Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
Steven you seems to understand this with gravity. I have to confess I understand very little. As you say my two pedal brain cannot see what gravity is. Perhaps you can help me (I am sure many others can also) but I cannot even understand that gravity does not impact my body (or any body) different when the centripetal forces are so different depending on my position on this planet. At the equator I am travelling at the speed of sound or better. Standing at the north pole I am cannot see there is any centripetal forces. In my simple mind this makes no sense if the force of gravity is not a result of movement of the mass (rotation - seeing away from the planet moving around the sun ). However, I understand that I am wrong and as I ask the question I have had many answers - none I understood. Perhaps it is because every time I let go of the branch I have fallen.:) Grateful if my 2 pedal brain can adopt the answer so do not make it too complex. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Tuesday's sermon Personally, I think it is a bogus premise to assume that Newton’s laws are not being violated when this EM device is speculated to be “hovering” a few feet above the surface of Earth. As Dave rightly points out if the “hovering” device were to be situated outside the influence of Earth’s gravity field the contraption would most certainly be caught in the act of accelerating – which presumably then means it’s violating Newton’s laws. My point is that if the EM device is presumably breaking Newton’s laws outside of Earth’s gravity field I don’t believe we can conveniently insert an exception to the rule and suddenly proclaim that within Earth’s gravity field the same EM device isn’t breaking those same laws. That makes absolutely no logical sense to me. It strikes me as a fudge factor. Nature, specifically our perception and quaint understanding of gravity fields, appears to be playing a very subtle trick on us. It’s most likely due our own ignorance hampering a better understanding of Newton’s laws being played out here, specifically the phenomenon we call gravity. Regarding gravity, our human bi-pedal brains have a very difficult time trying to grasp and understand the consequences of the simple but paradoxical equation “1/r^2”. IMHO, it is generally not perceived (or for that matter accepted) that as we stand on the surface of Earth that we are in a constant state acceleration. The point being: If we are accelerating why aren't we moving? However, according to Einstein: gravity and acceleration are precisely the same phenomenon being played out in different spatial fields. Our human perception is used to perceiving the phenomenon of acceleration as OBSERVING an object move, or more technically speaking the velocity of the object observed in a constant state of changing. We observe changes in velocity (acceleration) in *flat* spatial fields. But if you start bending (or subsequently concentrate) those spatial fields, such as what “1/r^2” does when approaching a large mass like Earth, it is possible to play tricks on our human perception. For example we perceive (and subsequently believe) stationary objects are at rest on the surface of earth, and that they have weight. It is ludicrous for our bi-pedal brains to perceive such stationary objects possessed with weight as accelerating, or moving. But according to Einstein such objects are accelerating. Therefore they are also in a constant state changing their velocity. That means they are moving! But we don't perceive them as moving! It's the curvature of the spatial field that results in such objects not appear to be moving (form our perception) which our bi-pedal brains are having a horrible time with. We are caught in a nasty paradox for which we have been trying to resolve with little success for centuries. For example, one of the most profound paradoxes we try not to think too much about is that if it takes a constant expenditure of energy (fuel) to keep a helicopter hovering 10 feet above the surface of earth – well then, where’s the energy (fuel) coming from that keeps gravity turned constantly “on” and us firmly planted on the surface of Earth? Obviously, we are missing something important here. ;-) Personally, I suspect one the subtle points we may have been glossing over is our ignorance of the consequences of manipulating spatial fields. If we can learn how to manipulate them out of the normal flat spatial planes that we typically exist in, and do so without having to consume gigawatts of energy, I think we would be in for a big surprise. I can't say
RE: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
Tuesday's sermon Personally, I think it is a bogus premise to assume that Newton’s laws are not being violated when this EM device is speculated to be “hovering” a few feet above the surface of Earth. As Dave rightly points out if the “hovering” device were to be situated outside the influence of Earth’s gravity field the contraption would most certainly be caught in the act of accelerating – which presumably then means it’s violating Newton’s laws. My point is that if the EM device is presumably breaking Newton’s laws outside of Earth’s gravity field I don’t believe we can conveniently insert an exception to the rule and suddenly proclaim that within Earth’s gravity field the same EM device isn’t breaking those same laws. That makes absolutely no logical sense to me. It strikes me as a fudge factor. Nature, specifically our perception and quaint