*On 5/06/2018 12:30 AM, John Berry wrote:John, there might be the odd
exception.I can give you an example that seems to break the CoM and CoE, it
isn't practical.  Now there might be an explanation, MAYBE it produces a
photos that explains the propulsive effects...  But I doubt it.Now, the
easiest way to explain (though there is a way this can work without
switching and just use DC electromagnets or even permanent magnets to
affect Inertial mass positively or negatively)  this is if you have an
electromagnet establish a field, a large fieldAnd then you have a second
electromagnet turn on suddenly, and it is attracted or repelled.Then,
before the magnetic field from the second electromagnet can affect the
first electromagnet, you turn off the first electromagnet.Standard physics
says that the momentary field from the second electromagnet will propagate
outwards from it at light speed so that it passes completely through the
first electromagnet and affects it to just the extent that it would have
affected it if the field propagation was instantaneous.*

But it cannot be instantaneous.
If we could communicate instantaneously we could kill Special Relativity.

The first electromagnet could have been on for a very long time with
nothing to react against.
We then activate the second electromagnet and it experiences a reactionary
The first electromagnet is designed to turn of a fraction of an instant
before any force would kick in.
Therefore there is ZERO force on one electromagnet, but there is force on
the other.
And only if we can communicate from one electromagnet, back to the other
and back again in essentially zero time can this not be thee case!

The second electromagnet has no impact on the first electromagnet as it is
unpowered when the field hits, it is magnetically inert at this point.

*  So after a very short time, CoM is restored.*

It is not restored because the first electromagnet was not an electromagnet
by the time the field got to it.
Admittedly the violation cannot continue without resetting the experiment,
but momentum has not been conserved, unless of course a photon is
considered to have been exchanged/emitted, but that has to be justifiable,
and I doubt it can be.

*  I am confident that if you were to include the momentum of the field in
the calculation, then CoM would be continuously satisfied over all space.
(That is after all how physicists would work out the momentum of the field
- by *assuming* that the total must always be conserved!)*

Only if you are implying that the field becomes separated from the
electromagnets and carries the momentum as a photon.   If that is what you
think happens, this this need a far more careful examination.

BTW, there is a patent on the concept...  Not that that means much.

*So now you have gained thrust from one electromagnet, but the other has
experienced no forces.*

*As I say, a version without switching can be envisioned where one magnet,
or both are suddenly accelerated in the same direction so that one moves
deeper into the field of the other, and the other moves out of the field,
so one finds the attraction or repulsion between then increased, the other
finds it decreased as neither sees the "new" or current position for the
other magnet.*

*By doing this you can create without and doubt thrust, break the CoM and
therefore the CoE...*

*And the only way it could fail is if you prove that magnetic fields,
near-fields transfer forces and information INSTANTLY which Einstein would
consider a blow.*

*This is not wrong, Unless as I said that a bit fat photon carries all that
momentum in the opposite direction.*

*I personally cannot see where there would be a cost of energy though for
the photon to be coming from.*

*There is something usually called "radiation damping" which is the
mechanical effect on moving charge that is the *reaction force* of suddenly
accelerating or decelerating the charge.  After this sudden acceleration,
its effect then radiates outward at light speed and can finally cause
acceleration of remote charges - which finally balance the CoM equations
for solid matter (which were unbalanced while the radiation was in

Sounds like a photons under a different name to me

Well, I did say going in that if you think that enough EM energy is
released in the relivant direction as to explain the forces, that I
couldn't really easily make the case that it is, but I think most peoples
knowledge of the momenta of ultra low frequency photons is sufficiently
lacking that this makes it a challenging one to further debug.

In which event, for fun I propose an alternative, take a Transformer with a
donut core, put in DC, establish a magnetic field, then place negative
charges around the donut and positive charges toward the center, then
collapse the magnetic field.
The inductive pulse will push negative charges in space, or on electrodes,
around, but as we have more protons in the center, and more electrons
around the outside, this will create a net directional thrust.

I'm not saying there isn't a possible answer, but it is a fun case to

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 4:20 PM, John Shop <quack...@outlook.com> wrote:

