyzing the exhaust stream. This is
> > true regardless of what reference frame you choose. A normal rocket obeys
> > CoE and CoM whereas the EM Drive ship does not.
> >
> > If it can be shown that the EM drive emits its mass in the form of
> radiation
> > out the exhaust then all is well. But thus far it is suggested that
> nothing
> > is performing that function.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com>
> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> > Sent: Wed, Mar 16, 2016 9:29 pm
> > Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
> >
> > In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:19:13 -0400:
> > Hi,
> > [snip]
> >>When might somehow be important but if you take the process to the
> extreme
> >> you get a result that doesn't make any sense. For example, if the
> spaceship
> >> continues to use up its mass in a constant acceleration process that
> >> requires power and thus energy to be expended for the drive, then
> eventually
> >> there will be no mass left at all. All of the original mass is lost if
> this
> >> takes place. That does not make sense.
> >
> > The process stops, when all the mass has been converted into kinetic
> energy.
> >
> > The only thing I know of that only has kinetic energy and no mass is EM
> > radiation.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Robin van Spaandonk
> >
> > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
> >
>
>

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

2016-03-19 Thread Eric Walker 
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:58 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

A normal rocket obeys CoE and CoM whereas the EM Drive ship does not.
>

I don't think this conclusion has been established yet.

If it can be shown that the EM drive emits its mass in the form of
> radiation out the exhaust then all is well.  But thus far it is suggested
> that nothing is performing that function.
>

I suggested neutrinos.

Eric

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

2016-03-19 Thread Eric Walker 
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

If its neutrinos, then they would seem to have some mass that is magnified
> by their high velocity and special relativity.
>

I don't think it is necessary that the neutrinos be relativistic, although
surely they will be. I do not know that a relativistic increase in mass
will have any bearing on recoil.  What is important in the present context
is momentum.  The momentum of the neutrino and the momentum of the recoil
nucleus will be equal and opposite, dividing up several MeV in the case of
electron capture.  The neutrino will travel much faster, of course.  But
the momenta are equal (by Newton's third law).

If neutrino travels at the speed of  light, like many believe. they should
> have no rest  mass.
>

Perhaps.  Wikipedia says the first generation of neutrinos has ~ 0.3 eV
mass.  I believe the suggestion that they have mass goes back to the
observation of neutrino oscillation.  Note that although 0.3 eV does not
sound like much in the way of mass, it's a lot more than zero, which is
what photons have, assuming the current understanding is correct.

Eric, do you have any information regarding the momentum of neutrinos that
> collide with targets and are stopped?
>

The neutrino wouldn't collide or stop in this case.  It would be emitted
during the electron capture, causing the daughter nucleus to recoil, and it
would pass right through the apparatus, leading an apparent violation of
conservation of momentum.  We are trying to account for a thrust that is on
the order of 100 uN.  I do not have a clear understanding at this point of
whether the implied intensity of MeV neutrino emission would be improbably
high to explain this amount of thrust, or whether a plausible reaction rate
could be obtained.

The neutrino emission would also need to be directed.  This might be a
simple consequence of having an anisotropic pattern of RF stimulation
within the cavity.

Presumably the cavity material is what would undergo electron capture.
Copper cannot do this, although aluminum, which has been used in the past,
can [1].  In the case of copper, perhaps there would be an impurity or
alloyed element that would be involved.

Eric


[1] https://hackaday.io/project/5596-em-drive

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

2016-03-19 Thread Bob Cook 
So the vacuum's momentum changes in the opposite direction of the increased 
momentum of the ship.  The issue is COM in my mind, not an absolute increase 
in momentum.  That suggests  momentum is not conserved.


bob Cook

-Original Message- 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 5:43 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 15:00:38 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]

Robin's example of the electric car is different than the EM drive since it
allows the evaluation of the conservation of momentum.  The road increases
its momentum in the opposite direction the car does.  In the EM case there
is no apparent conservation of momentum--at least I do not know how to
calculate it.  Does the entire space time existence change its momentum?
Maybe Robin could identify how momentum is conserved in the EM drive.

