if its based on difference in wave velocity, wouldnt stationary be based on the surrounding radiation fields? and if so... now, uber amateur here, im einsteinian, in that, im great with theory, weak with mathematics, would two of these drives mounted at an angle to each other, say, a 90 between them, cause them to appear stationary to each other, allowing a force in two directions that, while only half the force would be forward, if the efficiency doesnt reduce, that might be more effective. hell, you could steer by swiveling the arrays, and changing the efficiency, allowing one to push harder.
hmmm, and now im imagining an array of 28 or more of these, mounted in basically a sphere, all pointing inwards. motion sensors controlling them, mounted in the center of a ship, any impact motion being instantly translated to a swiveling of one or more emdrives to balance and cancel. a sort of star trek inertial dampener? On 9/14/06, Wesley Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A stationary emdrive can still push a ship in a given direction. It becomes an inertial anchor. An inertial anchor resists being moved but does not move itself. You can push down or back on it and it wont move but pulling upon it and it moves freely. A craft with an inertial anchor on it can jack forward against the mass and drive force of the anchor. It can then pull the anchor forward pulling against only the mass of the drive. The result is a dynamic mechanical asymmetry. The emdrive would probably be jacked back and forth by a linear motor or a crank driving a rod. For smooth operation you need several Inertial Anchors cycling out of phase to produce uniform forward momentum. Interestingly you could put emdrive inertial anchors on the ends of a set of oars and simply "row" through outer space. A vac-suit would be advisable. Colin Quinney wrote: Hi Steven, I cannot follow it at that level, sorry. But I wonder how much information has been filtered by the article writers- the reporters. Colin ----- Original Message ----- From: OrionWorks To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 10:20 PM Subject: [Vo]: Hi Colin, Regarding this newfangled EM Drive, some things don't add up from my point of view. In one article it was theorized by the researchers that the "force" only works at maximum efficiency if the operating EMDrive is stationary, that is, when it isn't moving. They went on to speculate that the force emanating from the EMDrive weakens as velocity accumulates. It was therefore suggested that the EMDrive (if it could be made strong enough while in the stationary position) could only be used as a kind of anti/counter gravity field. Kind of like a hovercraft. It was suggested that would then need to employ a more prosaic, secondary force to propel the vehicle in any direction. I have a big problem with this kind of logic. It all comes down to what one understands about Einstin's theory of relativity. It's all "relative", as they say. Whose is to say that the stationary DMDRIve object is really stationary. To someone traveling at a constant speed of 2000 mph relative to the EMDrive object, from that person's POV the EM Drive craft is speeding at a constant speed of 2000 mph. Therefore, from the stationary person's perspective the DMDrive should not operate as efficiently as compared to an individual who is actually traveling at the same speed as the DMDrive object. That's what the researchers seem to be implying. Such logic clearly produces two conflicting POV's, where one individual (moving at the same speed as the object) perceives the force from the DMDrive as greater than the forced as perceived by the other individual (who is stationary). Huston, we have a problem. Something doesn't add up right here. The only way I think they could get around this seeming contradiction would be if the alleged weakening of the EMDrive force only becomes noticeable as the object approaches the speed of light, that is, from the perspective of a stationary observer. IOW, the weakening would manifest on the same grand scale as how objects are perceived to flatten (and gain mass) as they approach the speed of light, again as perceived by individuals at a stationary position. However, when one reads the article this doesn't appear to be the case. The article seems to imply that the EMDrive force weakens pretty soon after it speeds up implying that the effects of relativity play virtually no role whatsoever. This would appear to be a blatant contradiction of logic. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.Zazzle.com/orionworks > > > Hi Steven, > > Coincidentally it also appeared in last > week Sept.9's cover story for New Scientist. > http://www.newscientist.com/archive.ns > > Regarding it's speculative nature... > > > On the negative side: > > I have heard that in one of their experiments they > utilized an electric balance (I'm assuming a digital scale) > and that the thick power supply wires might have > interfered with one of their experiments. > Others have noted .. > It violates (apparently) the law of > momentum.There are several other possibilities of artefacts > such as heat build-up causing hot gas to escape from the MW cavity? > Or possible coulomb artefact due to charge build-up > across the assembly? > Or interaction with the earth's magnetic > field? > And strange that it is only patented in the UK. > > > On the positive side: > > Anyone familiar with microwave cavity and waveguide > work.. can inexpensively build the unit with a kitchen microwave, sheet > copper, and tubing. > > - - - > > In attempting to take a particular "side" in > the controversy what are your potential rewards vs. your potential > risks? > **IF** we are curious AND we have building > experience with waveguides etc... we might decide to (quietly) attempt a > replication. I suspect some folks are doing just that. > > Ridicule is anathema to science. > So also is believing everything we > read. > As in all things in > life we must find that 'balance'. > > Colin > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > OrionWorks > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 11:38 > AM > Subject: [Vo]: EM Drives, revisited > Recapping the potential ramifications of the highly speculative > "EM Drive" proposal.See:http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Articles/Article.aspx?liArticleID=295931(Sorry, > Tinyurl.com was down when trying to make the abbreviated version of this > link.)If this speculative research turns out to be true, one can > quickly extrapolate what the possibilities might quickly lead to, particularly > if Mark Golde's RTS Room Temperature Superconducting material were also to > become available on the market soon.From my perspective it seems > conceivable that fast and efficient "EM Drives" could open up commercial space > exploration of the asteroid belt, where everyone knows that's where the next > Gold Gush is likely to exist in the form unlimited raw materials just waiting > to be mined.Sometimes I wish I was 20 years old again.Have > Space Suit, will travel.Regards,Steven Vincent > Johnsonwww.OrionWorks.comwww.zazzle.com/orionworks >
-- That which yields isn't always weak.