understanding of gravity fields, appears to be playing a very subtle trick on us. It’s most likely due our own ignorance hampering a better understanding of Newton’s laws being played out here, specifically the phenomenon we call gravity. Regarding gravity, our human bi-pedal brains have a very difficult time trying to grasp and understand the consequences of the simple but paradoxical equation “1/r^2”. IMHO, it is generally not perceived (or for that matter accepted) that as we stand on the surface of Earth that we are in a constant state acceleration. The point being: If we are accelerating why aren't we moving? However, according to Einstein: gravity and acceleration are precisely the same phenomenon being played out in different spatial fields. Our human perception is used to perceiving the phenomenon of acceleration as OBSERVING an object move, or more technically speaking the velocity of the object observed in a constant state of changing. We observe changes in velocity (acceleration) in flat spatial fields. But if you start bending (or subsequently concentrate) those spatial fields, such as what “1/r^2” does when approaching a large mass like Earth, it is possible to play tricks on our human perception. For example we perceive (and subsequently believe) stationary objects are at rest on the surface of earth, and that they have weight. It is ludicrous for our bi-pedal brains to perceive such stationary objects possessed with weight as accelerating, or moving. But according to Einstein such objects are accelerating. Therefore they are also in a constant state changing their velocity. That means they are moving! But we don't perceive them as moving! It's the curvature of the spatial field that results in such objects not appear to be moving (form our perception) which our bi-pedal brains are having a horrible time with. We are caught in a nasty paradox for which we have been trying to resolve with little success for centuries. For example, one of the most profound paradoxes we try not to think too much about is that if it takes a constant expenditure of energy (fuel) to keep a helicopter hovering 10 feet above the surface of earth – well then, where’s the energy (fuel) coming from that keeps gravity turned constantly “on” and us firmly planted on the surface of Earth? Obviously, we are missing something important here. ;-) Personally, I suspect one the subtle points we may have been glossing over is our ignorance of the consequences of manipulating spatial fields. If we can learn how to manipulate them out of the normal flat spatial planes that we typically exist in, and do so without having to consume gigawatts of energy, I think we would be in for a big surprise. I can't say what's has been happing under wraps in black ops for decades, but as far as we are concerned we don’t yet know how to bend or concentrate 3D SPACE on the human scale in the same manner that large bodies of mass have been bending spatial fields on the planetary scale since the beginning of time. But if we could learn how to do it, it will likely reap many untold benefits. Anti-gravity for example. Alas, this is a tough one. For millions of years our bi-pedal brains have had a difficult time wrapping around the concept of not falling out of the tree. Kan't be done, we tell ourselves. Our instincts quite rightly tell us we will most surely drop like a rock if we let go of the branch. ;-) But yeah, I think we can learn to let go of the branch. Eventually. /Tuesday's sermon Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Old 2010 attack on McKubre M4 experiments by Krivit...
On ECW someone buried that attack on McKubre M4 work http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/McKubreM4/McKubre-Experiment-M4.shtml does anyone have answers and explanation (and detail) In our investigation, we found that McKubre gradually changed, added and deleted data points and values in “M4” years after the experiment took place, in an apparent effort to support the cold fusion hypothesis. McKubre made all these changes, over the course of a 10-year period, without scientific explanation, most without notification.
Re: [Vo]:Old 2010 attack on McKubre M4 experiments by Krivit...
sorry, that is bad jargon./... E-cat world... http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/07/rossi-on-telsla-motors-and-elon-musk-we-are-in-contact/#comment-2018903998 I share your opinion, your experience, but I don't even understand the problem nor it's explanation. like in a peer review when you find a problem, at least you try to get the explanation... often the answer or absence of answer tells more than the question. 2015-05-12 20:06 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: On ECW someone buried that attack on McKubre M4 work What is ECW? This attack is nonsense from Krivit. He sometime makes dumb mistakes like this and does not own up them. I don't recall the details, but it was just his misunderstanding. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
I wonder if the resonant shape of the microwave cavity produces a pattern of positive and negative vacuum energy that corresponds to the high and low energy pattern of microwave radiationn produced by interference. The zone of increased positive vacuum energy may produce longer lived virtual particle whose lifetime is proportional to the false vacuum value characterize by the zone of EMF excited vacuum. The lifetimes of these long lived virtual particles may be long enough to provide a reaction platform that meets that required by Newton’s laws.
