In reply to Keith Nagel's message of Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:50:18 -0400: Hi Keith, [snip] >Hi Robin, > >I was confused by this also. I don't think english is Andres >first language, so his paper is a little obtuse at points. >What he's saying, after a more careful read on my part, is that >he assumes "The Energy of a wave is transported at its phase velocity". >is what Roger is claiming.
Possible, but not exactly in evidence. >I haven't had time to check the >math, but having now at least read Rogers theory paper, I >have my doubts about Andres assumption. > >Look at section 2.2 for example. Roger diagrams the path of >a TEM wave inside the microwave cavity. This is the correct >model, I have measured this same behavior in a real cavity >with real probes, as I had described earlier ( on the Vo. list >even, check the archives ). He then goes on to say something >like, "if we measure the group velocity by using the axial >distance, rather than the true path, we see that group >velocity can be much slower at the short end of the tube than >the longer ( as in 2.4 )". I will add to that statement by saying that >in addition, phase velocity will grow faster by the same >amount. In the limit condition, phase velocity will be >infinite, and group velocity will be zero. I think Roger >has a pretty good handle on the mechanics of what is going >on in the wave guide, based on the text at least. He has however missed one point. Looking at figure 2.4, it's obvious that upon reflecting from the sloping side, the wave will not only impart a vertical force to the wall, but also a horizontal component, since the angle of exit will be equal to the angle of entry, and hence the overall force on the wall will be perpendicular to it. Because the wall slopes, this perpendicular force can be broken up into a vertical component and a horizontal component. Without doing the math, my intuition says that the sum of all the horizontal components on the walls will exactly equal the difference between the forces on the ends. That then begs the question, whence the actual force measured in the real devices? :) > >What I find a little questionable about Rogers idea is that >the system is truly open. This doesn't really bother me. Once a photon has left the emitter it is truly on its own. IOW it's rowing through the aether. :) >Look at the gedanken experiment in >fig 2.1. If plate R1 and R2 are physically connected, there >ought to be net motion in the direction of F1. That seems >OK to me. No, this example is flawed too. There are no walls in the example, hence the radiation is not contained, and only that which reflects from the end walls is felt. When walls are present, all the radiation is contained, and the net result is zero, which can be seen by drawing a circle around Tx with the axis of the device running through the center of the circle. Equal amounts of energy are radiated to the right and to the left of the circle, resulting in no net force. >But how about if the transmitter Tx is connected >to the same frame? Now I wonder... but that's basically >Rogers claim. This on the other hand doesn't bother me in the least, because the emitter only gets a single transfer of momentum from the emitter energy, i.e. when it is initially emitted. The end walls OTOH get thousands (billions) of momentum transfers, one upon each reflection, so that the result far outweighs the effect on the transmitter. Furthermore, if it really bothers you, then align the transmitter such that the transfer of momentum to it accelerates the vehicle - making a virtue of a vice. :) [snip] BTW if it all turns out to be correct and works as stated, then here are a few "improvements". :) 1) Replace the photons with real charged particles (much greater energy density), e.g. Hg nuclei. 2) Use an asymmetric magnetic field to constrain them, so that they loop around in a true oval shape (one end of the ellipse fatter than the other), no reflectors needed. If necessary a negative charge at the center of the oval can assist in the containment. Now we have the drive unit described here:- http://www.mufonla.com/tr3b.htm Regards, Robin van Spaandonk "Given a choice between a new set of matching tableware and the survival of humanity, I suspect that most people would choose the tableware." George Monbiot (http://www.rense.com/general45/rune.htm)