> On 5/06/2018 2:40 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
> Your view of what is conserved and why is too simple, and essentially
> incomplete.
> All force interactions perform work against the vacuum activity
> manifesting that force - the discrete, quantised energy exchanges between
> the respective force carriers in question, traded in units of h-bar -
> essentially, 'ambient' quantum momentum.
> When we input mechanical energy to a such field, there is no number
> scribbled down in a book somewhere - rather, it's an emergent calculation
> determined by the application of the relevant F*d integrals being mediated
> at lightspeed - ie, essentially instantaneously, as they pertain to the
> respective dimensions of the given energy terms.
> Thus if output and input energy terms are in different respective
> dimensions, any equivalence between net energies as a function of changes
> in time and space is dependent upon further conditions with regards to how
> each term scales in the other's domain.
> If both input and output energy terms are in the same fields and domains,
> then their equality is a given.  And yet, it would be a step too far to
> conclude that the Joule we get back out was 'the same' Joule we put it.
> When we spend 1 J lifting a weight, so having performed work against
> gravity, there isn't a tab somewhere saying "gravity owes Bob 1 J".  The
> fact that we only get 1 J back out from the drop is simply an incidental
> consequence of the invariant input vs output conditions.  But it's not
> manifestly 'the same' Joule you put in - just the same amount of energy /
> work.
> I agree with you.  It is not manifestly the same joule.  So depositing
> money in the bank may be a better illustration (or pumping electrical power
> into the electricity grid).  I can deposit $1000 in one city in $20 bills
> and pull the same amount out in another city in $50 bills.  It is not
> manifestly the same cash that I have taken back out, but the bank makes
> sure that the amounts always balance!  So Nature does the same job as the
> bank tellers and accountants.  Whenever you do the calculation correctly,
> after allowing for incomings and outgoings, the overall energy balance
> sheet always balances perfectly - which is almost the same as saying that
> gravity owes Bob 1 J!
> You might wonder who the tellers and accountants are that work for mother
> Nature.  The simple answer is that they are Newton's equations.  When
> applied correctly the spreadsheet always ends up balanced because the
> equations themselves are balanced.  I believe that you can achieve an
> imbalance, but not by operating in accord with Newton's equations.  You
> have to do something a lot more subtle and sneaky and discover an effect
> that has not been noticed and a term that has not been included in the
> equations.  And it is bound to be a small effect (eg < 1% of energy being
> exchanged) or it would have been noticed a long time ago.
> With the right change in those determinant conditions, we can get more
> out, or less.  An under-unity, or over-unity result.
> Consider the case for so-called 'non-dissipative' loss mechanisms, in
> which the energy in question has NOT simply been radiated away to low-grade
> heat.  I'm talking about 'non-thermodynamic' losses, in the literal sense.
> For example:
>  - Due to Sv (entropy viscosity - the subject of Rutherford's first paper
> in 1886), a small NdFeB magnet will rapidly leap across a small airgap to
> latch onto a lump of 'pig iron', in less time than is required for the
> iron's subsequent induced magnetisation ('B', in Maxwell's terms) to reach
> its corresponding threshold (Bmax, or even saturation density - Bmax - if
> its coercivity is low enough).
> So the iron's level of induced B, from the neo, continues increasing long
> after the mechanical action's all over.
> We could monitor this changing internal state, using a simple coil and
> audio amplifier, tuning in to the so-called Barkhausen jumps, as
> progressively harder-pinned domains succumb to the growing influence of
> their lower-coercivity neighbors.   After some time, the clicking noise
> abates, and so we know the sample's at Bmax.
> We now prise them apart again, however because B has risen, so has the
> mechanical force and thus work involved in separating them.
> Quite simply, due to the time-dependent change in force, which did not
> occur instantaneously at lightspeed, the system is mechanically under-unity
> - it outputs less energy during the inbound integral, than must be input
> during the outbound integral over the same distance.
> So we could input 2 J, but only get 1 J back out.
> By my calculation you have got nothing out.  You let the magnet fly and
> collide into the pig-iron so that the 1 J you might have recovered from its
> kinetic energy ended up as heat during the collision.
> Following this the permanent magnet slowly magnetises the pig-iron.  To
> the extent that this is slow (due to magnetic viscosity) and occurs in
> jumps (generating Barkhausen noise), this process is lossy and generates
> heat by jiggling the domains.  The fact that you have forced pinned sites
> to become magnetized means that some of the induced magnetization will be
> retained.  So that now when you try to prize them apart you are also
> working against some permanent magnetism.  So the energy required to force
> pinned sites to switch magnetization (some of which was dissipated as heat)
> now has to be put back into the system as the force required to return the
> permanent magnet back to its initial position.  So you have to put in both
> the kinetic energy (1 J) that you failed to recover and the energy (1 J)
> that resulted in the pig-iron becoming magnetized and warmer.
> Yet this 'loss' has not been dissipated as heat - it's simply energy that
> never existed, never came to be, in the first place.  Energy that could've
