Relative to its initial state it has gained kinetic energy. If the Emdrive needs and external source of energy then it may work by preserving CoE but by violating CoM.
Harry On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:58 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > Of course the EM drive ship that remains in this extreme case(actually > nothing at all if zero exhaust is present) is at rest which means it has > zero kinetic energy relative to itself. Again, this is not a problem for a > normal rocket that spits out reaction mass. In that case all the missing > mass and energy can be located by analyzing the exhaust stream. This is > true regardless of what reference frame you choose. A normal rocket obeys > CoE and CoM whereas the EM Drive ship does not. > > If it can be shown that the EM drive emits its mass in the form of radiation > out the exhaust then all is well. But thus far it is suggested that nothing > is performing that function. > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Wed, Mar 16, 2016 9:29 pm > Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) > > In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:19:13 -0400: > Hi, > [snip] >>When might somehow be important but if you take the process to the extreme >> you get a result that doesn't make any sense. For example, if the spaceship >> continues to use up its mass in a constant acceleration process that >> requires power and thus energy to be expended for the drive, then eventually >> there will be no mass left at all. All of the original mass is lost if this >> takes place. That does not make sense. > > The process stops, when all the mass has been converted into kinetic energy. > > The only thing I know of that only has kinetic energy and no mass is EM > radiation. > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >