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
In reply to John Berry's message of Tue, 12 May 2015 17:50:30 +1200: Hi, Yes, the reaction mass is the earth. Yes it is, and perhaps with the EM drive it still is. Or maybe the Sun, or maybe the Milky Way, or maybe the entire universe, or maybe the space-time continuum itself. Perhaps our laws of physics are the way they are because up until now, we have had no means of getting a grip on the slippery space-time continuum? On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:44 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Frank Znidarsic's message of Mon, 11 May 2015 18:58:16 -0400: Hi Frank, [snip] The video states that m drive obeys Newtow's laws. It has no reaction mass. It does not obey Newton's laws. That comment was an understatement bordering on misinformation. Frank Z Which of Newton's laws does it violate? Does a car going down the road doesn't have reaction mass? Does it violate Newton's laws? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
I recall reading that the inventor used some form of tortion measurement system that operates at right angles to the gravitational forces present. This makes sense if one wishes to make a very accurate measurement of the drive force since the gravitational vector effects can be balanced out with this technique. Also, if true, a measurement of the force generated by the drive that would lead to normal accelerations is being conducted instead of a form of anti gravity. Unfortunately I remain skeptical of the claims thus far. It is much too easy to be tricked by forces arising from the external connections that supply the power for the drive unless it can be shown to operate with internal batteries. On the other hand, if the generated force is great enough then it should be easy to prove that it originates within the device. Does anyone know of an iron clad demonstration that answers to my objections? I would like to see a test that ensures that magnetic, gravitational, and any forces due to external power supply connections and measurements are taken into account.I suppose my EM Drive objections sound remarkably similar to those we sense from LENR skeptics! Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 12, 2015 11:50 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit Dave-- I believe there are 2 forces that are involved in moving a massive object in space/time system. One is the inertial force required to achieve a velocity relative to some point and the other is the force to overcome a gravitational attraction to a large body as a result of a significant gravitation force field. If the EM drive only voids the gravitation field, there would still be a need to overcome the inertial force to achieve motion in the space/time coordinate system(F=MA). It is my understanding that the EM drive only voids the gravitation field and thus eliminates that force of gravity on a massive object. How it does this trick is the hard-to-believe phenomena being stated by the inventor. It seems there is a conjecture that the invention bends or cancels the gravitational field so that it does not act on the object being shielded. Bob - Original Message - From:David Roberson To:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 10:31 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit I agree that hovering does not violate Newton's laws. That is a special case. Take away the gravitational attractive mass and that is no longer true. That same force should cause the ship to accelerate, which then violates the laws. Most of the uses for an EM Drive appear to involve accelerating the mass of the ship in regions of space that are not balanced by gravitational forces. Why concentrate upon a very special case instead of the more general applications for these drives? Hovering is useful, but it is not going to enable one to travel among the stars. Is there any reason to suspect that the typical EM Drives that we are discussing are only useful to balance gravitational forces? Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 11, 2015 9:49 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit Hovering does not violate Newton's laws IMHO. Energy and momentum are conserved. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit In reply to Frank Znidarsic's message of Mon, 11 May 2015 18:58:16 -0400: Hi Frank, [snip] The video states that m drive obeys Newtow's laws. It has no reaction mass. It does not obey Newton's laws. That comment was an understatement bordering on misinformation. Frank Z Which of Newton's laws does it violate? Does a car going down the road doesn't have reaction mass? Does it violate Newton's laws? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Old 2010 attack on McKubre M4 experiments by Krivit...
