It concerns me that an observer on Earth will notice that the mass and thus energy of the stationary car held up by the drive is becoming lower with time. He will not find where that energy is being deposited as the mass drops. The heat due to cavity loss can be calculated directly, but any other energy due to mass conversion will not be accounted for.
This is a major issue with regard to accepting the reality of EM Drives. Dave -----Original Message----- From: mixent <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, May 10, 2015 10:48 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit In reply to Craig Haynie's message of Sun, 10 May 2015 18:07:28 -0400: Hi, [snip] It doesn't cost any energy at all to support a car. The ground does this just fine with no energy expenditure. E = F . d. If d = 0, then E = 0. I'm not sure how this applies to an EM drive (if at all), but perhaps it needs to be taken into consideration? >Hello! > >I was hoping the Vorts could help me with this. Roger Shawyer, at minute >2:56 in this video, claims that the next generation EM Drive could >generation 1 tonne of thrust per kilowatt of power. This means that a 1 >tonne car should be able to hover above the ground for the price of one >kilowatt. However, my calculation shows that to be about 48 times a >theoretical maximum. > >Here is the video where he makes the claim at 2:56. > >http://tinyurl.com/ko5v6h7 > >But here is my calculation for a theoretical maximum, calculated two >different ways: > > - > > A joule is a watt-second > - > > A watt is a joule / second > - > > The power required to hover an object is the same power required to > increase the speed of the object from rest, in a weightless environment, to > 9.8 m/s in one second. We know this because the pull of gravity is 9.8 > meters/second2. > - > > The kinetic energy in an object travelling at 9.8 m/s = 1/2 * m * v2. So > for a car of 1000 kg, the energy = 1000 / 2 * 9.82 = 48,020 joules = 48 > kilowatts to do this in one second. > - > > This power should be 1/2 the power to raise an object of the same mass, > to a height of 9.8 meters in one second, since it would require twice as > much energy to do this. > - > > The formula to determining how much energy it takes to raise something > to height = E = m * g (gravitational constant) * h = 1000 * 9.8 * 9.8 = > 96,040 watts-seconds = 96 kilowatts to do this in one second. So it agrees > with the previous result. > >So, I don't understand how any device could hover an object with the mass >of a tonne for less than a theoretical 48 kilowatts. Any thoughts on this >would be appreciated. > >Craig Haynie ( Manchester, NH) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
