In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 27 Nov 2014 01:15:27 -0500: Hi, [snip] > >It would be refreshing to find that the energy is returned, but I harbor no >expectation of that occurring. Consider that what we consider acceleration is >exactly the same as deceleration as far as a ship is concerned. In either >situation the ship is changing velocity as a function of time due to operation >of the drive. > > I visualize the ship as being at rest just before each acceleration takes > place.
This implies a change of frame of reference, which explains why the kinetic energy "vanishes". > A force is applied by the reactionless drive at that time which leads to an > acceleration along the line of the applied force. It does not make any > difference what direction that force takes when you consider that the drive > begins to burn up our mass at the time it causes the acceleration. There is > no mechanism available to capture the kinetic energy that is assumed to exist. This is an assumption. > >If it so happens that microwave radiation or any other form of radiation is >emitted from the vacuum as a result of the drive then there may be no need to >consider it reactionless. In that case the spaceman can determine the >location of his missing mass. The term "reactionless" is actually a misnomer. Nothing is reactionless. A better term would be "exhaust free", or "field drive" (as has been used in the past). BTW the location of the missing mass is simply the kinetic energy of his vehicle, nothing is actually missing. You might consider an electric car to have a "reactionless" drive, as it has no exhaust. Perhaps "virtual particles" are the "rough surface" of space time, that provide the "friction" which allows us to get a grip on it. > >Please understand that I am skeptical that a reactionless drive is actually >possible. The only reason for this line of speculation is to consider the >consequences in case an actual force is proven to exist when one of these >devices is operated. That has not been firmly established. I agree. > >Do you believe that a reactionless drive is possible? I suspect that you are >kidding. I have seen an operating UFO. I know that some form of drive exists, though I don't know how it works, that part is just speculation and a bit of common sense. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