Bob Cook


See my reply to David. Everyone is making the assumption that a force can 
only
act against another object, because that has always been our experience. 
This

may be the first tangible experience of a force acting against the vacuum
itself, rather than another object.

If we can warp spacetime, we can also push against it.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

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

2016-03-19 Thread Bob Cook 
If its neutrinos, then they would seem to have some mass that is magnified by 
their high velocity and special relativity.  If neutrino travels at the speed 
of  light, like many believe. they should have no rest  mass.  Eric, do you 
have any information regarding the momentum of neutrinos that collide with 
targets and are stopped?

Bob Cook

From: Eric Walker 
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 3:56 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:58 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:


  A normal rocket obeys CoE and CoM whereas the EM Drive ship does not.


I don't think this conclusion has been established yet.

  If it can be shown that the EM drive emits its mass in the form of radiation 
out the exhaust then all is well.  But thus far it is suggested that nothing is 
performing that function.


I suggested neutrinos.

Eric

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

2016-03-19 Thread mixent 
In reply to  David Roberson's message of Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:19:13 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>When might somehow be important but if you take the process to the extreme you 
>get a result that doesn't make any sense.  For example, if the spaceship 
>continues to use up its mass in a constant acceleration process that requires 
>power and thus energy to be expended for the drive, then eventually there will 
>be no mass left at all.  All of the original mass is lost if this takes place. 
> That does not make sense.

The process stops, when all the mass has been converted into kinetic energy. 

The only thing I know of that only has kinetic energy and no mass is EM
radiation.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

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

2016-03-19 Thread David Roberson 
It is true that the car will eventually come to a rest in its reference frame 
once its fuel is exhausted.  But, observers in other frames will notice that it 
has kinetic energy and momentum gained during the acceleration period.  They 
can all determine that the car mass and energy plus the energy that it imparted 
to other objects during its motion adds up to the beginning amount of mass and 
energy.  This is clearly a different situation than that expected for an EM 
drive vehicle.

You should note that the car we are discussing is not capable of accelerating 
unless it is using a road or some electromagnetic force that is not terminated 
within the car itself.  That other object acts as the reaction matter that 
replaces the exhausted fuel of the rocket concept.  An EM drive operating in 
deep space does not have any tangible object to generate a force against.

If someone can show that the EM drive interacts with the earth's gravitational 
field in a manner that generates a force then perhaps that might make sense.   
Of course, then the earth would act as the reaction mass.  So far I do not 
recall that being seriously discussed.

I suppose that an EM drive that generates gravitational waves and radiates them 
out the rear would offer a possibility.  The recent detection of these waves 
from the black hole combination radiated an enormous amount of energy and thus 
mass into space.   The radiation converted PE of the pair into radiation that 
is difficult to detect.  But, at least the magnitude of the missing mass is 
accounted for in the energy of the radiation.

I remain skeptical that EM drives are a reality but it does little damage to 
speculate upon some possible modes of operation.  If they eventually are proven 
real then my bets are that some form of measurable reaction mass equivalent is 
involved.

Dave


 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 4:26 pm
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:58:43 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>Of course the EM drive ship that remains in this extreme case(actually nothing 
>at all if zero exhaust is present) is at rest which means it has zero kinetic 
>energy relative to itself.  Again, this is not a problem for a normal rocket 
>that spits out reaction mass.  In that case all the missing mass and energy 
>can be located by analyzing the exhaust stream.  This is true regardless of 
>what reference frame you choose.  A normal rocket obeys CoE and CoM whereas 
>the EM Drive ship does not.