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: On ECW someone buried that attack on McKubre M4 work What is ECW? This attack is nonsense from Krivit. He sometime makes dumb mistakes like this and does not own up them. I don't recall the details, but it was just his misunderstanding. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
Lennart, I don’t wish to portray myself out as an expert on gravitry. I’m definitely not. All I can say is that I have been interested in the subject for most of my life. (I’m 62.) As such, it should not come as a surprise that I have come up with a few eccentric observations. As a freshly minted retiree who is still in training, I’m currently refreshing my education of calculus, so perhaps I may end up doing some damage here before I die. With that disclaimer firmly in place there might be certain visualizations I can offer up here that might help make some of my points a little clearer to some. For example: Let’s pretend there exists hidden underground somewhere in a secret base out in the deserts of Nevada… a black ops program where they have secretly constructed a gravity lens. (It’s probably next to a fully operational Star Gate device, but that’s literally a different story. ;-) ) Ok… Now, our gravity lens is basically in the shape of a large tube. It’ 200 meters long and 10 meters wide. Lots of machinery is involved in running the contraption. Probably a lot of electricity too. Perhaps the Lights in Reno flicker just a tad when they fire up the tube. Let’s pretend that when the scientists finally got the device operational they tossed a baseball into one end of the tube. They observed the baseball shooting out at the other end 1.5 seconds later at the significantly accelerated speed of 300 mph. The Gravity lens operates like a cannon. After additional experiments the scientists decided it’s time to get a human volunteer to jump into the device to see what he experiences. One dark night, under cover, they transport the machine outside and prop it up at a 30 degree incline. They make sure the brave volunteer wears a parachute that hopefully will deploy seconds after he is jettisoned. Fortunately, our brave volunteer survives the experience of being the first human cannon ball jettisoned out of the “barrel” of a gravity lens machine. Later when they ask him did he feel the effects of acceleration he tells the scientists he felt absolutely nothing during the 1.5 seconds he was still inside the gravity lens. He only felt an acute sense of deceleration after exiting the gravity lens, after his parachute deployed brining him safely back to earth, well... except for a sprained ankle. (He gets a bonus check for his brave efforts.) So, why didn't our volunteer feel any acceleration while inside the gravity lens? Read on. Granted, our mysterious gravity lens machine is a hypothetical construction. Presumably, we don’t know how to build one. That said, we can easily construct something that can mimic the accelerator effects of a gravity lens. In fact any gardener watering his lawn with a hose employs the trick all the time. The following analogy might be considered crude by some, but still, I think it gets the point across. Pretend our gravity lens device consists of a very elongated funnel filled with water. A steady stream of water is being introduced at the large end of the funnel. The water is subsequently being forced under pressure to exit the other end where the diameter opening is significantly smaller. If you insert a ball (with the same buoyancy as water) at the large end of the funnel you will notice that as the object begins to travel down the length of the funnel it moves at ever increasing speeds. It is in fact accelerating even though within the medium of water immediately surrounding the ball - the medium of volume remains perfectly still. Eventually the ball spits out the tiny opening of the funnel travelling significantly faster speed than its initial stationary position. Keep in mind all during this time the water surrounding the ball remains relatively stationary. It’s as if the ball experiences no effects of acceleration. Of course it really is experiencing acceleration, but again, this is just an analogy. A better analogy I’m trying to make here is that the volume of water is literally being forced to accelerate in order to conform to the decreasing diameter constraints of the funnel wall. It’s important to point out this is acceleration effect is happening within the constraints of a slice of time held at a constant rate. My analogy is equivalent to Nature essentially attempting to compress (or funnel) gravity lines of 3D space due to the effects a large nearby planetary mass. If nature attempts to compress (or funnel) the lines of 3D space, 3D “space” compensates by spending less time occupying the same AREA of 3D space during the same unit of time. We actually see this phenomenon being played out all the time in Kepler’s 2nd law of planetary motion, where an imaginary line joining a planet and the sun sweeps out an equal area of space in equal amounts of time. The closer the satellite is to the central body of mass, the faster the satellite has to travel during the same period of time. It is similar to water
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
