Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
In reply to Remi Cornwall's message of Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:04:36 +0100: Hi, [snip] Robin, Yes it is confusing. Also sometimes the phase velocity appears to be greater than c (anomalous media) or the group velocity is. In either case they defer to the one less than c. The Feynman articles give a proof relating Quantum Mechanics (expressions for E and p) to the relation in Special Relativity that seems to provide a proof that it is the group velocity that is relevant. Remi. [snip] My personal suspicion (and that's all it is), is that the group velocity is responsible for energy transport, and the phase velocity is responsible for information transfer. For a plain wave in empty space the two correspond of course which might explain why the distinction is not so clear. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
In reply to Keith Nagel's message of Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:50:18 -0400: Hi Keith, [snip] Hi Robin, I was confused by this also. I don't think english is Andres first language, so his paper is a little obtuse at points. What he's saying, after a more careful read on my part, is that he assumes The Energy of a wave is transported at its phase velocity. is what Roger is claiming. Possible, but not exactly in evidence. I haven't had time to check the math, but having now at least read Rogers theory paper, I have my doubts about Andres assumption. Look at section 2.2 for example. Roger diagrams the path of a TEM wave inside the microwave cavity. This is the correct model, I have measured this same behavior in a real cavity with real probes, as I had described earlier ( on the Vo. list even, check the archives ). He then goes on to say something like, if we measure the group velocity by using the axial distance, rather than the true path, we see that group velocity can be much slower at the short end of the tube than the longer ( as in 2.4 ). I will add to that statement by saying that in addition, phase velocity will grow faster by the same amount. In the limit condition, phase velocity will be infinite, and group velocity will be zero. I think Roger has a pretty good handle on the mechanics of what is going on in the wave guide, based on the text at least. He has however missed one point. Looking at figure 2.4, it's obvious that upon reflecting from the sloping side, the wave will not only impart a vertical force to the wall, but also a horizontal component, since the angle of exit will be equal to the angle of entry, and hence the overall force on the wall will be perpendicular to it. Because the wall slopes, this perpendicular force can be broken up into a vertical component and a horizontal component. Without doing the math, my intuition says that the sum of all the horizontal components on the walls will exactly equal the difference between the forces on the ends. That then begs the question, whence the actual force measured in the real devices? :) What I find a little questionable about Rogers idea is that the system is truly open. This doesn't really bother me. Once a photon has left the emitter it is truly on its own. IOW it's rowing through the aether. :) Look at the gedanken experiment in fig 2.1. If plate R1 and R2 are physically connected, there ought to be net motion in the direction of F1. That seems OK to me. No, this example is flawed too. There are no walls in the example, hence the radiation is not contained, and only that which reflects from the end walls is felt. When walls are present, all the radiation is contained, and the net result is zero, which can be seen by drawing a circle around Tx with the axis of the device running through the center of the circle. Equal amounts of energy are radiated to the right and to the left of the circle, resulting in no net force. But how about if the transmitter Tx is connected to the same frame? Now I wonder... but that's basically Rogers claim. This on the other hand doesn't bother me in the least, because the emitter only gets a single transfer of momentum from the emitter energy, i.e. when it is initially emitted. The end walls OTOH get thousands (billions) of momentum transfers, one upon each reflection, so that the result far outweighs the effect on the transmitter. Furthermore, if it really bothers you, then align the transmitter such that the transfer of momentum to it accelerates the vehicle - making a virtue of a vice. :) [snip] BTW if it all turns out to be correct and works as stated, then here are a few improvements. :) 1) Replace the photons with real charged particles (much greater energy density), e.g. Hg nuclei. 2) Use an asymmetric magnetic field to constrain them, so that they loop around in a true oval shape (one end of the ellipse fatter than the other), no reflectors needed. If necessary a negative charge at the center of the oval can assist in the containment. Now we have the drive unit described here:- http://www.mufonla.com/tr3b.htm Regards, Robin van Spaandonk Given a choice between a new set of matching tableware and the survival of humanity, I suspect that most people would choose the tableware. George Monbiot (http://www.rense.com/general45/rune.htm)
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
Keith, Drop Roger Shawyer for a second. Have you seen Steve Burn's recent paper? He suggests that to increase gravitational mass we reduce the phase velocity. I thought I was confused before. (Phase velocity. Group velocity. FTL / No FTL.) http://www.geocities.com/sburns808/SWMass.pdf GRAVITATIONAL MASS EMULATION WITH A REDUCED PHASE VELOCITY STANDING WAVE Steve Burns 9/13/2006 INTRODUCTION: A possible link between gravitational mass and an electromagnetic standing wave is explored. A rotating standing wave emulates matter as a self-captured EM wave (1). Reducing wave phase velocity increases mass in the classical sense of m=E/v2. Here we will explore a way to electrically generate a rotating standing wave with reduced phase velocity in order to verify mass increase. Colin - Original Message - From: Keith Nagel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 1:27 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor Hi Robin, you write: Possible, but not exactly in evidence. Quoting Andre, In the following we review the the theoretical model for the engine put forth by SPR... The next paragraph is then supposed to represent Rogers view, despite being phrased in the ( typically academic ) first person plural form. It's not clear though, and on first reading I thought the same. Perhaps someone who knows Andre can write him and request some clarification. Wouldn't it be surprising if he asserts the phase velocity is the speed of energy transfer? He has however missed one point. Looking at figure 2.4, it's obvious that upon reflecting from the sloping side, the wave will not only impart a vertical force to the wall, but also a horizontal component, since the angle of exit will be equal to the angle of entry, and hence the overall force on the wall will be perpendicular to it. Because the wall slopes, this perpendicular force can be broken up into a vertical component and a horizontal component. Without doing the math, my intuition says that the sum of all the horizontal components on the walls will exactly equal the difference between the forces on the ends. I completely agree, the thought struck me as well. Roger sort of hand waves around this point by saying that due to impedence matching we can discount this effect. By that, I take it to mean that he uses a proper exponential horn rather than the crude linear illustration. But still, I am deeply troubled. It's a show stopper. Another way to descibe the device is to say that he is transforming from a TEM wave to a TE or TM wave, if you are familar with the microwave terms. That then begs the question, whence the actual force measured in the real devices? :) Yup. K. BTW, love your new sig. Here's one for you. Is it just me, or is the 21st century basically the Middle Ages with indoor plumbing? -K-
RE: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
Robin, Yes it is confusing. Also sometimes the phase velocity appears to be greater than c (anomalous media) or the group velocity is. In either case they defer to the one less than c. The Feynman articles give a proof relating Quantum Mechanics (expressions for E and p) to the relation in Special Relativity that seems to provide a proof that it is the group velocity that is relevant. Remi. -Original Message- From: Robin van Spaandonk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 September 2006 04:57 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor In reply to Remi Cornwall's message of Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:21:56 +0100: Hi Remi, [snip] Don, I had a few thoughts on the paper: http://uk.geocities.com/remicornwall/ElectromagneticPropulsion.htm In http://uk.geocities.com/remicornwall/FeynmanIIpg24a7sections24a2to24a4.jpg it states very explicitly: The group velocity of the waves is also the speed at which energy is transported along the guide. Which is what I always thought it was. However Andreas Rathke states in his paper The Energy of a wave is transported at its phase velocity. (See page 1). One of them seems to be wrong. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
RE: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
Hi Robin, I was confused by this also. I don't think english is Andres first language, so his paper is a little obtuse at points. What he's saying, after a more careful read on my part, is that he assumes The Energy of a wave is transported at its phase velocity. is what Roger is claiming. I haven't had time to check the math, but having now at least read Rogers theory paper, I have my doubts about Andres assumption. Look at section 2.2 for example. Roger diagrams the path of a TEM wave inside the microwave cavity. This is the correct model, I have measured this same behavior in a real cavity with real probes, as I had described earlier ( on the Vo. list even, check the archives ). He then goes on to say something like, if we measure the group velocity by using the axial distance, rather than the true path, we see that group velocity can be much slower at the short end of the tube than the longer ( as in 2.4 ). I will add to that statement by saying that in addition, phase velocity will grow faster by the same amount. In the limit condition, phase velocity will be infinite, and group velocity will be zero. I think Roger has a pretty good handle on the mechanics of what is going on in the wave guide, based on the text at least. What I find a little questionable about Rogers idea is that the system is truly open. Look at the gedanken experiment in fig 2.1. If plate R1 and R2 are physically connected, there ought to be net motion in the direction of F1. That seems OK to me. But how about if the transmitter Tx is connected to the same frame? Now I wonder... but that's basically Rogers claim. K. -Original Message- From: Robin van Spaandonk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 11:57 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor In reply to Remi Cornwall's message of Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:21:56 +0100: Hi Remi, [snip] Don, I had a few thoughts on the paper: http://uk.geocities.com/remicornwall/ElectromagneticPropulsion.htm In http://uk.geocities.com/remicornwall/FeynmanIIpg24a7sections24a2to24a4.jpg it states very explicitly: The group velocity of the waves is also the speed at which energy is transported along the guide. Which is what I always thought it was. However Andreas Rathke states in his paper The Energy of a wave is transported at its phase velocity. (See page 1). One of them seems to be wrong. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
RE: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
Don, I had a few thoughts on the paper: http://uk.geocities.com/remicornwall/ElectromagneticPropulsion.htm Remi. From: Don Wiegel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 25 September 2006 06:45 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor A Theory of Microwave Propulsion for Spacecraft Roger Shawyer C.Eng MIEE SPR Ltd www.emdrive.com http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf - Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 2:31 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor I meant to expand on my hose analogy. I was likening the impulse of the arc and aether flow to a hose being turned on because I heard once that droplets of water are found to orbit water coming out of a nosle at high speed. And this is exactly what I believe the aether is doing and furthermore while I am not sure exactly how, I wonder if the reason the droplets do that is because of a 90 degree aether flow.
