If the spaceman can detect the microwave photons exiting the cavity with lots of momentum the drive would not be considered reactionless. A true reactionless drive does not exhaust any significant form of matter or energy that can be detected by the guy when it operates. Of course heat can be radiated from the ship provided it does not contain enough momentum to supply the forward directed force. That is the definition as I understand it. A normal type of propulsion system always emits some form of exhaust that carries plenty of momentum.
The momentum gained by the ship is exactly balanced by the momentum of the exiting exhaust in a standard rocket engine. Newton's law about every reaction having an equal and opposite reaction is what we have observed for all rocket engines. Leave out the equal and opposite reaction and you have a reactionless design. Thus far I have seen no evidence that a reactionless engine is possible according to the above definition. Could it be that some of you guys do not define a reactionless drive in the same manner as I? From some of the responses I am receiving that appears to be the case. If true, then how would you describe the operation of one and how is that different than what we normally expect? Dave -----Original Message----- From: Eric Walker <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:48 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 9:21 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: With a normal drive the guy can see the exhaust that is moving relative to him which contains all of the converted energy. If the guy with the spaceship with the EmDrive could bend the laws of physics for a moment and arrange for tracer photons, perhaps he could see microwave photons exiting the cavity of the drive in the opposite direction, accounting for the anomalous thrust. (Perhaps I'm missing your point.) Eric
