In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 11 May 2015 00:56:53 -0400: Hi Dave, [snip] >It concerns me that an observer on Earth will notice that the mass and thus >energy of the stationary car held up by the drive is becoming lower with time.
What mass loss are you talking about? > He will not find where that energy is being deposited as the mass drops. > The heat due to cavity loss can be calculated directly, but any other energy > due to mass conversion will not be accounted for. Why should there be any other energy? > > >This is a major issue with regard to accepting the reality of EM Drives. > > >Dave > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: mixent <[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 > > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