OK Vincent I beat you with ten years and I try to avoid being retired. I really think you made a good analogy withe funnel and water. A new one to me.My objective is not to impact the science world. However, I have a clear liking of new ventures. LENR to me is a new venture. I understand that my question about how gravity ought to be different in different areas of the planet is perhaps to simple. Trying to have an understanding I assume you say that gravity is a force much larger than for example the centripetal force on a body on this planet. Understanding that in a funnel with a output of 5cm and a ball of 5mm at the outer edge (1cm from the center for example) the increase in speed is almost the same as it is just close to the ball. Trying to use your analogy to understand why the gravity is the same all over the place even as the reaction force do differ. There is a Swedish say that one idiot can ask more questions than ten wise man can answer.:) Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Lennart, I don’t wish to portray myself out as an expert on gravitry. I’m definitely not. All I can say is that I have been interested in the subject for most of my life. (I’m 62.) As such, it should not come as a surprise that I have come up with a few eccentric observations. As a freshly minted retiree who is still in training, I’m currently refreshing my education of calculus, so perhaps I may end up doing some damage here before I die. With that disclaimer firmly in place there might be certain visualizations I can offer up here that might help make some of my points a little clearer to some. For example: Let’s pretend there exists hidden underground somewhere in a secret base out in the deserts of Nevada… a black ops program where they have secretly constructed a gravity lens. (It’s probably next to a fully operational Star Gate device, but that’s literally a different story. ;-) ) Ok… Now, our gravity lens is basically in the shape of a large tube. It’ 200 meters long and 10 meters wide. Lots of machinery is involved in running the contraption. Probably a lot of electricity too. Perhaps the Lights in Reno flicker just a tad when they fire up the tube. Let’s pretend that when the scientists finally got the device operational they tossed a baseball into one end of the tube. They observed the baseball shooting out at the other end 1.5 seconds later at the significantly accelerated speed of 300 mph. The Gravity lens operates like a cannon. After additional experiments the scientists decided it’s time to get a human volunteer to jump into the device to see what he experiences. One dark night, under cover, they transport the machine outside and prop it up at a 30 degree incline. They make sure the brave volunteer wears a parachute that hopefully will deploy seconds after he is jettisoned. Fortunately, our brave volunteer survives the experience of being the first human cannon ball jettisoned out of the “barrel” of a gravity lens machine. Later when they ask him did he feel the effects of acceleration he tells the scientists he felt absolutely nothing during the 1.5 seconds he was still inside the gravity lens. He only felt an acute sense of deceleration after exiting the gravity lens, after his parachute deployed brining him safely back to earth, well... except for a sprained ankle. (He gets a bonus check for his brave efforts.) So, why didn't our volunteer feel any acceleration while inside the gravity lens? Read on. Granted, our mysterious gravity lens machine is a hypothetical construction. Presumably, we don’t know how to build one. That said, we can easily construct something that can mimic the accelerator effects of a gravity lens. In fact any gardener watering his lawn with a hose employs the trick all the time. The following analogy might be considered crude by some, but still, I think it gets the point across. Pretend our gravity lens device consists of a very elongated funnel filled with water. A steady stream of water is being introduced at the large end of the funnel. The water is subsequently being forced under pressure to exit the other end where the diameter opening is significantly smaller. If you insert a ball (with the same buoyancy as water) at the large end of the funnel you will notice that as the object begins to travel down the length of the funnel it moves at ever increasing speeds. It is in fact accelerating even though within the medium of water immediately surrounding the ball - the medium of volume remains perfectly still. Eventually the ball spits out the tiny opening of the funnel travelling
RE: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
Hello again, Lennart, A couple of quick follow-ups before I retire for the night. Trying to have an understanding I assume you say that gravity is a force much larger than for example the centripetal force on a body on this planet. It depends. In an elliptical orbit centripetal force appears to us as greater than the force of gravity during perihelion, the closest approach of the satellite. Gravity, OTOH, appears to us as the greater force as compared to centripetal force at aphelion, the farthest distance from the satellite. I made a rather obscure observation, (or re-discovery) while performing some computer simulations of orbital mechanics a couple of years ago. It had to do with observing elliptical orbits on a traditional x,y Cartesian plane, and not with typical polar coordinates. Using an iterative feed-back algebraic algorithm, (where I’m not using calculus), I discovered I can mimic the exact interplay of these two forces (gravity and centripetal) using the following algebraic expression: r = -+1/r^2 - 1/r^3. The attractive effects of gravity are observed in the formula part of 1/r^2 where the force of gravity is the inverse square of the distance. Meanwhile, the negative or repulsive effects of centripetal forces are shown in the algebraic expression -1/r^3, the inverse cube of the distance. You can see a more technical explanation of this effect by going to the following link titled Orbits in 2D: http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/orbit/orbit.2d.html Scroll down to the bottom of the page and you will see the graphic that looks like the tracing of a bouncing ball. That’s the plot of an elliptical orbital where time is expressed in equal slices (in calculus terms: dy/dt). This is charted in the x axis and y (or radius), is the radius distance of the satellite from the central mass. The author uses different terminology that my own, where he explains the effect as the conservation of energy… which is a perfectly legitimate explanation. However, my observations, while I’m not disputing the author’s claims, seems to come up with different observations and conclusions. I’m still working on the particulars. There is a Swedish say[ing] that one idiot can ask more questions than ten wise man can answer.:) Ah, but in my book any idiot that’s willing to ask questions is in a far better place than the idiot who answers them. