Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

. Dave -Original Message- From: Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Thu, Dec 29, 2016 2:31 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft LOL simply converting angular to linear momentums is trivial - think

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

angular momentum remains zero. Dave -Original Message- From: Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Thu, Dec 29, 2016 12:46 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft What's wrong with the centripetal te

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

On 12/29/2016 02:31 PM, Vibrator ! wrote: LOL simply converting angular to linear momentums is trivial - think of a piston and crank, ball billiards or whatever.. You are confusing angular velocity, rotational energy, and kinetic energy with angular momentum and linear momentum. A crank

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

LOL simply converting angular to linear momentums is trivial - think of a piston and crank, ball billiards or whatever.. What you're on about is varying net system momentum - ie. an N3 violation, linear or angular. Sure, if the motor's off then CoM / CoAM applies, and momentum's constant. I'm

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

On 12/29/2016 12:31 PM, Vibrator ! wrote: So, there's an intriguing thought to end on - if an EM-driven spacecraft subsequently decelerates again by simply performing a 180° rotation and continuing to apply constant thrust, all of the 'anomolous' momentum and energy is neatly returned to

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

On 12/29/2016 12:46 PM, Vibrator ! wrote: What's wrong with the centripetal tether example? With the engine turned off (no thrust) putting the tether in place doesn't change the angular momentum at all. The cross product of the linear momentum of the object with its radius vector remains

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

They are closely related, as angular momentum (in classical mechanics) is the sum of the angular momentum of each object in the system measured about its own axis, along with the sum of the linear momentum of each object crossed with its radius vector. Total angular momentum depends on where

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

What's wrong with the centripetal tether example? Are you supposing that there's a fundamentally different interaction manifesting inertia in angular vs linear accelerations? "Angons" vs "linons" or something? On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > >

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

On 12/29/2016 12:31 PM, Vibrator ! wrote: Offering the implied presence of classical symmetry breaks as evidence of their impossibility - ie. "it can't be right because it'd break the laws of physics" - is surely redundant; the claim is explicitly a classical symmetry break, that's its whole

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

> that device or group of devices capable of maintaining all of the > orientation required for the station? > > Dave > > > > -Original Message- > From: Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> <russ.geo...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.c

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

;vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Dec 28, 2016 1:43 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft Just to point something out -- the EM drive obviouslydoesn't need to be outside the craft to work, since it doesn't ejectmass. Furthermore (and consequently),

RE: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 11:11 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft That's interesting. That would resolve the conservation violations. On 12/28/2016 01:54 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: I've seen some

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Eric Walker wrote: > > >> One possibility is that the EM Drive may be ejecting mass, not in the >> form of baryons, but in the form of leptons, namely, neutrinos . . . >> > > That might be tricky

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

Eric Walker wrote: > One possibility is that the EM Drive may be ejecting mass, not in the form > of baryons, but in the form of leptons, namely, neutrinos . . . > That might be tricky to test for. For ordinary particles, you would put the thing in a box and see if it

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Just to point something out -- the EM drive *obviously* doesn't need to be > outside the craft to work, since it doesn't eject mass. > > Furthermore (and consequently), it violates conservation of momentum, >

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

aintaining all of the > orientation required for the station? > > Dave > > > > -Original Message- > From: Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> <russ.geo...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Tue, Dec 2

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 3:45 pm Subject: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft A curious facet of the EM drive, such as the one now operating on the Chinese space station is that it need not be on the outside of the spacecraft, it’s t

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

n required for the station? > > Dave > > > > -Original Message- > From: Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> <russ.geo...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 3:45 pm > Subject: [Vo]:EM Driv

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

;vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 3:45 pm Subject: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft A curious facet of the EM drive, such as the one now operating on the Chinese space station is that it need not be on the outside of the spacecraft, it’s thrust is independent of

RE: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

“smooth” means. Let the definition of ‘smooth’ games begin! From: Jack Cole [mailto:jcol...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 3:44 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft Dave, The secondhand news is that it is not working in space

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

> From: Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 3:45 pm > Subject: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft > > A curious facet of the EM drive, such as the one now operating on the > Chinese space sta

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

Message- From: Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 3:45 pm Subject: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft A curious facet of the EM drive, such as the one now operating on the Chinese space station is

[Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

A curious facet of the EM drive, such as the one now operating on the Chinese space station is that it need not be on the outside of the spacecraft, it’s thrust is independent of the position and surrounding matter. This enables all manner of interesting spacecraft geometries.