In reply to John Berry's message of Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:29:05 +1200: Hi, [snip] >> BTW I also suspect that it is real, because the measured mass >> change was +2 gm in one orientation, and -2 gm when turned upside >> down. This is not the sort of thing that results from measurement >> error caused by using an electronic balance. > > >But what if it was just thrust from heated air + leaks?
Possible of course. [snip] >It doesn't need to be backed up as it is elementary logic, assuming you >accept that double the velocity is quadruple the energy then you must >explain why it won't accelerate in a linear fashion with the power supplied. [snip] ...but I believe that if it works at all, then it will accelerate, but power will need to be supplied. > >If you can stomach the idea of a Machian universal reference frame however I >guess you have good company with Kyle. Indeed. [snip] >If they based the theory that it doesn't do so well with acceleration >because it would violate the conservation of energy No, that wasn't the reason for that statement. The reason was that as it starts to accelerate, the conditions in the chamber change and the Q drops, which results in a drop in force. However they didn't take into account (IMO) that this could be compensated for by adding more energy. >then they don't have a >real idea as to how it should stop working just feel it should to agree with >their philosophical beliefs. No, they have a very definite idea as to why it would stop working, and it has nothing to do with CofE. [snip] >> >Podkletnov found the beam didn't weaken no matter how much matter it went >> >through, and there was no counter reaction on anything. >> >> ...but it was able to decide which things it affected and which it >> didn't? > > >What are you talking about? >The beam effected everything in it's path as far as I know. > >I.e. it didn't effect the things it passed through, but >> did effect test objects placed in it's path??????? >> (Had the latter not been true, then how was it detected at all?) > > >It moved evything it's path, it is measureb by the fact that everything else >is not in the beams path. >It worked just like you'd expect a parallel 'beam' of gravity to work. Through the roof of the lab? (See first report). [snip] >> No, we just assume that the gain of kinetic energy is supplied by >> the microwave power supply. Which is where I started out. >> Think of it like this. The moment it starts to move, the Doppler >> shift is going to slightly reduce the amplitude of the standing >> wave. By adding more microwave power, the amplitude is restored, >> ensuring that the force is maintained and enabling the motion to >> continue. If you wish, you can think of it as infinitely many >> infinitely small steps. > > >I think I understand what your saying i don't however have a clue how what >your saying here backs up your idea that a reactionless drive would conserve >energy. Look at the whole thing as a black box. You put microwave energy in, and kinetic energy comes out. Effectively it's just a linear motor (to use your own example). It's just that space itself forms the "rails". Mind you, I still wonder if they took the force on the sloping walls into account. :) (BTW, once again, I don't think it's a "reactionless" drive. In fact I think such a thing is a contradiction in terms.) > >[snip] >> >But a reactionless drive is not tied to a reference frame. >> >> Such a drive is paradoxical, and therefore doesn't exist. (Since >> it has no frame of reference, no energy at all would be needed to >> accelerate it to infinite velocity - one simply "declares" it to >> be traveling at the desired speed :). >> In short everything in the universe has a frame of reference, >> specifically, at least the frame of reference of the observer. >> >> I submit that the frame of reference to use in the case of this >> drive is that of the microwave background. >> >> > >> >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) >> >> Please show the math for this. > > >You shouldn't need the math for this! >It's so basic it hurts. > >You run the flashlight for 2 minutes it has double the velocity it would >have running it for one minute. Power = E/t. Photon momentum = E/c = Power x t / c. Momentum transfer per unit time = Power / c. However dp/dt is also force (where p stands for momentum), hence the force operating is Power / c = constant (assuming constant power output). Constant force operating on a constant mass yields constant acceleration, which would indeed double your velocity in double the time. However from the point of view of an outsider, your clock is ticking slower, and your power output is dropping, so your force is dropping and your mass is increasing, both of which serve to reduce your acceleration. >The only way you can view this as untrue is if you decide that the reaction >from emitting a photon is dependant on your velocity relative to your >reference frame and that is working with facts not in evidence. [snip] >Constant to the photon rocket ships power indicators. I think this is the source of the problem. You have chosen the vessel itself as the frame of reference, whereas Kyle has chosen an external stationary observer as the frame of reference. Speculative: >From his point of view it takes ever more energy to accelerate (initially 1/2 m V^2 - which is actually the first order derivative of Einstein's famous equation), whereas from your point of view there is no maximum speed. Since you carry your fuel onboard, it is also getting more massive (from Kyle's point of view), as you go faster, which means that you have more mass to convert into energy. IOW you are both right, but seen from different points of view. However it's afternoon, I feel sleepy, and can't escape the feeling that I've overlooked something very important and trivially obvious. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