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
In reply to Remi Cornwall's message of Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:21:56 +0100: Hi Remi, [snip] Don, I had a few thoughts on the paper: http://uk.geocities.com/remicornwall/ElectromagneticPropulsion.htm In http://uk.geocities.com/remicornwall/FeynmanIIpg24a7sections24a2to24a4.jpg it states very explicitly: The group velocity of the waves is also the speed at which energy is transported along the guide. Which is what I always thought it was. However Andreas Rathke states in his paper The Energy of a wave is transported at its phase velocity. (See page 1). One of them seems to be wrong. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
John Berry wrote: On 9/17/06, *Wesley Bruce* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ZPE saves the conservation of energy yet again. John Berry wrote: snip I'm to thick to handle this bit. ;-) Plus you do not state by which mechanism the thrust would be effected, where my Doppler effect pushing it out of resonance lowering the Q is pretty much what was stated in the article, There was no indication they used it as a way to save the conservation of energy and if they did then we can discount it as bunk anyway because that would mean they have no theoretical basis for believing in the effect. Not quite doppler effect but a good analagy. If the front plate is accelerating relative to the compound wave frount velocity the wave front will peak a few nanometers behind the plate. Hense no push if the plate is moving. My solution (though I loved your rowing idea) was to increase the microwave frequency, increase the length of the chamber coupled with a good constant rate of acceleration so it can again produce as much thrust as if it were stationary, this should still work with your view? Catch is its several frequencies building a wave formation that travels fractionally faster that the photons in the wave its self. Drifting all the frequencies up a few Herz would not work easerly. you would run into harmonics and shift beyond microwaves, etc. That why the rowing idea works the emdrive is acceleration but is also stationary because the back force you apply with your 'oar' matches the forward force on the emdrive. But if you accept that Morton and ATGroup and especially Podkletnov with their similar gravity beam rigs is for real then how would the conservation of energy be saved in this case? Podkletnov found the beam didn't weaken no matter how much matter it went through, and there was no counter reaction on anything. I prediced the results for Podklenovs second set of experiments back in 1998. There should be no counter reaction, it is a reactionless drive. We need to get a small one to the sapce station! oops typo spetted in the 'Space'. :-D I think I know how Podkletnovs second device works, the aether moves through the donut superconductors inducing a second beam like aether flow at 90 degrees, the exact same thing can be seen to happen in the ATGroup device and Mortons device which was really Podkletnov on a budget. Close but the second device is not spinning so the beam or field is not toroidal. The ZPE hitting the Bose electron (a 20 cm cooper 'pair' of billions of electrons) is absorbed but because the wave states of the Bose electron is shared the emitted ZPE can't be random. All the ZPF wave packets must emit in the same direction at the same time. Because the Bose electron is trapped (pined) in a boundary layer between a superconducting layer and a resisting layer a few microns thick it can only recoil in one direction and it can thus only emit in the opposite direction. This makes a beam of ZPE several mega joules that is in effect lased ZPE Perpendicular to the plane of the Bose electron. The rest of the interactions with matter are basically out lined in Stochastic electrodynamics theory. See http://www.calphysics.org/research.html I know that there is a time delay between the arc and the beam which others have pointed out is consistent with an aether theory. I think the arc/ visual effects are secondry. I would be interested as to how you predicted it. I was reading a lot of work from Haich, Rueda and Puthoff on stochastic electrodynamics at the time. Puthoff stated that the point partons absorbed and emitted ZPE randomly as part of the zitterbewegung. I simply realised that that must apply for a larger bose condensate of electrons ( several billion Quarks trapped in a plane )but it cant be random. I can't do the math so the idea is going no-where. Morton had a different theory regarding beams from accelerating charges. Face it, if reactionles propulsion if real then the only way the conservation of energy could MAYBE be saved is if we just assume there is a loss (or gain) in ZPE somewhere in the universe of equal magnitude with the gain or loss in kinetic energy, even though figuring out how this could possibly occur and know it it should even be a loss is crazy but if you have to believe in the conservation of energy (why?) then that's your best bet. ZPE is the basis for all the theories, mine and Dr Modanese's and thus all the theories on Podkletnovs work are notionally conserving energy. I suspect the Emdrive will in the end also be found to be interacting with ZPE. snip The only frame of reference there is, is one that any decent sized ship drags along, yes that's my own theory not conventional although plenty of relativists are slowly coming to such a
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
John Berry wrote: Well if Kyle and Robin are right it can't be calculated because we can't really know what our velocity relative to the machian reference frame is. If I am right then, well I'm no good at the math but I think that a superconducting chamber bouncing EM around assuming the Q is not effected by the acceleration then I think yes you could get to Mars quite comfortably assuming you have one hell of a bumper bar. But the bumperbar could be the greatest problem if you get the speeds you want. Its not a problem really. Wingtree's plama sail would work as a shield. A particle beam aimed so it charges anything in the path and then magnetic fields to drive it off at an angle will also work. I would back it up by putting a few tons of inert cargo in light containers out in front. If a dust particle hit a box of frozen food, fertilizer, copper, or cement bags little damage would result. As far as mars colonies go frozen food, fertilizer, cement or metals that you haven't found on mars yet is about all you need to ship. Gold, palladium, etc and dimonds would be economic as a back shipped cargo. Your return trip shielding might be just martian dirt and rock. In which case you need to either have something to deflect debris or make the ship less solid or go into hyperspace which sounds a bit far off. yep
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
I meant to expand on my hose analogy.I was likening the impulse of the arc and aether flow to a hose being turned on because I heard once that droplets of water are found to orbit water coming out of a nosle at high speed. And this is exactly what I believe the aether is doing and furthermore while I am not sure exactly how, I wonder if the reason the droplets do that is because of a 90 degree aether flow. On 9/23/06, John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think I know how Podkletnovs second device works, the aether moves through the donut superconductors inducing a second beam like aether flow at 90 degrees, the exact same thing can be seen to happen in the ATGroup device and Mortons device which was really Podkletnov on a budget.Close but the second device is not spinning so the beam or field is not toroidal.I know, just to clarify what I'm saying is that there is an impulse of aether like a hose which moves with the arc, then at 90 degrees to that aether is set into rotation in the toroidal SC, aluminium or iron toroid's which induces a 3rd aether flow or beam colinear with the first but time delayed. The ZPE hitting the Bose electron (a 20 cm cooper 'pair' of billions of electrons) is absorbed but because the wave states of the Bose electron is shared the emitted ZPE can't be random. All theZPFwave packets must emit in the same direction at the same time. Becausethe Bose electron is trapped (pined) in a boundary layer between a superconducting layer and a resisting layer a few microns thick it canonly recoil in one direction and it can thus only emit in the oppositedirection. This makes a beam of ZPE several mega joules that is ineffect lased ZPE Perpendicular to the plane of the Bose electron. The rest of the interactions with matter are basically out lined inStochastic electrodynamics theory. See http://www.calphysics.org/research.html Bollocks.My theory explains Morton's almost identical experiment where he used aluminium instead of superconductor.It explains ATGroups experiment where the initial aether flow was a shockwave of aether flowing through the wire inducing a 90 aether flow in the toroidal iron cores. It also explains 2 other lesser known experimenters who reported an impulse beam from various odd coil setups.As far as I can tell your theory only explains Podkletnov as he is the only one who used superconductors.
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
I think I know how Podkletnovs second device works, the aether moves through the donut superconductors inducing a second beam like aether flow at 90 degrees, the exact same thing can be seen to happen in the ATGroup device and Mortons device which was really Podkletnov on a budget.Close but the second device is not spinning so the beam or field is not toroidal.I know, just to clarify what I'm saying is that there is an impulse of aether like a hose which moves with the arc, then at 90 degrees to that aether is set into rotation in the toroidal SC, aluminium or iron toroid's which induces a 3rd aether flow or beam colinear with the first but time delayed. The ZPE hitting the Bose electron (a 20 cm cooper 'pair' ofbillions of electrons) is absorbed but because the wave states of the Bose electron is shared the emitted ZPE can't be random. All theZPFwave packets must emit in the same direction at the same time. Becausethe Bose electron is trapped (pined) in a boundary layer between a superconducting layer and a resisting layer a few microns thick it canonly recoil in one direction and it can thus only emit in the oppositedirection. This makes a beam of ZPE several mega joules that is ineffect lased ZPE Perpendicular to the plane of the Bose electron. The rest of the interactions with matter are basically out lined inStochastic electrodynamics theory. Seehttp://www.calphysics.org/research.html Bollocks.My theory explains Morton's almost identical experiment where he used aluminium instead of superconductor.It explains ATGroups experiment where the initial aether flow was a shockwave of aether flowing through the wire inducing a 90 aether flow in the toroidal iron cores. It also explains 2 other lesser known experimenters who reported an impulse beam from various odd coil setups.As far as I can tell your theory only explains Podkletnov as he is the only one who used superconductors.