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 8:00 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit OK Vincent I beat you with ten years and I try to avoid being retired. I really think you made a good analogy withe funnel and water. A new one to me.My objective is not to impact the science world. However, I have a clear liking of new ventures. LENR to me is a new venture. I understand that my question about how gravity ought to be different in different areas of the planet is perhaps to simple. Trying to have an understanding I assume you say that gravity is a force much larger than for example the centripetal force on a body on this planet. Understanding that in a funnel with a output of 5cm and a ball of 5mm at the outer edge (1cm from the center for example) the increase in speed is almost the same as it is just close to the ball. Trying to use your analogy to understand why the gravity is the same all over the place even as the reaction force do differ. There is a Swedish say that one idiot can ask more questions than ten wise man can answer.:) Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com http://www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com mailto:lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
Why concentrate upon a very special case instead of the more general applications for these drives? Hovering is useful, but it is not going to enable one to travel among the stars. Hovering gives us flying cars. On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:50 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, the reaction mass is the earth. On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:44 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Frank Znidarsic's message of Mon, 11 May 2015 18:58:16 -0400: Hi Frank, [snip] The video states that m drive obeys Newtow's laws. It has no reaction mass. It does not obey Newton's laws. That comment was an understatement bordering on misinformation. Frank Z Which of Newton's laws does it violate? Does a car going down the road doesn't have reaction mass? Does it violate Newton's laws? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
And easier access to orbit, or indeed removing the need for orbit all together. On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: Why concentrate upon a very special case instead of the more general applications for these drives? Hovering is useful, but it is not going to enable one to travel among the stars. Hovering gives us flying cars. On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:50 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, the reaction mass is the earth. On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:44 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Frank Znidarsic's message of Mon, 11 May 2015 18:58:16 -0400: Hi Frank, [snip] The video states that m drive obeys Newtow's laws. It has no reaction mass. It does not obey Newton's laws. That comment was an understatement bordering on misinformation. Frank Z Which of Newton's laws does it violate? Does a car going down the road doesn't have reaction mass? Does it violate Newton's laws? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
We don't know enough to answer the question because we don't know enough about the origin of the force. Even if it is relativistic as Shawyer claims and the spatial area occupied by the device modifies the encompassed inertial frames that breach the isotropy there remains a strong likelihood that an equal and opposite frame is created and the device is only able to directionalize gravity to produce thrust..NOT able to accumulate a buoyancy. IMHO his use of the term thrust is probably correct and that we won't get a bubble from microwaves in a shaped cavity. Fran -Original Message- From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 9:50 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit Hovering does not violate Newton's laws IMHO. Energy and momentum are conserved. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit In reply to Frank Znidarsic's message of Mon, 11 May 2015 18:58:16 -0400: Hi Frank, [snip] The video states that m drive obeys Newtow's laws. It has no reaction mass. It does not obey Newton's laws. That comment was an understatement bordering on misinformation. Frank Z Which of Newton's laws does it violate? Does a car going down the road doesn't have reaction mass? Does it violate Newton's laws? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Tue, 12 May 2015 16:39:37 -0400: Hi, [snip] I wonder if the resonant shape of the microwave cavity produces a pattern of positive and negative vacuum energy that corresponds to the high and low energy pattern of microwave radiationn produced by interference. The zone of increased positive vacuum energy may produce longer lived virtual particle whose lifetime is proportional to the false vacuum value characterize by the zone of EMF excited vacuum. The lifetimes of these long lived virtual particles may be long enough to provide a reaction platform that meets that required by Newtons laws. No need to wonder. IIRC, there was a post here recently about the drive creating and Alcubierre style warp field. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:Curiousity from 1934