An electric car speeding down the road will also eventually exhaust all it's
stored energy, while remaining motionless in it's own rest frame (BTW everything
is always motionless in it's own rest frame, that's why it's called "rest"),
nevertheless it has considerable kinetic energy relative to the road. I fail to
see the difference between this and the EM drive vehicle. Note that the car used
it's energy to change the relationship between it's own frame of reference and
that of it's surroundings. So did the EM drive vehicle.

Kinetic energy always depends on the frame of reference chosen. When either
vehicle starts out with a full fuel load, the "correct" frame of reference is
the initial frame in which the "fuel tank" was full. If we stick to that frame
instead of swapping and changing when we feel like it, then the kinetic energy
gained, as the fuel is used, becomes apparent.

For the EM drive ship, the "exhaust" is the universe itself. Just think of
spacetime as invisible "train tracks", and it all becomes clear.

(Made beautifully visible in a Dr. Who episode about the Orient Express. :) )

Acceleration requires force, and all lines of force have two ends. If one end is
attached to the EM drive, then the other end must be attached to something. The
only thing that would make sense is the fabric of spacetime itself.
In short IMO, if it works at all, then this is how it would have to work.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

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

2016-03-19 Thread mixent 
In reply to  David Roberson's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 17:15:16 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>You should note that the car we are discussing is not capable of accelerating 
>unless it is using a road or some electromagnetic force that is not terminated 
>within the car itself.  That other object acts as the reaction matter that 
>replaces the exhausted fuel of the rocket concept. 

Precisely.

> An EM drive operating in deep space does not have any tangible object to 
> generate a force against.

Not that we have as yet experienced. However this may the first example (black
swan) of a drive that can actually interact with the vacuum itself . If it works
at all, then that's what I would bet on.
That's why I would like to see a much higher Q factor tried. Varying the Q
factor should provide corresponding results, if the inventor is correct.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

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

2016-03-19 Thread Eric Walker 
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:43 PM,  wrote:

See my reply to David. Everyone is making the assumption that a force can
> only
> act against another object, because that has always been our experience.
> This
> may be the first tangible experience of a force acting against the vacuum
> itself, rather than another object.
>
> If we can warp spacetime, we can also push against it.
>

Does this require that the vacuum be something other than a frictionless
superfluid?

Eric

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

2016-03-19 Thread mixent 
In reply to  Roarty, Francis X's message of Fri, 18 Mar 2016 10:23:12 +:
Hi,
[snip]
>Which takes something physically present to do the warping…ok if it can remain 
>spatially fixed but I suspect it will have to dilate on temporal axis to 
>maintain equal and opposite action across frames.

If the presence of an object warps spacetime (General Relativity), then
something must be present to warp?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

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

2016-03-18 Thread mixent 
In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:59:12 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:43 PM,  wrote:
>
>See my reply to David. Everyone is making the assumption that a force can
>> only
>> act against another object, because that has always been our experience.
>> This
>> may be the first tangible experience of a force acting against the vacuum
>> itself, rather than another object.
>>
>> If we can warp spacetime, we can also push against it.
>>
>
>Does this require that the vacuum be something other than a frictionless
>superfluid?

Not sure about that (literally). How do you feel about a solid lattice rather
than a superfluid?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

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

2016-03-18 Thread Eric Walker 
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 5:23 AM, Roarty, Francis X <
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:

Which takes something physically present to do the warping…ok if it can
> remain spatially fixed but I suspect it will have to dilate on temporal
> axis to maintain equal and opposite action across frames.
>

We've seen nominal evidence of thrust that one wants to understand.  Have
we seen nominal evidence of warping?

Eric

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

2016-03-18 Thread Eric Walker 
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 6:29 PM,  wrote:

Wasn't there something quoted here not too long ago about laser possibly
> revealing a warping in the neighborhood of an operating drive?
>

I don't remember it, but if there was such a report, I think it would be
outside of the realm of what is interesting to mainstream investigators and
deep into woo phenomena.  Which doesn't mean it's incorrect.

