----- Original Message -----
From: John Berry
To: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
No Kyle, your mistaken.
You doubt KE = 1/2mv^2? To postulate a scenario where a supposed
reactionless engine consumes power at a rate based on an "absolute" velocity
and therefore obeys energy conservation I think is less mistaken than to
simply assume that conservation of energy is wrong.
I am sorry, but your math for 0.5kW input for 10 seconds, giving 1m/s, and
then 0.5kW for 20 seconds giving 2m/s is just incorrect; if you have a
situation like that, your numbers will not add up at all, and you will get a
"free lunch" of kinetic energy. If this were true, we could build a
perpetual motion machine with a linear accelerator, based on needing 500J to
get a charge to say 0.25c, and a kinetic energy upon hitting a target of X
Joules, and then decide to use 1000J to get X^2 Joules upon hitting the
target. This is nonsensical. And one of the major reasons why understanding
the performance of a hypothesized reactionless engine is difficult at first.
Its one of the reasons pushing the decimals a bit higher and higher in
particle accelerators is such a pain: at very high speeds you have to keep
dumping massive amount of energy in to get a minute increase in speed. And
on top of that, the relativistic problems start to bite you, and now we're
really in it.
Are you by chance equating:
A. converting 0.5kW for 10 seconds to thrust, and then for an additional 10
seconds, as being the same as,
B. blasting a rocket for 10 seconds, and then for 10 more seconds?
There is no way it can work with a stationary reference frame as you say.
I am not referring to the loss of Q effect which takes place in the
(supposed) EMdrive. I am referring to reactionless engines in general. There
is no reason they are precluded by a preferred frame of reference, should
one exist.
The idea behind it being unable to accelerate and I believe it is just a
theory is that ACCELERATION will cause a Doppler like effect and it will no
longer be in >resonance hence lower Q and lower EM bouncing in the box and
hence lower force.
Again, I am not talking about the EMdrive thing, particularly since very
little hard data is known beyond the hearsay of the media, and we know how
reliable a source they are. (Shawyer used a 700W magnetron or an 850W one,
depending on who is reporting)
You are right that without a stationary reference frame with which to
measure energy against there is no way it can keep to the conservation of
energy and >regardless of whether or not this device works I'm sure such
devices do exist which means conservation of energy really is just a
general observation and not true >in all cases.
Well, personally I think they (reactionless propulsion systems) probably are
possible as well, but I will predict that they will be found to obey energy
conservation. It would be really nice if they *didn't*, but I think we are
stuck with C-of-E.
--Kyle
