----- Original Message -----
From: John Berry
To: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 6:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
Not in anything other than reactionless propulsion.
But why make it a special case?
But you must assume that the reactionless engine starts at the universal
(at least universal for this engine) rest velocity and no matter where
else it goes in the
universe no matter what the local stationary reference frame is it must
still have performance based on where it was first launched!
Not at all, it can be imagined to start in any frame of reference chosen,
however, its efficiency will be based on its velocity relative to the
preferred frame. This is what I was hinting at in the first message, that
finding a reactionless propulsion system that (I think must) obeys
conservation of energy will raise some eyebrows depending on which direction
you decide to point it and go.
Or if where it was first launched was not stationary relative to the
universal rest velocity but moving then you may find that it's performance
begins poorly but if
you move if you accelerate in the right direction every second it thrusts
and accelerates faster and faster because the propulsion is more effective
the closer the
ship is to this universal reference frame.
Indeed, it would seem that the hypothesized preferred frame would act as the
"road". Or the "air". There is another word that could be used, it starts
with an "e" (or "ae") but I will remain a gentleman. :)
Your idea of it having a 'road' or universal stationary reference frame on
which performance is based is positively kookie.
Throwing out conservation of energy, which is even more fundamental than a
violation of the 2nd Postulate is probably less favorable. Kookie is
probably the right word to use, however, when speaking of reactionless
engines. They probably are.
Plus you do not state by which mechanism the thrust would be effected,
where my Doppler effect pushing it out of resonance lowering the Q is
pretty much what > was stated in the article, There was no indication they
used it as a way to save the conservation of energy and if they did then
we can discount it as bunk anyway > because that would mean they have no
theoretical basis for believing in the effect.
Well, we cannot draw much about the supposed performance of the EMdrive in
any case, given a decided lack of hard data. "Show me the thruster!" (sorry,
I could not resist.) Indeed there could be more effects limiting
performance, but there will almost certainly be something there that
preserves conservation of energy.
The mechanism is as I said, a hypothesized preferred frame.
But if you accept that Morton and ATGroup and especially Podkletnov with
their similar gravity beam rigs is for real then how would the
conservation of energy > be saved in this case?
I know little of ATG, other than they made an (inefficient) coil-gun. Did
they do something else? I will make no comment on Podkletnov, out of respect
for those who did work on that effect well within the grasp of the
everyday-man, and yet are unheard of now. As to Morton, do you refer to the
Van de Graff generator effect? I do not know enough details of these three
you have listed to speak as to their conservation of energy, nevertheless,
they probably do conserve. (Please note use of probably, in place of the
usual must)
Podkletnov found the beam didn't weaken no matter how much matter it went
through, and there was no counter reaction on anything.
Where can I find detailed plans so that I can build it in my laboratory?
Face it, if reactionles propulsion if real then the only way the
conservation of energy could MAYBE be saved is is we just assume there is
a loss (or gain) in ZPE > somewhere in the universe of equal magnitude
with the gain or loss in kinetic energy, even though figuring out how this
could possibly occur and know it it should > even be a loss is crazy but
if you have to believe in the conservation of energy (why?) then that's
your best bet.
There is no need to invoke "ZPE" for which the evidence is sadly lacking in
it having anything to do with much of...well, anything. ZPE has become the
magickal elixir of everything it seems. I don't mean to sound harsh, but
really it is getting a bit crazy. Mark Twain must be laughing at us all, as
far as ZPE is concerned, thinking back on his statements regarding such
wholesale returns from such trivial investment of fact.
Sure, a reactionless one, not a normal one though.
I imagine some people probably thought the same thing when radioactivity was
first being understood. It must have seemed to violate a great many things.
But it really didn't.
No it's not, it could be used as an example as to why there is no such a
thing as a reactionless engine though, but for me I'm happy with both laws
being general
observations and not absolutes.
Well, I do leave open the possibility that you are right, that the "hard"
laws are approximations. I don't know what we will find in the future. I am
simply saying that, as far as I can see and speculate, conservation of
energy will be maintained.
Particle accelerators aren't reactionless.
Neither are reactionless engines, if they are pushing against a preferred
frame. Which is what I've been discussing as a possibility. In that case,
you just don't see the stationary machinery. But performance is sure
affected by velocity relative to it.
Do you not see the difference between a reactionless engine and a linear
motor or particle accelerator which is tied to a reference frame by way of
stators used to > accelerate it??????
Do you not see the similarities? You typed it yourself, "tied to a reference
frame by way of..." and that "way of" is most likely whatever is giving you
the "reactionless" effect.
Of course the conservation of energy works in these situations generally,
if you do the math you will see that if you double the velocity with a
linear motor you
need 4 times the energy naturally.
Exactly.
But a reactionless drive is not tied to a reference frame.
How do you know this for certain?
Now try this on for size, fact: If you disregard relativity the energy
needed from a photon rocket to to get to 1 meter a second is half that
needed to get to 2
meters a second and 1/10th that needed to get to 10 meters a second
because it is reactionless. (or kinda)
No it is not reactionless, photons* have momentum. But 300MW/Newton does, as
they say, sorta suck.
The point is that a flashlight will yield constant acceleration at a given
power input.
The point is that no matter how you work it out, a photon rocket (or a
neutrino rocket, or any of the conjectured "dark energy" rockets) will not
violate C-of-E. As far as we know, at least; to my knowledge they have not
been tested, owing to the dreadful inefficiency.
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?
Very much so yes except I have explained why with rockets it isn't really
the same as the energy in the exhaust is lowered.
I suppose that we must disagree then on what we expect of a reactionless
engine. By the way, please don't take any of this personally, I'm actually
having a damn good time being able to discuss something other than politics
on here, this is a really nice change!
Your stationary reference frame makes no freaking sense but if you choose
to believe in it that's your choice.
A lot of things don't make sense at first glance, but they do later.
You think that why?
Sure conservation of energy makes sense as a general observation but
that's all it is, obviously most energy transformations won't lead to
anything that breaks the > conservation of energy, but that doesn't mean
there aren't situations where energy creation/destruction does occur.
True, it doesn't mean it is impossible. But as far as we know it *is*
impossible. Just because someone hands us (they haven't yet, at least
clearly) a reactionless motor, does not mean that we must discard C-of-E. I
think the rule of science fiction authors is a good one to go by here: don't
ask the reader to believe more than 1 impossible thing at a time.
There are plenty of situations where conservation of energy is not
observed (both experiments and logic/math) leading to the question, why do
you believe that
energy can't be created?
Can you please elaborate? I am curious now.
In most cases though I believe that the conservation of energy and equal
and opposite and other laws, rules or constants are broken when the aether
(space time) > is effected in certain ways, when you do the right things
to the medium in which all matter and energy floats the rules change.
You believe in the existence of the "ether"? Why then the opposition to a
preferred frame of reference? (Which is precisely what the "ether" is)
--Kyle