Eric

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

2016-03-18 Thread mixent 
In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Fri, 18 Mar 2016 10:05:31 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 5:23 AM, Roarty, Francis X <
>francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:
>
>Which takes something physically present to do the warping…ok if it can
>> remain spatially fixed but I suspect it will have to dilate on temporal
>> axis to maintain equal and opposite action across frames.
>>
>
>We've seen nominal evidence of thrust that one wants to understand.  Have
>we seen nominal evidence of warping?


Wasn't there something quoted here not too long ago about laser possibly
revealing a warping in the neighborhood of an operating drive?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

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

2016-03-18 Thread David Roberson 
Of course the EM drive ship that remains in this extreme case(actually nothing 
at all if zero exhaust is present) is at rest which means it has zero kinetic 
energy relative to itself.  Again, this is not a problem for a normal rocket 
that spits out reaction mass.  In that case all the missing mass and energy can 
be located by analyzing the exhaust stream.  This is true regardless of what 
reference frame you choose.  A normal rocket obeys CoE and CoM whereas the EM 
Drive ship does not.

If it can be shown that the EM drive emits its mass in the form of radiation 
out the exhaust then all is well.  But thus far it is suggested that nothing is 
performing that function.

Dave
 

-Original Message-
From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Mar 16, 2016 9:29 pm
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:19:13 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>When might somehow be important but if you take the process to the extreme you 
>get a result that doesn't make any sense.  For example, if the spaceship 
>continues to use up its mass in a constant acceleration process that requires 
>power and thus energy to be expended for the drive, then eventually there will 
>be no mass left at all.  All of the original mass is lost if this takes place. 
> That does not make sense.

The process stops, when all the mass has been converted into kinetic energy. 

The only thing I know of that only has kinetic energy and no mass is EM
radiation.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

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

2016-03-18 Thread Roarty, Francis X 
Which takes something physically present to do the warping…ok if it can remain 
spatially fixed but I suspect it will have to dilate on temporal axis to 
maintain equal and opposite action across frames.

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 9:59 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:43 PM, 
<mix...@bigpond.com<mailto:mix...@bigpond.com>> wrote:

See my reply to David. Everyone is making the assumption that a force can only
act against another object, because that has always been our experience. This
may be the first tangible experience of a force acting against the vacuum
itself, rather than another object.

If we can warp spacetime, we can also push against it.

Does this require that the vacuum be something other than a frictionless 
superfluid?

Eric

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

2016-03-18 Thread H LV 
Relative to its initial state it has gained kinetic energy. If the
Emdrive needs and external source of energy then it may work by
preserving CoE but by violating CoM.

Harry

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:58 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> Of course the EM drive ship that remains in this extreme case(actually
> nothing at all if zero exhaust is present) is at rest which means it has
> zero kinetic energy relative to itself.  Again, this is not a problem for a
> normal rocket that spits out reaction mass.  In that case all the missing
> mass and energy can be located by analyzing the exhaust stream.  This is
> true regardless of what reference frame you choose.  A normal rocket obeys
> CoE and CoM whereas the EM Drive ship does not.
>
> If it can be shown that the EM drive emits its mass in the form of radiation
> out the exhaust then all is well.  But thus far it is suggested that nothing
> is performing that function.
>
> Dave
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Wed, Mar 16, 2016 9:29 pm
> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
>
> In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:19:13 -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>>When might somehow be important but if you take the process to the extreme
>> you get a result that doesn't make any sense. For example, if the spaceship
>> continues to use up its mass in a constant acceleration process that
>> requires power and thus energy to be expended for the drive, then eventually
>> there will be no mass left at all. All of the original mass is lost if this
>> takes place. That does not make sense.
>
> The process stops, when all the mass has been converted into kinetic energy.
>
> The only thing I know of that only has kinetic energy and no mass is EM
> radiation.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>

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

2016-03-18 Thread Eric Walker 
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 3:22 PM,  wrote:

>Does this require that the vacuum be something other than a frictionless
> >superfluid?
>
> Not sure about that (literally). How do you feel about a solid lattice
> rather
> than a superfluid?
>

I feel doubtful, although I have no strong opinion.  The contrarian in me
would be delighted for a viscous spacetime to be discovered, as that would
be suggestive of an ether.  That's different from a solid lattice, although
it might accomplish the same thing.

