Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

[Wesley Bruce]

Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to John Berry's message of Sun, 17 Sep 2006 10:10:37 +1200: Hi, [snip] No Kyle, your mistaken. You doubt KE = 1/2mv^2? Not in anything other than reactionless propulsion. Who says it's reactionless? Personally, I think it reacts against space itself via the interaction that EM radiation has with the "substrate". This implies that it is reacting against the entire mass of the universe, and hence conservation of momentum implies that all energy expended ends up as kinetic energy of the device and heat (as opposed to being shared with kinetic energy of exhausted mass as is the case with conventional rockets). 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. I'm not so sure that a safe assumption, robin, if there's an unknown electromagntic interaction with the power supply, or the wires on the table or the multi meter or the reinforcing bars in the concrete floor, etc, etc it could be symmetrical pushing if the machine is up right and pulling if it is upside down. They need to do an open field test away from all metalic materials with variations of the cable and power layouts. I have suggested that to them. snip