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
On 9/17/06, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In reply toJohn Berry's message of Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:29:05+1200:Hi,[snip] BTW I also suspect that it is real, because the measured mass change was +2 gm in one orientation, and -2 gm when turned upside down. This is not the sort of thing that results from measurement error caused by using an electronic balance.But what if it was just thrust from heated air + leaks? Of course to counter my own argument if the force remained over longer tests then this seems an unlikely explanation unless it was working as a jet somehow. Possible of course.[snip]It doesn't need to be backed up as it is elementary logic, assuming youaccept that double the velocity is quadruple the energy then you mustexplain why it won't accelerate in a linear fashion with the power supplied. [snip]...but I believe that if it works at all, then it will accelerate,but power will need to be supplied. If you can stomach the idea of a Machian universal reference frame however Iguess you have good company with Kyle.Indeed.[snip]If they based the theory that it doesn't do so well with acceleration because it would violate the conservation of energyNo, that wasn't the reason for that statement. The reason was thatas it starts to accelerate, the conditions in the chamber changeand the Q drops, which results in a drop in force. However they didn't take into account (IMO) that this could be compensated forby adding more energy.Yes, though I'd say a lot more energy as the Q I believe drops drastically.It is however safe to say that while this is a difficulty with this reactionless drive it isn't a problem that need exist with all reactionless drives and there are 4 solutions suggested to 'fix' this issue on this list. then they don't have areal idea as to how it should stop working just feel it should to agree with their philosophical beliefs.No, they have a very definite idea as to why it would stopworking, and it has nothing to do with CofE.Agreed [snip] Podkletnov found the beam didn't weaken no matter how much matter it went through, and there was no counter reaction on anything. ...but it was able to decide which things it affected and which it didn't?What are you talking about?The beam effectedeverything in it's path as far as I know.I.e. it didn't effect the things it passed through, but did effect test objects placed in it's path??? (Had the latter not been true, then how was it detected at all?)It moved evything it's path, it is measureb by the fact that everything elseis not in the beams path.It worked just like you'd expect a parallel 'beam' of gravity to work. Through the roof of the lab? (See first report).I was referring to his later work with the discharge.Also i am not aware of his first version being selective but even if it was that has no weight on what we are discussing. [snip] No, we just assume that the gain of kinetic energy is supplied by the microwave power supply. Which is where I started out. Think of it like this. The moment it starts to move, the Doppler shift is going to slightly reduce the amplitude of the standing wave. By adding more microwave power, the amplitude is restored, ensuring that the force is maintained and enabling the motion to continue. If you wish, you can think of it as infinitely many infinitely small steps.I think I understand what your saying i don't however have a clue how whatyour saying here backs up your idea that a reactionless drive would conserve energy.Look at the whole thing as a black box. You put microwave energyin, and kinetic energy comes out. Effectively it's just a linearmotor (to use your own example).It's just that space itself forms the rails. I understand your idea I don't however agree with it.Mind you, I still wonder if they took the force on the sloping walls into account. :)My thought too, still if it produces thrust in experiment... (BTW, once again, I don't think it's a reactionless drive. Infact I think such a thing is a contradiction in terms.)[snip] But a reactionless drive is not tied to a reference frame. Such a drive is paradoxical, and therefore doesn't exist. (Since it has no frame of reference, no energy at all would be needed to accelerate it to infinite velocity - one simply declares it to be traveling at the desired speed :). In short everything in the universe has a frame of reference, specifically, at least the frame of reference of the observer. I submit that the frame of reference to use in the case of this drive is that of the microwave background. Now try this on for size, fact: If you disregard relativity the energy needed from a photon rocket to to get to 1 meter a second is half that needed to get to 2 meters a second and 1/10th that needed to get to 10 meters a second because it is reactionless. (or kinda) Please show the math for this. You shouldn't need the math for this!It's so basic it hurts.You run the flashlight for 2 minutes it has double the velocity it wouldhave running it
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
Good work fellows however I am more inclined to look at useable interplanetary speeds, earth to Mars in a few weeks or so, say ~518041367424 km in 6 weeks [1008 hours ] This requires hideous velocities and you will need a hell of a bumperbar on you ship. How do the numbers come out? Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: - Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 6:27 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor What you should note is that this device if it works at all MUST violate the conservation of energy, there is no way round it, if you use it to accelerate or row for 10 seconds and it accelerated it to 1 meter a second using .5KWh say, then if you run it for 20 seconds you'd have used 1KWh, have 2 meters a second velocity but the energy contained in forward movement of your ship is 4 times that of running the engines for the 10 seconds. No. Assume a 1000kg spacecraft at initially velocity 0m/s. (we will ignore the relatives here for now, more on this later) Assume that this spacecraft uses its reactionless propulsion system (whatever it may be) to accelerate to approximately v=0.1c, or 29,979,246 m/s. We will ignore relativistic effects at this time. The energy require to get to this velocity will be K = 1/2 m v^2, or in this case, 4.494x10^17J. Not a small amount. But what is the energy required then to accelerate the craft to only v=0.05c? 1.123x10^17J, or 25% of that required to reach 0.1c. Now of course this makes sense, the square of velocity and all that. What it also indicates is that to go from v=0c to v=0.1c you must use increasing energy as time goes by. If you use a constant energy per unit time (I am using only basic units here to avoid confusion) you will find your acceleration tapers off rapidly as velocity is increased. So, if you use say (changing from kWh to something that is easier to follow, kW) 0.5kW for 10 seconds, on a 10,000kg object, the kinetic energy gained by the object is 5kJ, and our object is moving at a gentle 1m/s. This of course assumes that your method of converting electrical energy input to kinetic energy is 100% efficient. But...if we apply 0.5kW for 20 seconds, we have added 10kJ to our 10,000kg object, and its velocity is now...only 1.414m/sec. Can you get to 0.1c with a constant-power drive? Absolutely, but it will take much longer to get there, and efficiency will drop as speed increases, and fall rapidly the faster you try to go. If on the other hand, you use a constant-acceleration approach, you get there (to your desired speed) much faster, but you use an ever increasing amount of power. The total energy to reach 0.1c for constant-power or constant-acceleration is the same. Now here's something interesting. If drive efficiency in attaining some velocity from some given energy input decreases like this over time, as velocity builds up, it would seem to imply that an absolute velocity is important. A very big no-no when it comes to relativity as we know it. (or as we like to know it) You can have a reactionless drive which conserves energy globally, but to do this it will demonstrate some rather odd effects (at first glance) which later once you have juggled it in your mind for a while, really don't end up so confusing in the end. But it does seem to lead to one reference frame being preferred, and acting as the road for your hypothesized space car. If a reactionless drive is constructed successfully, one wonders about its uses to test relativity in a new and unique way. I'll let you think on that for a bit. --Kyle
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
Well if Kyle and Robin are right it can't be calculated because we can't really know what our velocity relative to the machian reference frame is.If I am right then, well I'm no good at the math but I think that a superconducting chamber bouncing EM around assuming the Q is not effected by the acceleration then I think yes you could get to Mars quite comfortably assuming you have one hell of a bumper bar. But the bumperbar could be the greatest problem if you get the speeds you want.In which case you need to either have something to deflect debris or make the ship less solid or go into hyperspace which sounds a bit far off. Perhaps better would be if I am right and the ship entrains aether, moves aether with it and moves at a high enough speed you might be able to pass right through objects, this sometime seems to be the case where after storms tires are found around tree trunks and straw through iron or in the Hutchison effect where things can sometimes pas through each other (and sometimes get stuck). Maybe we should assume some form of effective propulsion is an inevitability and work on how to protect the ship as high speed.On 9/17/06, Wesley Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good work fellows however I am more inclined to look at useableinterplanetary speeds, earth to Mars in a few weeks or so, say~518041367424 km in 6 weeks [1008 hours ] This requires hideousvelocities and you will need a hell of a bumperbar on you ship. How do the numbers come out?Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: - Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 6:27 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor What you should note is that this device if it works at all MUST violate the conservation of energy, there is no way round it, if you use it to accelerate or row for 10 seconds and it accelerated it to 1 meter a second using .5KWh say, then if you run it for 20 seconds you'd have used 1KWh, have 2 meters a second velocity but the energy contained in forward movement of your ship is 4 times that of running the engines for the 10 seconds. No. Assume a 1000kg spacecraft at initially velocity 0m/s. (we will ignore the relatives here for now, more on this later) Assume that this spacecraft uses its reactionless propulsion system (whatever it may be) to accelerate to approximately v=0.1c, or 29,979,246 m/s. We will ignore relativistic effects at this time. The energy require to get to this velocity will be K = 1/2 m v^2, or in this case, 4.494x10^17J. Not a small amount. But what is the energy required then to accelerate the craft to only v=0.05c? 1.123x10^17J, or 25% of that required to reach 0.1c. Now of course this makes sense, the square of velocity and all that. What it also indicates is that to go from v=0c to v=0.1c you must use increasing energy as time goes by. If you use a constant energy per unit time (I am using only basic units here to avoid confusion) you will find your acceleration tapers off rapidly as velocity is increased. So, if you use say (changing from kWh to something that is easier to follow, kW) 0.5kW for 10 seconds, on a 10,000kg object, the kinetic energy gained by the object is 5kJ, and our object is moving at a gentle 1m/s. This of course assumes that your method of converting electrical energy input to kinetic energy is 100% efficient. But...if we apply 0.5kW for 20 seconds, we have added 10kJ to our 10,000kg object, and its velocity is now...only 1.414m/sec. Can you get to 0.1c with a constant-power drive? Absolutely, but it will take much longer to get there, and efficiency will drop as speed increases, and fall rapidly the faster you try to go. If on the other hand, you use a constant-acceleration approach, you get there (to your desired speed) much faster, but you use an ever increasing amount of power. The total energy to reach 0.1c for constant-power or constant-acceleration is the same. Now here's something interesting. If drive efficiency in attaining some velocity from some given energy input decreases like this over time, as velocity builds up, it would seem to imply that an absolute velocity is important. A very big no-no when it comes to relativity as we know it. (or as we like to know it) You can have a reactionless drive which conserves energy globally, but to do this it will demonstrate some rather odd effects (at first glance) which later once you have juggled it in your mind for a while, really don't end up so confusing in the end. But it does seem to lead to one reference frame being preferred, and acting as the road for your hypothesized space car. If a reactionless drive is constructed successfully, one wonders about its uses to test relativity in a new and unique way. I'll let you think on that for a bit. --Kyle