Eric

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

2016-03-18 Thread Eric Walker 
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 3:19 PM,  wrote:

If the presence of an object warps spacetime (General Relativity), then
> something must be present to warp?
>

General relativity provides a unified description of gravity and
spacetime.  The EM Drive makes use first and foremost of the
electromagnetic interaction.  What about the EM Drive would be causing the
warping of spacetime?

Eric

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

2016-03-15 Thread H LV 
I wrote:
> Another interpretation regarding the EmDrive is that the thrust is
> real but the effect (for whatever reason) requires an external source
> of electricity. On the plus side the thrust could not be explained
> away as an artifact of the electrical forces between the input wires,
> but on the down side it would mean the EmDrive could not power itself.

Well not necessarily an external source of electricity, although it
would need an external source of energy. So would a solar powered
EmDrive yield more thrust then a conventional solar powered ion drive?

Harry

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

2016-03-15 Thread Roarty, Francis X 
On Tues 3/15/2016 Jones Beene said [snip] Shawyer claims that a standing wave 
interference pattern is created by geometry, operating frequency path lengths. 
And he claims that “stress energy of space” is altered by the interference 
pattern. That sounds a lot like aether.[/snip]
I agree withShawyer and like the breach in isotropy created by 
Casimir cavities it segregates vacuum density only the EM requires both power 
and the trapezoid geometry to form the segregated regions which the rf also 
pushes against in a manner biased in favor of one region over the other. IMHO 
he might find more evidence if he did a beam balance measurement of 
propellant–less braking while adding or subtracting weight from the counter 
balance because he would be able to measure all the linkage to ether effects 
differentially wrt the device turned off. My point is the EM drive still 
suffers from the same weakness as the failed circa 2k DeForio et all experiment 
with stacked parallel Casimir cavities in trying to establish a spatial bias, 
If I am correct the motion of segregated vacuum density regions through the 
macro isotropy is exactly equivalent to frame dragging in astrophysics with out 
the need for relativistic velocities. The clues have been there, anomalous 
spontaneous emission of photons in microwave cavities, anomalous half life 
decays in nano powders – Puthoff coined the term vacuum engineering but few are 
willing to believe negative vacuum density can be manipulated easily to 
relativistic values in regions large enough to contain hydrogen gas and control 
its decay rate thru time dilation.
Fran


From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 11:32 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)


A related but alternative bit of insight comes from John Wallace in the cited 
paper on spin waves. I thought Bob Cook was aware of it, but maybe not since he 
did not bring up the most important detail - mass.

It would be relevant to Shawyer’s drive if the Frustum were to have an iron 
liner component, such as an inner layer of sheet iron or even iron plating, 
which is not the case, but anyway this paper is worth a read on the off-chance 
that copper can produce spin waves like iron (doubtful).

http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.1631

In Wallace’s hypothesis, applied to Sawyer, RF would be converted into 
transverse (spin) waves. These waves have special properties and importantly 
they have mass. One dispersion curve yielded a real but exceedingly small 
effective mass of 1.8 10^{-39}kg for spin waves… which is not too far removed 
from the mass energy of the microwave photon which created it. But unless the 
copper frustum acts to release the same spin wave as does iron this explanation 
does not work for Em. Plus, since these waves have mass, they can be depleted 
over time without a replenishment source which spoils the idea of very long 
space missions. Most of the idealists balk at a theory that doesn’t get them 
access to intergalactic Sci-Fi missions. ☺

There are other partial explanations which actually mesh with spin waves. 
Shawyer claims that a standing wave interference pattern is created by 
geometry, operating frequency path lengths. And he claims that “stress energy 
of space” is altered by the interference pattern. That sounds a lot like 
aether. A chiral aether with effective mass, together with spin waves of 
effective mass – that would explain everything - yet observers shy away. Too 
bad.

