I recall reading that the inventor used some form of tortion measurement system 
that operates at right angles to the gravitational forces present.  This makes 
sense if one wishes to make a very accurate measurement of the drive force 
since the gravitational vector effects can be balanced out with this technique. 
 Also, if true, a measurement of the force generated by the drive that would 
lead to normal accelerations is being conducted instead of a form of anti 
gravity.


 Unfortunately I remain skeptical of the claims thus far.  It is much too easy 
to be tricked by forces arising from the external connections that supply the 
power for the drive unless it can be shown to operate with internal batteries.  
On the other hand, if the generated force is great enough then it should be 
easy to prove that it originates within the device.

Does anyone know of an iron clad demonstration that answers to my objections?  
I would like to see a test that ensures that magnetic, gravitational, and any 
forces due to external power supply connections and measurements are taken into 
account.    I suppose my EM Drive objections sound remarkably similar to those 
we sense from LENR skeptics!

Dave

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Cook <[email protected]>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue, May 12, 2015 11:50 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical 
Limit


     
  Dave-- 
  
    
  
  I believe there are 2 forces that are involved in moving a massive object in 
space/time system.  One is the inertial force required to achieve a velocity 
relative to some point and the other is the force to overcome a gravitational 
attraction to a large body as a result of a significant gravitation force 
field.  
  
    
  
  If the EM drive only voids the gravitation field, there would still be a need 
to overcome the inertial force to achieve motion in the space/time coordinate 
system(F=MA).  
  
    
  
  It is my understanding that the EM drive only voids the gravitation field and 
thus eliminates that force of gravity on a massive object.  How it does this 
trick is the hard-to-believe phenomena being stated by the inventor. It seems 
there is a conjecture that the invention bends or cancels the gravitational 
field so that it does not act on the object being  "shielded".   
  
  
  
  Bob  
  
   
----- Original Message -----   
   
   From:    David Roberson   
   
   To:    [email protected]   
   
   Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 10:31 PM  
   
   Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the 
Theoretical Limit  
   
   
  
  I agree that hovering does not violate Newton's laws.  That is a special 
case.  Take away the gravitational attractive mass and that is no longer true.  
That same force should cause the ship to accelerate, which then violates the 
laws.  Most of the uses for an EM Drive appear to involve accelerating the mass 
of the ship in regions of space that are not balanced by gravitational forces.

Why concentrate upon a very special case instead of the more general 
applications for these drives?   Hovering is useful, but it is not going to 
enable one to travel among the stars.

Is there any reason to suspect that the typical EM Drives that we are 
discussing are only useful to balance gravitational forces?

Dave
    
    
   
    
    
   
    
-----Original Message-----    
From: Bob Cook <[email protected]>    
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>    
Sent: Mon, May 11, 2015 9:49 pm    
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical 
Limit    
    
     
     
Hovering does not violate Newton's laws IMHO.  Energy and momentum are

conserved.

Bob Cook
----- Original Message ----- 
From:
<[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:44
PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the

Theoretical Limit


In reply to  Frank Znidarsic's message of Mon, 11 May
2015 18:58:16 -0400:
Hi Frank,
[snip]
>The video states that m drive obeys
Newtow's laws.  It has no reaction 
>mass.  It does not obey Newton's laws. 
That comment was an understatement 
>bordering on misinformation.
>
>
>Frank
Z

Which of Newton's laws does it violate?

Does a car going down the road
doesn't have reaction mass? Does it violate
Newton's laws?
Regards,

Robin
van Spaandonk

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



    
   
 
 

Reply via email to