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to John Berry's message of Sun, 17 Sep 2006 10:10:37 +1200: Hi, [snip] No Kyle, your mistaken. You doubt KE = 1/2mv^2? Not in anything other than reactionless propulsion. Who says it's reactionless? Personally, I think it reacts against space itself via the interaction that EM radiation has with the "substrate". This implies that it is reacting against the entire mass of the universe, and hence conservation of momentum implies that all energy expended ends up as kinetic energy of the device and heat (as opposed to being shared with kinetic energy of exhausted mass as is the case with conventional rockets). BTW I also suspect that it is real, because the measured mass change was +2 gm in one orientation, and -2 gm when turned upside down. This is not the sort of thing that results from measurement error caused by using an electronic balance. I'm not so sure that a safe assumption, robin, if there's an unknown electromagntic interaction with the power supply, or the wires on the table or the multi meter or the reinforcing bars in the concrete floor, etc, etc it could be symmetrical pushing if the machine is up right and pulling if it is upside down. They need to do an open field test away from all metalic materials with variations of the cable and power layouts. I have suggested that to them. snip
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
ZPE saves the conservation of energy yet again. John Berry wrote: snip I'm to thick to handle this bit. ;-) Plus you do not state by which mechanism the thrust would be effected, where my Doppler effect pushing it out of resonance lowering the Q is pretty much what was stated in the article, There was no indication they used it as a way to save the conservation of energy and if they did then we can discount it as bunk anyway because that would mean they have no theoretical basis for believing in the effect. Not quite doppler effect but a good analagy. If the front plate is accelerating relative to the compound wave frount velocity the wave front will peak a few nanometers behind the plate. Hense no push if the plate is moving. But if you accept that Morton and ATGroup and especially Podkletnov with their similar gravity beam rigs is for real then how would the conservation of energy be saved in this case? Podkletnov found the beam didn't weaken no matter how much matter it went through, and there was no counter reaction on anything. I prediced the results for Podklenovs second set of experiments back in 1998. There should be no counter reaction, it is a reactionless drive. We need to get a small one to the sapce station! Face it, if reactionles propulsion if real then the only way the conservation of energy could MAYBE be saved is is we just assume there is a loss (or gain) in ZPE somewhere in the universe of equal magnitude with the gain or loss in kinetic energy, even though figuring out how this could possibly occur and know it it should even be a loss is crazy but if you have to believe in the conservation of energy (why?) then that's your best bet. ZPE is the basis for all the theories, mine and Dr Modanese's and thus all the theories on Podkletnovs work are notionally conserving energy. I suspect the Emdrive will in the end also be found to be interacting with ZPE. snip The only frame of reference there is, is one that any decent sized ship drags along, yes that's my own theory not conventional although plenty of relativists are slowly coming to such a conclusion. (it allows FTL travel) cool where are the papers? Your stationary reference frame makes no freaking sense but if you choose to believe in it that's your choice. The idea behind it being unable to accelerate and I believe it is just a theory is that ACCELERATION will cause a Doppler like effect and it will no longer be in resonance hence lower Q and lower EM bouncing in the box and hence lower force. Again, I am not talking about the EMdrive thing, particularly since very little hard data is known beyond the hearsay of the media, and we know how reliable a source they are. (Shawyer used a 700W magnetron or an 850W one, depending on who is reporting) You are right that without a stationary reference frame with which to measure energy against there is no way it can keep to the conservation of energy and regardless of whether or not this device works I'm sure such devices do exist which means conservation of energy really is just a general observation and not true in all cases. Well, personally I think they (reactionless propulsion systems) probably are possible as well, but I will predict that they will be found to obey energy conservation. It would be really nice if they *didn't*, but I think we are stuck with C-of-E. You think that why? Sure conservation of energy makes sense as a general observation but that's all it is, obviously most energy transformations won't lead to anything that breaks the conservation of energy, but that doesn't mean there aren't situations where energy creation/destruction does occur. There are plenty of situations where conservation of energy is not observed (both experiments and logic/math) leading to the question, why do you believe that energy can't be created? In most cases though I believe that the conservation of energy and equal and opposite and other laws, rules or constants are broken when the aether (space time) is effected in certain ways, when you do the right things to the medium in which all matter and energy floats the rules change. The real question, as with all science, is How do you design an experiment that invalidates the key hypothisis of C - of - E. What are your assumptions and if ZPE is real and usable as energy and reaction medium does that save C - of - E. Then we start all over again asking the question but now we must exclude ZPE experimentally. I see a long and fruit full life for the consevation of energy debate.
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
On 9/17/06, Wesley Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ZPE saves the conservation of energy yet again. John Berry wrote: snip I'm to thick to handle this bit. ;-) Plus you do not state by which mechanism the thrust would be effected, where my Doppler effect pushing it out of resonance lowering the Q is pretty much what was stated in the article, There was no indication they used it as a way to save the conservation of energy and if they did then we can discount it as bunk anyway because that would mean they have no theoretical basis for believing in the effect. Not quite doppler effect but a good analagy. If the front plate is accelerating relative to the compound wave frount velocity the wave front will peak a few nanometers behind the plate. Hense no push if the plate is moving.My solution (though I loved your rowing idea) was to increase the microwave frequency, increase the length of the chamber coupled with a good constant rate of acceleration so it can again produce as much thrust as if it were stationary, this should still work with your view? But if you accept that Morton and ATGroup and especially Podkletnov with their similar gravity beam rigs is for real then how would the conservation of energy be saved in this case? Podkletnov found the beam didn't weaken no matter how much matter it went through, and there was no counter reaction on anything. I prediced the results for Podklenovs second set of experiments back in 1998. There should be no counter reaction, it is a reactionless drive. We need to get a small one to the sapce station!I think I know how Podkletnovs second device works, the aether moves through the donut superconductors inducing a second beam like aether flow at 90 degrees, the exact same thing can be seen to happen in the ATGroup device and Mortons device which was really Podkletnov on a budget. I know that there is a time delay between the arc and the beam which others have pointed out is consistent with an aether theory.I would be interested as to how you predicted it.Morton had a different theory regarding beams from accelerating charges. Face it, if reactionles propulsion if real then the only way the conservation of energy could MAYBE be saved is if we just assume there is a loss (or gain) in ZPE somewhere in the universe of equal magnitude with the gain or loss in kinetic energy, even though figuring out how this could possibly occur and know it it should even be a loss is crazy but if you have to believe in the conservation of energy (why?) then that's your best bet. ZPE is the basis for all the theories, mine and Dr Modanese's and thus all the theories on Podkletnovs work are notionally conserving energy. I suspect the Emdrive will in the end also be found to be interacting with ZPE. snip The only frame of reference there is, is one that any decent sized ship drags along, yes that's my own theory not conventional although plenty of relativists are slowly coming to such a conclusion. (it allows FTL travel) cool where are the papers?Just look for frame dragging.They accept outer galaxies are moving away faster than the speed of light but that's ok cause space time is moving with them. They will eventually turn it back into an aether theory.It's only an issue of magnitude of how readily space time can be dragged around by matter. The real question, as with all science, is How do you design an experiment that invalidates the key hypothisis of C - of - E.As I've said earlier I can argue that the conservation of energy is a philosophy, an observation which sometimes is broken and in most math it is conserved but not all as in the example I gave earlier in this thread where it is broken by time delay. It is hard to have a reactionless propulsion without breaking the conservation of energy, and as I reject the idea Robin and Kyle are so comfortable with that leaves only one possibility (that I'll accept) that energy is being balanced by ZPE. And at that point you can't disprove the possibility that energy no matter how logical it might appear that it is being created in a certain device, no matter how much excess energy is generated you can't be sure it isn't vanishing from some mysterious unseen near infinite storehouse of energy. And it does make the point rather moot, a philosophical issue only that can't really ever be proven one way or the other absolutely. What are your assumptions and if ZPE is real and usable as energy and reaction medium does that save C - of - E. Then we start all over again asking the question but now we must exclude ZPE experimentally. I see a long and fruit full life for the consevation of energy debate. Indeed, but I don't believe it can be excluded really.In the end I think it is closer to an issue of faith, faith in abundance and creation or faith in rigid laws because once ZPE is fair game there is no proving either side, not that there ever was.
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
Title: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor The quantity mv^2 was what Leibniz termed vis viva (the living force) to distinguish it from Newton's vis inertia (the force of interia). Neglecting the constant of integration, mv^2 is the integral of mvdv . Harry John Berry wrote: No Kyle, your mistaken. You doubt KE = 1/2mv^2? Not in anything other than reactionless propulsion.