A third slant is Puthoff's patent - showing that a small but detectable curl 
free potential can be created from interference patterns passing through 
barriers, presumably like a copper wall. If the microwaves remain inside the 
cavity, then there is no interaction with the vacuum except by invoking a 
massive wave, and consequently, there is no established theory to give external 
thrust to the device except the Wallace approach, which comes the closest since 
it predicts wave-particles of low-but-real mass. Wallace does have real 
uncontested data for spin waves whereas Shawye’s data is challenged.

Original Message-
From: Eric Walker

Bob Cook wrote:

If a pulsed magnetic field is involved in the EM drive it may be that effective 
momentum is sent off into space as a pulsed magnetic field with some effective 
mass associated with the average intensity of the magnetic field pulse—energy 
associated with the pulse.

This is along the lines that I was thinking.

Consider a simple thought experiment. We have a microwave waveguide with the 
output focused in a single direction sitting out in the middle of space where 
there is little in the way of an external field.  Attached to it is a battery 
sufficient to drive a magnetron at 10 W for some period of time.  We turn on 
the magnetron remotely.  Microwave photons with a total power amounting to 10 J 
per second are now being emitted in a preferred direction.  For the sake of 
argument we

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

2016-03-15 Thread H LV 
Another interpretation regarding the EmDrive is that the thrust is
real but the effect (for whatever reason) requires an external source
of electricity. On the plus side the thrust could not be explained
away as an artifact of the electrical forces between the input wires,
but on the down side it would mean the EmDrive could not power itself.

Harry

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

2016-03-15 Thread David Roberson 
When might somehow be important but if you take the process to the extreme you 
get a result that doesn't make any sense.  For example, if the spaceship 
continues to use up its mass in a constant acceleration process that requires 
power and thus energy to be expended for the drive, then eventually there will 
be no mass left at all.  All of the original mass is lost if this takes place.  
That does not make sense.

A standard rocket does not have an issue of this type since the energy and any 
missing mass ends up in the exhaust stream.  It can all be accounted for even 
in such an extreme event.

I propose that a normal classical physical rocket or process that obeys the 
conservation laws actually can be boiled down to a simple rule.  A device in 
free space without interference from other matter and forces will maintain its 
center of mass and rotation at one point in space.  So, for a rocket of this 
type, all of the mass expended as exhaust can be located and summed up with the 
remaining rocket such that the center of mass remains constant in space.

That rule reveals why a multistage rocket can reach such high velocities for 
the payload.  Most of the mass, including the earlier stage rocket frames are 
left behind to contribute components to the center of mass equation.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Roarty, Francis X <francis.x.roa...@lmco.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Mar 15, 2016 8:08 am
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

Perhaps "when" did the mass go answers the question better to explain the 
spatial imbalance.

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 5:15 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:44:33 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>From the EM drive's point of view the CoE must be violated because as it 
>accelerates in space a portion of it's mass must be converted into energy that 
>is used to power the drive.  When it ceases to use the drive it begins to 
>remain motionless in space from its point of view.   Where did that mass go 
>which was converted into energy that powered the drive?  Did it simply vanish?

When a electric car drives down the road, where does the expended energy show up
in the reference frame of the car?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

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

2016-03-15 Thread Roarty, Francis X 
Perhaps "when" did the mass go answers the question better to explain the 
spatial imbalance.

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 5:15 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:44:33 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>From the EM drive's point of view the CoE must be violated because as it 
>accelerates in space a portion of it's mass must be converted into energy that 
>is used to power the drive.  When it ceases to use the drive it begins to 
>remain motionless in space from its point of view.   Where did that mass go 
>which was converted into energy that powered the drive?  Did it simply vanish?