> been collected, had we constrained the neo's approach speed, to allow
> induced B to keep up... but which wasn't, because we didn't.
> Thus the extra Joule we had to input has performed more work against the
> virtual-photon-spehere (being the EM mediator), than it in turn has output
> back into the mechanical realm.  Assuming ultimate conservation - as you
> would seem to - we've raised the vacuum energy by 1 J, with a 50%
> under-unity EM-mechanical interaction.
> I agree that the energy can be stored as "vacuum energy" but I disagree
> that any *text book process* can create or destroy energy.  If you think so
> then you have not fully read the small print of the text book!
> Yet we don't need such exotica as obscure magnetic effects to achieve this
> feat...  simply consider a moving mass, colliding inelastically with an
> equal, static one:
>  - so we could have 1 kg flying into a static 1 kg
> - or equally, a rotating 1 kg-m^2 angular inertia being instantly braked
> against an identical static one
> Since spontaneously doubling the amount of inertia that a given conserved
> momentum is divided into accordingly halves its speed, we end up with half
> the kinetic energy.
> "Ah", but you say, "the collision converted the other half of the KE into
> heat!"
> That is correct.  That is how Newton's equations are correctly applied.
> But is that actually what happens?  If we began with say 1 kg * 1 m/s
> linear momentum, so half a Joule, which then inelastically scoops up
> another, static 1 kg, we now have 1 kg-m/s divided into two 1 kg masses,
> hence a net system velocity of 0.5 m/s, and 125 mJ on each, for a 250 mJ
> net KE.
> Notice that we've necessarily assumed full conservation of our velocity
> component, simply sharing it evenly between the two masses, in order to
> conserve net momentum.
> Given that the original KE value of 500 mJ was a function of that
> conserved velocity, and that the final KE of 2 * 125 mJ is also dependent
> upon the equitable distribution of that same conserved quantity..   where
> does the velocity and thus momentum that could constitute mechanical heat
> come from?  How could we have accelerated the air and molecules around the
> system, if not by transferring momentum and thus velocity to them?  Which
> would mean we'd have to have LESS than 0.5 m/s of velocity and thus less
> than 0.5 kg-m/s of momentum and so less than 125 mJ on each 1 kg mass!
> Sorry I don't understand your argument.  An experiment of allowing a 1kg
> lead mass travelling at 1m/s to collide with a similar stationary one so
> that they both travel away with half the velocity does not need any "air
> and molecules" for the interaction.  But in order to bring them to the same
> velocity a force between them does need to be applied.  If this force is
> frictional, then the energy obviously turns into heat.  Similarly if the
> force results in the lead being forced to change shape, then the energy
> appears as heat (try breaking a reasonable diameter steel wire by flexing
> it back and forth with a pair of pliers until it fatigues and fractures -
> then touch the flexed section to see how hot it has become!)
> There can be no paradoxes..
> In short, elastic collisions conserve net energy, but not net momentum -
> try calculating the same interactions fully elastically and you'll
> necessarily be invoking a rise in momentum.
> The same interaction (one moving mass attaching to a stationary one so
> that they both move away joined) *cannot* occur elastically unless you can
> think of some mechanism to absorb the kinetic energy - such as a spring
> acting between them and a ratchet to stop the spring from pushing them
> apart again afterwards.  Then  when you do the calculation you discover
> that the kinetic energy loss has become potential energy stored in the
> ratcheted spring.  The energy spread-sheet always balances perfectly or you
> have made a mistake.
> Conversely, inelastic ones conserve net momentum, but not energy.  This
> loss, by the very nature of its constituent terms and conserved quantities,
> is non-dissipative.  Only its non-reversibility with respect to time
> prevents easy access to energy gains.  This is entropy, albeit acting on a
> level beyond strict 'thermodynamics'.
> Your language here seems a bit unusual.  "Inelastic" is usually understood
> to be "dissipative" almost by definition - heat generation being the result
> of inelastic and dissipative mechanisms.  Mainstream physics still regards
> heat energy to be unrecoverable although there is no good reason except
> statistical ones why this should not be possible.
> Like i've always said, the explicit instructions on how thwart CoE and CoM
> are implicit within their terms of enforcement.  Read between the lines,
> they tell you precisely what not to do if you don't want to get a unity
> result.
> Without this kung fu, i would never have been so stupid as to take a
> second look at Bessler's claim, let alone tackle it with confidence.  But
> with it, the evidence of Leibniz et al meant that i couldn't fail.  Success
> was guaranteed.  There had to be an unnoticed symmetry break riding through
> the middle of classical mechanics, an elephant in the custard, that with a
> little determination could be tracked and cornered...   and now i've bagged
> it.
> Not just wounded it.  Not "close, but i'm running out of hamsters".  There
> was a fully-grown African bull elephant perfectly concealed in the custard
> bowl, and i've totally harnessed it, by "accelerating without
> accelerating", and now nobody will believe me and it's so unfair etc.
> Sorry but since you are talking of *textbook physics*, all physicists will
> be absolutely certain that you have made a simple mistake based on some
> conceptual misunderstanding.  Given the opportunity, (and if they are not
> fed up with fielding crackpot questions) they will be happy to point it out
> to you to save you from further embarrassment.

Reply via email to