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
- Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 12:30 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor No Kyle, your mistaken. You doubt KE = 1/2mv^2? To postulate a scenario where a supposed reactionless engine consumes power at a rate based on an absolute velocity and therefore obeys energy conservation I think is less mistaken than to simply assume that conservation of energy is wrong. I am sorry, but your math for 0.5kW input for 10 seconds, giving 1m/s, and then 0.5kW for 20 seconds giving 2m/s is just incorrect; if you have a situation like that, your numbers will not add up at all, and you will get a free lunch of kinetic energy. If this were true, we could build a perpetual motion machine with a linear accelerator, based on needing 500J to get a charge to say 0.25c, and a kinetic energy upon hitting a target of X Joules, and then decide to use 1000J to get X^2 Joules upon hitting the target. This is nonsensical. And one of the major reasons why understanding the performance of a hypothesized reactionless engine is difficult at first. Its one of the reasons pushing the decimals a bit higher and higher in particle accelerators is such a pain: at very high speeds you have to keep dumping massive amount of energy in to get a minute increase in speed. And on top of that, the relativistic problems start to bite you, and now we're really in it. Are you by chance equating: A. converting 0.5kW for 10 seconds to thrust, and then for an additional 10 seconds, as being the same as, B. blasting a rocket for 10 seconds, and then for 10 more seconds? There is no way it can work with a stationary reference frame as you say. I am not referring to the loss of Q effect which takes place in the (supposed) EMdrive. I am referring to reactionless engines in general. There is no reason they are precluded by a preferred frame of reference, should one exist. The idea behind it being unable to accelerate and I believe it is just a theory is that ACCELERATION will cause a Doppler like effect and it will no longer be in resonance hence lower Q and lower EM bouncing in the box and hence lower force. Again, I am not talking about the EMdrive thing, particularly since very little hard data is known beyond the hearsay of the media, and we know how reliable a source they are. (Shawyer used a 700W magnetron or an 850W one, depending on who is reporting) You are right that without a stationary reference frame with which to measure energy against there is no way it can keep to the conservation of energy and regardless of whether or not this device works I'm sure such devices do exist which means conservation of energy really is just a general observation and not true in all cases. Well, personally I think they (reactionless propulsion systems) probably are possible as well, but I will predict that they will be found to obey energy conservation. It would be really nice if they *didn't*, but I think we are stuck with C-of-E. --Kyle
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
No Kyle, your mistaken.You doubt KE = 1/2mv^2?Not in anything other than reactionless propulsion. To postulate a scenario where a supposedreactionless engine consumes power at a rate based on an absolute velocity and therefore obeys energy conservation I think is less mistaken than tosimply assume that conservation of energy is wrong.But you must assume that the reactionless engine starts at the universal (at least universal for this engine) rest velocity and no matter where else it goes in the universe no matter what the local stationary reference frame is it must still have performance based on where it was first launched! Or if where it was first launched was not stationary relative to the universal rest velocity but moving then you may find that it's performance begins poorly but if you move if you accelerate in the right direction every second it thrusts and accelerates faster and faster because the propulsion is more effective the closer the ship is to this universal reference frame. I am sorry, but your math for 0.5kW input for 10 seconds, giving 1m/s, and then 0.5kW for 20 seconds giving 2m/s is just incorrect;Your idea of it having a 'road' or universal stationary reference frame on which performance is based is positively kookie.Plus you do not state by which mechanism the thrust would be effected, where my Doppler effect pushing it out of resonance lowering the Q is pretty much what was stated in the article, There was no indication they used it as a way to save the conservation of energy and if they did then we can discount it as bunk anyway because that would mean they have no theoretical basis for believing in the effect. But if you accept that Morton and ATGroup and especially Podkletnov with their similar gravity beam rigs is for real then how would the conservation of energy be saved in this case?Podkletnov found the beam didn't weaken no matter how much matter it went through, and there was no counter reaction on anything. Face it, if reactionles propulsion if real then the only way the conservation of energy could MAYBE be saved is is we just assume there is a loss (or gain) in ZPE somewhere in the universe of equal magnitude with the gain or loss in kinetic energy, even though figuring out how this could possibly occur and know it it should even be a loss is crazy but if you have to believe in the conservation of energy (why?) then that's your best bet. if you have asituation like that, your numbers will not add up at all, and you will get a free lunch of kinetic energy. If this were true, we could build aperpetual motion machine with a linear acceleratorSure, a reactionless one, not a normal one though. , based on needing 500J toget a charge to say 0.25c, and a kinetic energy upon hitting a target of X Joules, and then decide to use 1000J to get X^2 Joules upon hitting thetarget. This is nonsensical.No it's not, it could be used as an example as to why there is no such a thing as a reactionless engine though, but for me I'm happy with both laws being general observations and not absolutes. And one of the major reasons why understandingthe performance of a hypothesized reactionless engine is difficult at first. Its one of the reasons pushing the decimals a bit higher and higher inparticle accelerators is such a painParticle accelerators aren't reactionless.And moreover to even keep the particle moving at a constant velocity they must pump in lots and lots of energy. : at very high speeds you have to keepdumping massive amount of energy in to get a minute increase in speed. And on top of that, the relativistic problems start to bite you, and now we'rereally in it.Do you not see the difference between a reactionless engine and a linear motor or particle accelerator which is tied to a reference frame by way of stators used to accelerate it?? Of course the conservation of energy works in these situations generally, if you do the math you will see that if you double the velocity with a linear motor you need 4 times the energy naturally.But a reactionless drive is not tied to a reference frame. Now try this on for size, fact: If you disregard relativity the energy needed from a photon rocket to to get to 1 meter a second is half that needed to get to 2 meters a second and 1/10th that needed to get to 10 meters a second because it is reactionless. (or kinda) Now it's ok because the energy in the photons relative to your starting and final reference frames is less the faster you go, the one during the first second have a higher frequency than the ones emitted during the last second. (same freq. at the time of course but lower at the end of the 10 second run) The point is that a flashlight will yield constant acceleration at a given power input. Are you by chance equating:A. converting 0.5kW for 10 seconds to thrust, and then for an additional 10seconds, as being the same as,B. blasting a rocket for 10 seconds, and then for 10 more seconds? Very much so yes except I have explained why
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
- Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 6:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor Not in anything other than reactionless propulsion. But why make it a special case? But you must assume that the reactionless engine starts at the universal (at least universal for this engine) rest velocity and no matter where else it goes in the universe no matter what the local stationary reference frame is it must still have performance based on where it was first launched! Not at all, it can be imagined to start in any frame of reference chosen, however, its efficiency will be based on its velocity relative to the preferred frame. This is what I was hinting at in the first message, that finding a reactionless propulsion system that (I think must) obeys conservation of energy will raise some eyebrows depending on which direction you decide to point it and go. Or if where it was first launched was not stationary relative to the universal rest velocity but moving then you may find that it's performance begins poorly but if you move if you accelerate in the right direction every second it thrusts and accelerates faster and faster because the propulsion is more effective the closer the ship is to this universal reference frame. Indeed, it would seem that the hypothesized preferred frame would act as the road. Or the air. There is another word that could be used, it starts with an e (or ae) but I will remain a gentleman. :) Your idea of it having a 'road' or universal stationary reference frame on which performance is based is positively kookie. Throwing out conservation of energy, which is even more fundamental than a violation of the 2nd Postulate is probably less favorable. Kookie is probably the right word to use, however, when speaking of reactionless engines. They probably are. Plus you do not state by which mechanism the thrust would be effected, where my Doppler effect pushing it out of resonance lowering the Q is pretty much what was stated in the article, There was no indication they used it as a way to save the conservation of energy and if they did then we can discount it as bunk anyway because that would mean they have no theoretical basis for believing in the effect. Well, we cannot draw much about the supposed performance of the EMdrive in any case, given a decided lack of hard data. Show me the thruster! (sorry, I could not resist.) Indeed there could be more effects limiting performance, but there will almost certainly be something there that preserves conservation of energy. The mechanism is as I said, a hypothesized preferred frame. But if you accept that Morton and ATGroup and especially Podkletnov with their similar gravity beam rigs is for real then how would the conservation of energy be saved in this case? I know little of ATG, other than they made an (inefficient) coil-gun. Did they do something else? I will make no comment on Podkletnov, out of respect for those who did work on that effect well within the grasp of the everyday-man, and yet are unheard of now. As to Morton, do you refer to the Van de Graff generator effect? I do not know enough details of these three you have listed to speak as to their conservation of energy, nevertheless, they probably do conserve. (Please note use of probably, in place of the usual must) Podkletnov found the beam didn't weaken no matter how much matter it went through, and there was no counter reaction on anything. Where can I find detailed plans so that I can build it in my laboratory? Face it, if reactionles propulsion if real then the only way the conservation of energy could MAYBE be saved is is we just assume there is a loss (or gain) in ZPE somewhere in the universe of equal magnitude with the gain or loss in kinetic energy, even though figuring out how this could possibly occur and know it it should even be a loss is crazy but if you have to believe in the conservation of energy (why?) then that's your best bet. There is no need to invoke ZPE for which the evidence is sadly lacking in it having anything to do with much of...well, anything. ZPE has become the magickal elixir of everything it seems. I don't mean to sound harsh, but really it is getting a bit crazy. Mark Twain must be laughing at us all, as far as ZPE is concerned, thinking back on his statements regarding such wholesale returns from such trivial investment of fact. Sure, a reactionless one, not a normal one though. I imagine some people probably thought the same thing when radioactivity was first being understood. It must have seemed to violate a great many things. But it really didn't. No it's not, it could be used as an example as to why there is no such a thing as a reactionless engine though, but for me I'm happy with both laws being general observations and not absolutes. Well, I do leave open
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
Hi, Here's a variation on a theme. An atom may be seen as a small spherical resonant chamber, with infinite Q, with EM energy in it. In that respect it looks like one of these drive units, except that it wouldn't develop any force because it is symmetrical. If placed in a severely asymmetric intense electric field, the atom may however deform, becoming somewhat oval. Now we have one end bigger than the other, and a force develops in each atom within the field. All pointing in the same direction. Because the Q is effectively infinite (or unmeasurably large), the force would be considerable, even for a small deformation. Lo and behold, we have a thruster as described by T.T. Brown. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