When a electric car drives down the road, where does the expended energy show up
in the reference frame of the car?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

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

2016-03-14 Thread Roarty, Francis X 
I vote for accumulated time dilation that unbalances one of the spatial axii 
wrt radiation pressure – the geometry and the microwave energy conspire to 
slightly segregate the vacuum density in the cavity and the radiation path 
slightly prefers one region of segregation over the other, bouncing around in 
resonance it slowly accumulates a time dilation and a corresponding imbalance 
in radiation pressure wrt spatial axii.

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 2:15 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

OK.  I have always seen evidence that linear and angular momentums are 
orthogonal to each other somewhat like sine waves and cosine waves.  Each one 
is conserved independently of the other.

This is a classical viewpoint so perhaps there may exist a quantum mechanical 
version that is different, but I am not aware of that case.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com<mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com>>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>>
Sent: Sun, Mar 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
Dave--

I agree with your comment—note I suggested it SEEMS to happen.  The real issue 
is what happens in a coherent system.  Can a nano particle convert spin—angular 
momentum--- to linear momentum?

Bob Cook

From: David Roberson<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 10:49 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

Bob, if you take the kid and merry-go-round as a system in free space it can be 
shown that both linear and angular momentum are conserved.  The interaction 
with the Earth makes it less clear.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com<mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com>>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>>
Sent: Sun, Mar 13, 2016 11:22 am
Subject: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
It may be that the intrinsic spin (and angular momentum) of a particle is 
converted preferentially to a particle with linear momentum in the direction of 
a magnetic field.  In this case there would be no apparent conservation of 
linear momentum.  This seems to happen in macroscopic systems—a kid running and 
jumping on a merry-go-round to make it go faster.  It may only require a QM 
coherent system to produce linear momentum from scratch in the EM drive devices.

It’s all about spin...

Bob Cook

From: Jones Beene<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 7:12 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:EM Drive(s)

From: Vibrator !

>  So an EM drive in a lab cannot show an energy asymmetry because it can't 
> accelerate anywhere.

That does not add up logically or scientifically… Despite conflicting claims, 
no one has yet “busted” all of the positive results, which are probably about 
“chirality” more so than any other anomaly. Newton may not apply fully to 
chiral systems and possibly not the Laws of thermodynamics either. That is why 
this field is of great interest to LENR.

Or… based on your ‘handle,’ is this a lead-in to the Mythbuster lesson?

OK, I’ll bite: here is the reference to the small and large scale analogies of 
violating Newton’s law by “blowing your own sail”  expressed in the Mythbuster 
videos which have a broader message to offer the microwavers (e.g. oscillate 
(vibrate) the magnetron beam, around the axial vector)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKXMTzMQWjo=1

If the EM drive is valid, it can be demonstrated beyond doubt in a Lab model, 
like the sail analogy. It’s probably a cop-out to dream up a lame excuse 
otherwise. The lesson from the sails, which seems to be missing from the failed 
experiments with microwaves - is that you have to find the symmetry break – and 
therefore - need to vector thrust slightly on your virtual sail, prior to 
reflection in a way that maximizes the chiral anomaly.

Ron Kita may want to expound on this subject, but chirality is the symmetry 
breaking property of some reflected systems which encompasses variation from a 
mirror image- which is the simplified version. LENR can be looked at as a 
reflected system of hydrogen oscillating between dense and ambient states.

The larger question for LENR is this: is the thermal anomaly of Ni-H (as a 
non-fusion reaction) explainable as the impedance gap in the Chiral anomaly (of 
hydrogen oscillating between dense and inflated states around 13.6 eV) … as 
expounded in the first graph of the Cameron paper?
http://vixra.org/pdf/1408.0109v4.pdf

Or alternatively, does an additional Lamb shift modality of the type that 
Haisch claims also enter into the picture as gain from hydrogen oscillation 
between two asymmetric states?

It’s all about spin…