On Nov 8, 2009, at 3:14 AM, Michel Jullian wrote:
2009/11/8 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <abd @ lomax design. com>:
...
Suppose the spinning of the assembly was caused by the counter-
rotation of
the motor shaft and what is attached to it. What would happen when
the pump
was turned off? The rotation would stop as the pump rotor slowed
down and
stopped. Conservation of angular momentum. If part of you spins
one way,
suspended in space you are, then part of you must spin the other
way, so
that the sum of angular momenta remains constant.
A very good point Abd, counter-rotation of the device balancing the
internal rotations of the shaft assembly and of the cooling fluid in
the cooling circuit seems a perfectly good explanation for the
phenomenon.
Michel
This assertion does not appear to be true from the very limited data
on which this speculation is based (one run out of many dozens). The
fact the angular acceleration occurs after the power is turned off is
an indication that even more torque was being generated in the power
on phase than that which was indicated by the apparent angular
acceleration of the exterior device.
It does not appear to me the fluid was in counter-rotation, but
rather super-rotation.
That there is a latent angular acceleration of the device due to the
fluid motion indicates the fluid plus pump had a higher (positive
with respect to the direction of rotation) net angular velocity than
the overall device. When the power is turned off, fluid friction
reduces the angular velocity of the fluid relative to that of the
device and in the process increases the apparent angular velocity of
the overall device as viewed externally. The total angular momentum
of the entire device, including fluid, after the power is turned off,
is conserved, except for friction between the overall device and the
earth, but the visible shell of the device accelerates. This might
not even have been noticed if the bearing friction were higher.
Now, to the point. This added angular velocity imparted to the fluid
during the power on phase required a *reverse* torque applied to the
device by the pump motor during the initial powered on phase of
operation. This reverse torque *subtracted* from the apparent torque
of the thruster during that phase, i.e. the torque measured by the
apparent acceleration of the exterior of the device when the power
was on. It is only in the power off phase that the total kinetic
energy added to the device, in the form of angular momentum, becomes
apparent through the continued apparent angular acceleration of the
device.
Note that many runs were made, changing the orientation of the device
for various runs, and other key parameters.
From the conversation here it appears the expectation is the people
doing and examining the EM thruster work are extremely stupid, on the
order of people who look for free energy from magnets and fusion in a
jar. 8^)
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