Indeed, it would seem that the hypothesized preferred frame would act as the road. Or the air. There is another word that could be used, it startswith an e (or ae) but I will remain a gentleman. :)I'm not so much of a gentleman then. But if you accept that Morton and ATGroup and especially Podkletnov with their similar gravity beam rigs is for real then how would the conservation of energy be saved in this case?I know little of ATG, other than they made an (inefficient) coil-gun. Didthey do something else? I will make no comment on Podkletnov, out of respect for those who did work on that effect well within the grasp of theeveryday-man, and yet are unheard of now. As to Morton, do you refer to theVan de Graff generator effect? I do not know enough details of these three you have listed to speak as to their conservation of energy, nevertheless,they probably do conserve. (Please note use of probably, in place of theusual must)All made very similar devices that created a gravity like beam. Podkletnov found the beam didn't weaken no matter how much matter it went through, and there was no counter reaction on anything.Where can I find detailed plans so that I can build it in my laboratory?If your serious there is enough detail, are you serious? Face it, if reactionles propulsion if real then the only way the conservation of energy could MAYBE be saved is is we just assume there is a loss (or gain) in ZPE somewhere in the universe of equal magnitude with the gain or loss in kinetic energy, even though figuring out how this could possibly occur and know it it should even be a loss is crazy but if you have to believe in the conservation of energy (why?) then that's your best bet.There is no need to invoke ZPE for which the evidence is sadly lacking init having anything to do with much of...well, anything. ZPE has become the magickal elixir of everything it seems. I don't mean to sound harsh, butreally it is getting a bit crazy. Mark Twain must be laughing at us all, asfar as ZPE is concerned, thinking back on his statements regarding such wholesale returns from such trivial investment of fact.I'd agree with that, there is however ample evidence for energy from the aether. Particle accelerators aren't reactionless.Neither are reactionless engineseh? reactionless engines aren't reactionless engines? , if they are pushing against a preferredframe.Where do you see evidence in the dean drive, in the EMDrive that it pushes off your stationary reference frame?Also the thrust from a test reactionless motor would vary with the rotation of the earth likely as the absolute velocity of the device changed. Obviously I have no problem with an aether but what kind of aether are you talking about,a universal stationary one? (I think you must) Now try this on for size, fact: If you disregard relativity the energy needed from a photon rocket to to get to 1 meter a second is half that needed to get to 2 meters a second and 1/10th that needed to get to 10 meters a second because it is reactionless. (or kinda)No it is not reactionlessOf course it isn't, didn't say it was. , photons* have momentum. But 300MW/Newton does, asthey say, sorta suck. The point is that a flashlight will yield constant acceleration at a given power input.The point is that no matter how you work it out, a photon rocket (or a neutrino rocket, or any of the conjectured dark energy rockets) will notviolate C-of-EOf course not they aren't reactionless. . As far as we know, at least; to my knowledge they have notbeen tested, owing to the dreadful inefficiency. Are you by chance equating: A. converting 0.5kW for 10 seconds to thrust, and then for an additional 10 seconds, as being the same as, B. blasting a rocket for 10 seconds, and then for 10 more seconds? Very much so yes except I have explained why with rockets it isn't really the same as the energy in the exhaust is lowered.I suppose that we must disagree then on what we expect of a reactionlessengine. By the way, please don't take any of this personally, I'm actuallyhaving a damn good time being able to discuss something other than politics on here, this is a really nice change! Your stationary reference frame makes no freaking sense but if you choose to believe in it that's your choice.A lot of things don't make sense at first glance, but they do later. You think that why? Sure conservation of energy makes sense as a general observation but that's all it is, obviously most energy transformations won't lead to anything that breaks the conservation of energy, but that doesn't mean there aren't situations where energy creation/destruction does occur.True, it doesn't mean it is impossible. But as far as we know it *is*impossibleNo, as far as we know we don't know and as I stated in another thread can never fully know one way or the other, IMO a reactionless engine would prove it to my satisfaction but not to yours I suspect even if it showed to be 'over unity'. . Just because someone hands
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
On 9/17/06, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In reply toJohn Berry's message of Sun, 17 Sep 2006 10:10:37+1200:Hi,[snip] No Kyle, your mistaken. You doubt KE = 1/2mv^2?Not in anything other than reactionless propulsion. Who says it's reactionless? Personally, I think it reacts againstspace itself via the interaction that EM radiation has with thesubstrate. This implies that it is reacting against the entire mass of the universe, and hence conservation of momentum impliesthat all energy expended ends up as kinetic energy of the deviceand heat (as opposed to being shared with kinetic energy ofexhausted mass as is the case with conventional rockets). BTW I also suspect that it is real, because the measured masschange was +2 gm in one orientation, and -2 gm when turned upsidedown. This is not the sort of thing that results from measurementerror caused by using an electronic balance. But what if it was just thrust from heated air + leaks?Besides which, I know for a fact the UFOs are real, and hence that some sort of reactionless/anti-gravity drive is possible. Thisis the best candidate technology I have seen to date.I also agree that they are real though I see no evidence they work like the drive in question, they appear to work by rotating the aether. [snip]Your idea of it having a 'road' or universal stationary reference frame on which performance is based is positively kookie...a nice scientific rebuttal.Thanks. :[snip]Plus you do not state by which mechanism the thrust would be effected, wheremy Doppler effect pushing it out of resonance lowering the Q is pretty muchwhat was stated in the article, Correct.There was no indication they used it as away to save the conservation of energyNot necessary, since they didn't claim it was being violated inthe first place. Exactly my point. Only you are making that claim, and so far youhaven't backed it up. It doesn't need to be backed up as it is elementary logic, assuming you accept that double the velocity is quadruple the energy then you must explain why it won't accelerate in a linear fashion with the power supplied. If you can stomach the idea of a Machian universal reference frame however I guess you have good company with Kyle. and if they did then we can discountit as bunk anyway because that would mean they have no theoretical basis forbelieving in the effect.The logic of this escapes me. Perhaps I am just dense. If they based the theory that it doesn't do so well with acceleration because it would violate the conservation of energy then they don't have a real idea as to how it should stop working just feel it should to agree with their philosophical beliefs. But if you accept that Morton and ATGroup and especially Podkletnov with their similar gravity beam rigs is for real then how would the conservationof energy be saved in this case?Podkletnov found the beam didn't weaken no matter how much matter it wentthrough, and there was no counter reaction on anything. ...but it was able to decide which things it affected and which itdidn't?What are you talking about?The beam effected everything in it's path as far as I know. I.e. it didn't effect the things it passed through, butdid effect test objects placed in it's path???(Had the latter not been true, then how was it detected at all?)It moved evything it's path, it is measureb by the fact that everything else is not in the beams path. It worked just like you'd expect a parallel 'beam' of gravity to work. Face it, if reactionles propulsion if real then the only way theconservation of energy could MAYBE be saved is is we just assume there is aloss (or gain) in ZPE somewhere in the universe of equal magnitude with the gain or loss in kinetic energy,No, we just assume that the gain of kinetic energy is supplied bythe microwave power supply. Which is where I started out.Think of it like this. The moment it starts to move, the Doppler shift is going to slightly reduce the amplitude of the standingwave. By adding more microwave power, the amplitude is restored,ensuring that the force is maintained and enabling the motion tocontinue. If you wish, you can think of it as infinitely many infinitely small steps.I think I understand what your saying i don't however have a clue how what your saying here backs up your idea that a reactionless drive would conserve energy. [snip]But a reactionless drive is not tied to a reference frame.Such a drive is paradoxical, and therefore doesn't exist. (Since it has no frame of reference, no energy at all would be needed toaccelerate it to infinite velocity - one simply declares it tobe traveling at the desired speed :).In short everything in the universe has a frame of reference, specifically, at least the frame of reference of the observer.I submit that the frame of reference to use in the case of thisdrive is that of the microwave background.Now try this on for size, fact: If you disregard relativity the energy needed from a photon rocket to to get to 1 meter a
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
In reply to John Berry's message of Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:29:05 +1200: Hi, [snip] BTW I also suspect that it is real, because the measured mass change was +2 gm in one orientation, and -2 gm when turned upside down. This is not the sort of thing that results from measurement error caused by using an electronic balance. But what if it was just thrust from heated air + leaks? Possible of course. [snip] It doesn't need to be backed up as it is elementary logic, assuming you accept that double the velocity is quadruple the energy then you must explain why it won't accelerate in a linear fashion with the power supplied. [snip] ...but I believe that if it works at all, then it will accelerate, but power will need to be supplied. If you can stomach the idea of a Machian universal reference frame however I guess you have good company with Kyle. Indeed. [snip] If they based the theory that it doesn't do so well with acceleration because it would violate the conservation of energy No, that wasn't the reason for that statement. The reason was that as it starts to accelerate, the conditions in the chamber change and the Q drops, which results in a drop in force. However they didn't take into account (IMO) that this could be compensated for by adding more energy. then they don't have a real idea as to how it should stop working just feel it should to agree with their philosophical beliefs. No, they have a very definite idea as to why it would stop working, and it has nothing to do with CofE. [snip] Podkletnov found the beam didn't weaken no matter how much matter it went through, and there was no counter reaction on anything. ...but it was able to decide which things it affected and which it didn't? What are you talking about? The beam effected everything in it's path as far as I know. I.e. it didn't effect the things it passed through, but did effect test objects placed in it's path??? (Had the latter not been true, then how was it detected at all?) It moved evything it's path, it is measureb by the fact that everything else is not in the beams path. It worked just like you'd expect a parallel 'beam' of gravity to work. Through the roof of the lab? (See first report). [snip] No, we just assume that the gain of kinetic energy is supplied by the microwave power supply. Which is where I started out. Think of it like this. The moment it starts to move, the Doppler shift is going to slightly reduce the amplitude of the standing wave. By adding more microwave power, the amplitude is restored, ensuring that the force is maintained and enabling the motion to continue. If you wish, you can think of it as infinitely many infinitely small steps. I think I understand what your saying i don't however have a clue how what your saying here backs up your idea that a reactionless drive would conserve energy. Look at the whole thing as a black box. You put microwave energy in, and kinetic energy comes out. Effectively it's just a linear motor (to use your own example). It's just that space itself forms the rails. Mind you, I still wonder if they took the force on the sloping walls into account. :) (BTW, once again, I don't think it's a reactionless drive. In fact I think such a thing is a contradiction in terms.) [snip] But a reactionless drive is not tied to a reference frame. Such a drive is paradoxical, and therefore doesn't exist. (Since it has no frame of reference, no energy at all would be needed to accelerate it to infinite velocity - one simply declares it to be traveling at the desired speed :). In short everything in the universe has a frame of reference, specifically, at least the frame of reference of the observer. I submit that the frame of reference to use in the case of this drive is that of the microwave background. Now try this on for size, fact: If you disregard relativity the energy needed from a photon rocket to to get to 1 meter a second is half that needed to get to 2 meters a second and 1/10th that needed to get to 10 meters a second because it is reactionless. (or kinda) Please show the math for this. You shouldn't need the math for this! It's so basic it hurts. You run the flashlight for 2 minutes it has double the velocity it would have running it for one minute. Power = E/t. Photon momentum = E/c = Power x t / c. Momentum transfer per unit time = Power / c. However dp/dt is also force (where p stands for momentum), hence the force operating is Power / c = constant (assuming constant power output). Constant force operating on a constant mass yields constant acceleration, which would indeed double your velocity in double the time. However from the point of view of an outsider, your clock is ticking slower, and your power output is dropping, so your force is dropping and your mass is increasing, both of which serve to reduce your acceleration. The only way you can view this as untrue is if you decide that the reaction from emitting a
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
A stationary emdrive can still push a ship in a given direction. It becomes an inertial anchor. An inertial anchor resists being moved but does not move itself. You can push down or back on it and it wont move but pulling upon it and it moves freely. A craft with an inertial anchor on it can jack forward against the mass and drive force of the anchor. It can then pull the anchor forward pulling against only the mass of the drive. The result is a dynamic mechanical asymmetry. The emdrive would probably be jacked back and forth by a linear motor or a crank driving a rod. For smooth operation you need several Inertial Anchors cycling out of phase to produce uniform forward momentum. Interestingly you could put emdrive inertial anchors on the ends of a set of oars and simply "row" through outer space. A vac-suit would be advisable. Colin Quinney wrote: Hi Steven, I cannot follow it at that level, sorry. But I wonder how much information has been filtered by the article writers- the reporters. Colin - Original Message - From: OrionWorks To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 10:20 PM Subject: [Vo]: Hi Colin, Regarding this newfangled EM Drive, some things don't add up from my point of view. In one article it was theorized by the researchers that the "force" only works at maximum efficiency if the operating EMDrive is stationary, that is, when it isn't moving. They went on to speculate that the force emanating from the EMDrive weakens as velocity accumulates. It was therefore suggested that the EMDrive (if it could be made strong enough while in the stationary position) could only be used as a kind of anti/counter gravity field. Kind of like a hovercraft. It was suggested that would then need to employ a more prosaic, secondary force to propel the vehicle in any direction. I have a big problem with this kind of logic. It all comes down to what one understands about Einstin's theory of relativity. It's all "relative", as they say. Whose is to say that the stationary DMDRIve object is really stationary. To someone traveling at a constant speed of 2000 mph relative to the EMDrive object, from that person's POV the EM Drive craft is speeding at a constant speed of 2000 mph. Therefore, from the stationary person's perspective the DMDrive should not operate as efficiently as compared to an individual who is actually traveling at the same speed as the DMDrive object. That's what the researchers seem to be implying. Such logic clearly produces two conflicting POV's, where one individual (moving at the same speed as the object) perceives the force from the DMDrive as greater than the forced as perceived by the other individual (who is stationary). Huston, we have a problem. Something doesn't add up right here. The only way I think they could get around this seeming contradiction would be if the alleged weakening of the EMDrive force only becomes noticeable as the object approaches the speed of light, that is, from the perspective of a stationary observer. IOW, the weakening would manifest on the same grand scale as how objects are perceived to flatten (and gain mass) as they approach the speed of light, again as perceived by individuals at a stationary position. However, when one reads the article this doesn't appear to be the case. The article seems to imply that the EMDrive force weakens pretty soon after it speeds up implying that the effects of relativity play virtually no role whatsoever. This would appear to be a blatant contradiction of logic. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.Zazzle.com/orionworks Hi Steven, Coincidentally it also appeared in last week Sept.9's cover story for New Scientist. http://www.newscientist.com/archive.ns Regarding it's speculative nature... On the negative side: I have heard that in one of their experiments they utilized an electric balance (I'm assuming a digital scale) and that the thick power supply wires might have interfered with one of their experiments. Others have noted .. It violates (apparently) the law of momentum.There are several other possibilities of artefacts such as heat build-up causing hot gas to escape from the MW cavity? Or possible coulomb artefact due to charge build-up across the assembly? Or interaction with the earth's magnetic field? And strange that it is only patented in the UK. On the positive side: Anyone familiar with microwave cavity and waveguide work.. can inexpensively build the unit with a kitchen microwave, sheet copper, and tubing. - - - In attempting to take a particular "side" in the controversy what are your potential rewards vs. your potential risks? **IF** we are curious AND we have building experience with waveguides etc... we might decide to (quietly) attempt a replication. I
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:41:50 +1000: Hi, [snip] A stationary emdrive can still push a ship in a given direction. It becomes an inertial anchor. An inertial anchor resists being moved but does not move itself. You can push down or back on it and it wont move but pulling upon it and it moves freely. A craft with an inertial anchor on it can jack forward against the mass and drive force of the anchor. It can then pull the anchor forward pulling against only the mass of the drive. The result is a dynamic mechanical asymmetry. The emdrive would probably be jacked back and forth by a linear motor or a crank driving a rod. For smooth operation you need several Inertial Anchors cycling out of phase to produce uniform forward momentum. Interestingly you could put emdrive inertial anchors on the ends of a set of oars and simply row through outer space. A vac-suit would be advisable. [snip] As I understand it however, the actual drive in question is not an inertial anchor. It's just that the force drops off as it starts to accelerate. This is because the force depends upon a huge microwave density in the cavity, and as energy is consumed in accelerating the device, it is drawn from this microwave energy. However there is no reason why it shouldn't provide a continuous acceleration force if the energy in the cavity is replaced as fast as it is used. It's like pouring water into a leaky bucket. If your pour water in as fast as it leaks out, then the bucket stays full. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
No, Wesely is correct, it is an inertial anchor. (it could be used to push off or it could be used by moving it in the direction of travel and turning it on then bringing it to rest relative to the ship, or both)The reason acceleration is tricky is not because the energy is converted into motion but because the motion effects the distance the light must travel in effect making it go out of resonance so the Q drops and the energy bouncing around drops sharply as with the force. I believe that this can be corrected with a constant velocity which is fast enough to have the it reach resonance one wavelength above and below the stationary resonance depending on the direction of the photons. (you'd need to have higher frequency photons, more distant walls and decent acceleration, otherwise a far lower frequency would be effected less by acceleration) However I very much like the rowing idea, the down side is that every stroke the energy will be dissipated so you will need to wait till it charges up again.What you should note is that this device if it works at all MUST violate the conservation of energy, there is no way round it, if you use it to accelerate or row for 10 seconds and it accelerated it to 1 meter a second using .5KWh say, then if you run it for 20 seconds you'd have used 1KWh, have 2 meters a second velocity but the energy contained in forward movement of your ship is 4 times that of running the engines for the 10 seconds. On 9/15/06, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In reply toWesley Bruce's message of Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:41:50+1000:Hi,[snip]A stationary emdrive can still push a ship in a given direction. Itbecomes an inertial anchor. An inertial anchor resists being moved but does not move itself. You can push down or back on it and it wont movebut pulling upon it and it moves freely. A craft with an inertial anchoron it can jack forward against the mass and drive force of the anchor. It can then pull the anchor forward pulling against only the mass of thedrive. The result is a dynamic mechanical asymmetry. The emdrive wouldprobably be jacked back and forth by a linear motor or a crank driving a rod. For smooth operation you need several Inertial Anchors cycling outof phase to produce uniform forward momentum. Interestingly you couldput emdrive inertial anchors on the ends of a set of oars and simply row through outer space. A vac-suit would be advisable.[snip]As I understand it however, the actual drive in question is not aninertial anchor. It's just that the force drops off as it starts to accelerate. This is because the force depends upon a hugemicrowave density in the cavity, and as energy is consumed inaccelerating the device, it is drawn from this microwave energy.However there is no reason why it shouldn't provide a continuous acceleration force if the energy in the cavity is replaced as fastas it is used.It's like pouring water into a leaky bucket. If your pour water inas fast as it leaks out, then the bucket stays full. Regards,Robin van Spaandonkhttp://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/Competition provides the motivation,Cooperation provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
I suppose KWh is a poor unit of energy to use when my example only ran for a few seconds, so change to some other suitible measure of energy.On 9/15/06, John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:No, Wesely is correct, it is an inertial anchor. (it could be used to push off or it could be used by moving it in the direction of travel and turning it on then bringing it to rest relative to the ship, or both) The reason acceleration is tricky is not because the energy is converted into motion but because the motion effects the distance the light must travel in effect making it go out of resonance so the Q drops and the energy bouncing around drops sharply as with the force. I believe that this can be corrected with a constant velocity which is fast enough to have the it reach resonance one wavelength above and below the stationary resonance depending on the direction of the photons. (you'd need to have higher frequency photons, more distant walls and decent acceleration, otherwise a far lower frequency would be effected less by acceleration) However I very much like the rowing idea, the down side is that every stroke the energy will be dissipated so you will need to wait till it charges up again.What you should note is that this device if it works at all MUST violate the conservation of energy, there is no way round it, if you use it to accelerate or row for 10 seconds and it accelerated it to 1 meter a second using .5KWh say, then if you run it for 20 seconds you'd have used 1KWh, have 2 meters a second velocity but the energy contained in forward movement of your ship is 4 times that of running the engines for the 10 seconds. On 9/15/06, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In reply toWesley Bruce's message of Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:41:50+1000:Hi,[snip]A stationary emdrive can still push a ship in a given direction. Itbecomes an inertial anchor. An inertial anchor resists being moved but does not move itself. You can push down or back on it and it wont movebut pulling upon it and it moves freely. A craft with an inertial anchoron it can jack forward against the mass and drive force of the anchor. It can then pull the anchor forward pulling against only the mass of thedrive. The result is a dynamic mechanical asymmetry. The emdrive wouldprobably be jacked back and forth by a linear motor or a crank driving a rod. For smooth operation you need several Inertial Anchors cycling outof phase to produce uniform forward momentum. Interestingly you couldput emdrive inertial anchors on the ends of a set of oars and simply row through outer space. A vac-suit would be advisable.[snip]As I understand it however, the actual drive in question is not aninertial anchor. It's just that the force drops off as it starts to accelerate. This is because the force depends upon a hugemicrowave density in the cavity, and as energy is consumed inaccelerating the device, it is drawn from this microwave energy.However there is no reason why it shouldn't provide a continuous acceleration force if the energy in the cavity is replaced as fastas it is used.It's like pouring water into a leaky bucket. If your pour water inas fast as it leaks out, then the bucket stays full. Regards,Robin van Spaandonkhttp://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
if its based on difference in wave velocity, wouldnt stationary be based on the surrounding radiation fields? and if so... now, uber amateur here, im einsteinian, in that, im great with theory, weak with mathematics, would two of these drives mounted at an angle to each other, say, a 90 between them, cause them to appear stationary to each other, allowing a force in two directions that, while only half the force would be forward, if the efficiency doesnt reduce, that might be more effective. hell, you could steer by swiveling the arrays, and changing the efficiency, allowing one to push harder. hmmm, and now im imagining an array of 28 or more of these, mounted in basically a sphere, all pointing inwards. motion sensors controlling them, mounted in the center of a ship, any impact motion being instantly translated to a swiveling of one or more emdrives to balance and cancel. a sort of star trek inertial dampener? On 9/14/06, Wesley Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A stationary emdrive can still push a ship in a given direction. It becomes an inertial anchor. An inertial anchor resists being moved but does not move itself. You can push down or back on it and it wont move but pulling upon it and it moves freely. A craft with an inertial anchor on it can jack forward against the mass and drive force of the anchor. It can then pull the anchor forward pulling against only the mass of the drive. The result is a dynamic mechanical asymmetry. The emdrive would probably be jacked back and forth by a linear motor or a crank driving a rod. For smooth operation you need several Inertial Anchors cycling out of phase to produce uniform forward momentum. Interestingly you could put emdrive inertial anchors on the ends of a set of oars and simply row through outer space. A vac-suit would be advisable. Colin Quinney wrote: Hi Steven, I cannot follow it at that level, sorry. But I wonder how much information has been filtered by the article writers- the reporters. Colin - Original Message - From: OrionWorks To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 10:20 PM Subject: [Vo]: Hi Colin, Regarding this newfangled EM Drive, some things don't add up from my point of view. In one article it was theorized by the researchers that the force only works at maximum efficiency if the operating EMDrive is stationary, that is, when it isn't moving. They went on to speculate that the force emanating from the EMDrive weakens as velocity accumulates. It was therefore suggested that the EMDrive (if it could be made strong enough while in the stationary position) could only be used as a kind of anti/counter gravity field. Kind of like a hovercraft. It was suggested that would then need to employ a more prosaic, secondary force to propel the vehicle in any direction. I have a big problem with this kind of logic. It all comes down to what one understands about Einstin's theory of relativity. It's all relative, as they say. Whose is to say that the stationary DMDRIve object is really stationary. To someone traveling at a constant speed of 2000 mph relative to the EMDrive object, from that person's POV the EM Drive craft is speeding at a constant speed of 2000 mph. Therefore, from the stationary person's perspective the DMDrive should not operate as efficiently as compared to an individual who is actually traveling at the same speed as the DMDrive object. That's what the researchers seem to be implying. Such logic clearly produces two conflicting POV's, where one individual (moving at the same speed as the object) perceives the force from the DMDrive as greater than the forced as perceived by the other individual (who is stationary). Huston, we have a problem. Something doesn't add up right here. The only way I think they could get around this seeming contradiction would be if the alleged weakening of the EMDrive force only becomes noticeable as the object approaches the speed of light, that is, from the perspective of a stationary observer. IOW, the weakening would manifest on the same grand scale as how objects are perceived to flatten (and gain mass) as they approach the speed of light, again as perceived by individuals at a stationary position. However, when one reads the article this doesn't appear to be the case. The article seems to imply that the EMDrive force weakens pretty soon after it speeds up implying that the effects of relativity play virtually no role whatsoever. This would appear to be a blatant contradiction of logic. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.Zazzle.com/orionworks Hi Steven, Coincidentally it also appeared in last week Sept.9's cover story for New Scientist. http://www.newscientist.com/archive.ns Regarding it's speculative nature... On the negative side: I have heard that in one of their experiments they utilized an electric balance (I'm assuming a digital scale) and that the thick power supply wires might have interfered with one of
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
FWIW, I think Robin has the correct interpretation here, much better than the reporter(s). Not just professional scientists do that but even reporters filter or interpret according to their own world views. Engineers do it. Technicians do it. In fact, we all it Even part time tinkerers like myself- do it :) Colin - Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 3:13 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:41:50 +1000: Hi, [snip] A stationary emdrive can still push a ship in a given direction. It becomes an inertial anchor. An inertial anchor resists being moved but does not move itself. You can push down or back on it and it wont move but pulling upon it and it moves freely. A craft with an inertial anchor on it can jack forward against the mass and drive force of the anchor. It can then pull the anchor forward pulling against only the mass of the drive. The result is a dynamic mechanical asymmetry. The emdrive would probably be jacked back and forth by a linear motor or a crank driving a rod. For smooth operation you need several Inertial Anchors cycling out of phase to produce uniform forward momentum. Interestingly you could put emdrive inertial anchors on the ends of a set of oars and simply row through outer space. A vac-suit would be advisable. [snip] As I understand it however, the actual drive in question is not an inertial anchor. It's just that the force drops off as it starts to accelerate. This is because the force depends upon a huge microwave density in the cavity, and as energy is consumed in accelerating the device, it is drawn from this microwave energy. However there is no reason why it shouldn't provide a continuous acceleration force if the energy in the cavity is replaced as fast as it is used. It's like pouring water into a leaky bucket. If your pour water in as fast as it leaks out, then the bucket stays full. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
- Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 6:27 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor What you should note is that this device if it works at all MUST violate the conservation of energy, there is no way round it, if you use it to accelerate or row for 10 seconds and it accelerated it to 1 meter a second using .5KWh say, then if you run it for 20 seconds you'd have used 1KWh, have 2 meters a second velocity but the energy contained in forward movement of your ship is 4 times that of running the engines for the 10 seconds. No. Assume a 1000kg spacecraft at initially velocity 0m/s. (we will ignore the relatives here for now, more on this later) Assume that this spacecraft uses its reactionless propulsion system (whatever it may be) to accelerate to approximately v=0.1c, or 29,979,246 m/s. We will ignore relativistic effects at this time. The energy require to get to this velocity will be K = 1/2 m v^2, or in this case, 4.494x10^17J. Not a small amount. But what is the energy required then to accelerate the craft to only v=0.05c? 1.123x10^17J, or 25% of that required to reach 0.1c. Now of course this makes sense, the square of velocity and all that. What it also indicates is that to go from v=0c to v=0.1c you must use increasing energy as time goes by. If you use a constant energy per unit time (I am using only basic units here to avoid confusion) you will find your acceleration tapers off rapidly as velocity is increased. So, if you use say (changing from kWh to something that is easier to follow, kW) 0.5kW for 10 seconds, on a 10,000kg object, the kinetic energy gained by the object is 5kJ, and our object is moving at a gentle 1m/s. This of course assumes that your method of converting electrical energy input to kinetic energy is 100% efficient. But...if we apply 0.5kW for 20 seconds, we have added 10kJ to our 10,000kg object, and its velocity is now...only 1.414m/sec. Can you get to 0.1c with a constant-power drive? Absolutely, but it will take much longer to get there, and efficiency will drop as speed increases, and fall rapidly the faster you try to go. If on the other hand, you use a constant-acceleration approach, you get there (to your desired speed) much faster, but you use an ever increasing amount of power. The total energy to reach 0.1c for constant-power or constant-acceleration is the same. Now here's something interesting. If drive efficiency in attaining some velocity from some given energy input decreases like this over time, as velocity builds up, it would seem to imply that an absolute velocity is important. A very big no-no when it comes to relativity as we know it. (or as we like to know it) You can have a reactionless drive which conserves energy globally, but to do this it will demonstrate some rather odd effects (at first glance) which later once you have juggled it in your mind for a while, really don't end up so confusing in the end. But it does seem to lead to one reference frame being preferred, and acting as the road for your hypothesized space car. If a reactionless drive is constructed successfully, one wonders about its uses to test relativity in a new and unique way. I'll let you think on that for a bit. --Kyle
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
No Kyle, your mistaken.There is no way it can work with a stationary reference frame as you say.The idea behind it being unable to accelerate and I believe it is just a theory is that ACCELERATION will cause a Doppler like effect and it will no longer be in resonance hence lower Q and lower EM bouncing in the box and hence lower force. You are right that without a stationary reference frame with which to measure energy against there is no way it can keep to the conservation of energy and regardless of whether or not this device works I'm sure such devices do exist which means conservation of energy really is just a general observation and not true in all cases. On 9/16/06, Kyle R. Mcallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message -From: John BerryTo: vortex-l@eskimo.comSent: Friday, September 15, 2006 6:27 AMSubject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor What you should note is that this device if it works at all MUST violatethe conservation of energy, there is no way round it, if you use it toaccelerate or row for 10 seconds and it accelerated it to 1 meter a second using .5KWh say, then if you run it for 20 seconds you'd have used 1KWh,have 2 meters a second velocity but the energy contained in forwardmovement of your ship is 4 times that of running the engines for the 10 seconds.No.Assume a 1000kg spacecraft at initially velocity 0m/s. (we will ignore therelatives here for now, more on this later)Assume that this spacecraft uses its reactionless propulsion system (whatever it may be) to accelerate to approximately v=0.1c, or 29,979,246m/s. We will ignore relativistic effects at this time. The energy require toget to this velocity will be K = 1/2 m v^2, or in this case, 4.494x10^17J.Not a small amount. But what is the energy required then to accelerate thecraft to only v=0.05c? 1.123x10^17J, or 25% of that required to reach 0.1c.Now of course this makes sense, the square of velocity and all that. What it also indicates is that to go from v=0c to v=0.1c you must use increasingenergy as time goes by. If you use a constant energy per unit time (I amusing only basic units here to avoid confusion) you will find your acceleration tapers off rapidly as velocity is increased.So, if you use say (changing from kWh to something that is easier to follow,kW) 0.5kW for 10 seconds, on a 10,000kg object, the kinetic energy gained by the object is 5kJ, and our object is moving at a gentle 1m/s. This of courseassumes that your method of converting electrical energy input to kineticenergy is 100% efficient.But...if we apply 0.5kW for 20 seconds, we have added 10kJ to our 10,000kg object, and its velocity is now...only 1.414m/sec. Can you get to 0.1c witha constant-power drive? Absolutely, but it will take much longer to getthere, and efficiency will drop as speed increases, and fall rapidly the faster you try to go. If on the other hand, you use a constant-accelerationapproach, you get there (to your desired speed) much faster, but you use anever increasing amount of power. The total energy to reach 0.1c forconstant-power or constant-acceleration is the same.Now here's something interesting. If drive efficiency in attaining somevelocity from some given energy input decreases like this over time, as velocity builds up, it would seem to imply that an absolute velocity isimportant. A very big no-no when it comes to relativity as we know it. (oras we like to know it)You can have a reactionless drive which conserves energy globally, but to do this it will demonstrate some rather odd effects (at first glance) whichlater once you have juggled it in your mind for a while, really don't end upso confusing in the end. But it does seem to lead to one reference frame being preferred, and acting as the road for your hypothesized space car.If a reactionless drive is constructed successfully, one wonders about itsuses to test relativity in a new and unique way. I'll let you think on that for a bit.--Kyle