File this one under the category of missed opportunities . Here is an interesting old patent about palladium metallurgy - and how to treat the metal in order to maximize hydrogen absorption and catalytic activity. This patent does not turn up in a search of the LENR-CANR library nor does its inventor Streicher. Process of treating palladium US 2139529 - Johann Streicher, Newark, N. J., assigner to The American Platinum Works, Newark, N. J. Filed 1934 and granted in 1938. The goal of the patent appears to be maximizing the catalytic power of palladium. The patent does not mention cold fusion - nor does it mention Paneth and Peters, nor Tandberg (from Sweden) nor helium, nor excess heat. However, the patent text has several interesting factoids which can hint at why some LENR experimenters could have failed to get positive results. It does mention that palladium undergoes a significant morphology change under specific circumstances and thermal cycling. Side note: one historian (name forgotten) has claimed that Tandberg reputedly got unpublished results in Sweden, years later after deuterium became available from Norway, which were said to be actual proof of cold fusion, but no one would believe him - following the earlier retraction by Paneth and Peters. Anyway, this inventor - Streicher - apparently recognized that a unique morphology will happen to palladium after about 50 to 60 cycles of full hydrogen absorption, but COLD absorption, followed by full desorption of hydrogen under heat. This is time consuming and tedious ! How many early CF researchers attained this favored morphology? It could require one or two months of preparation to do properly since the inventor presumably takes the palladium below freezing temperatures every time - requiring active refrigeration (or wintertime) - which makes the date of the invention important in the context of refrigeration. It has been said that activated CF electrodes can require as much as 10^6 seconds of run time, so presumably it has been understood that a version of this morphology-change phenomenon takes considerable time without thermal cycling - which probably involves creating nanostructure. This makes the codep technique all the more important in time saving - but very likely is the possibility that codep itself could be improved with cold/hot cycling and active freeze-loading - since codep alone does not guarantee anything other than high loading done quickly. The inventor calls the activated palladium: pseudomorphic palladium having spherical bodies obtained by the repeated sorption with hydrogen such that the material becomes pyrophoric when the treatment is completed. Pyrophoricity is usually a function of nanostructure with catalysts. Given that one specialty use of palladium in this era was for hydrogen cigarette lighters (the Dobereiner Cigarette Lighter made famous by Dunhill) and given that the patent mentions that untreated palladium will not self-ignite hydrogen, but that the treated Pd becomes pyrophoric, then this is a clue as to how chemical catalysis depends on morphology (which may play a part in CANR). Had they understood the terminology back then - this is probably nanotechnology in an early form. The important parameter in LENR for loading in the palladium matrix could shift from simply loading % to loading% into a fully developed nanostructure. It is a subtle distinction. It is sad to imagine that better results could have been had 25 years ago, had freeze-loading and hot desorption, for a minimum of 50 cycles, been known and implemented (assuming that it works better - and there is no real proof of that, so this falls into the category of alternative history).
[Vo]:other LENR dispute - but let's focus on Me 356's DEMO!
I published: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/05/lenrs-incredibly-absurd-internal.html and now I invite you to the Me 356 Parkhomov style Just now he is at a temperature of 753 C. See you there Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:Curiousity from 1934
Jones: The inventor calls the activated palladium: pseudomorphic palladium having spherical bodies. You might want to take a gander at my posting on 5/6: FYI: growing nanostructures in controlled manner on metals Lots of spherical bodies in that read; I prefer heavenly bodies myself! J -mark iverson From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:03 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Curiousity from 1934 File this one under the category of missed opportunities . Here is an interesting old patent about palladium metallurgy - and how to treat the metal in order to maximize hydrogen absorption and catalytic activity. This patent does not turn up in a search of the LENR-CANR library nor does its inventor Streicher. Process of treating palladium US 2139529 - Johann Streicher, Newark, N. J., assigner to The American Platinum Works, Newark, N. J. Filed 1934 and granted in 1938. The goal of the patent appears to be maximizing the catalytic power of palladium. The patent does not mention cold fusion - nor does it mention Paneth and Peters, nor Tandberg (from Sweden) nor helium, nor excess heat. However, the patent text has several interesting factoids which can hint at why some LENR experimenters could have failed to get positive results. It does mention that palladium undergoes a significant morphology change under specific circumstances and thermal cycling. Side note: one historian (name forgotten) has claimed that Tandberg reputedly got unpublished results in Sweden, years later after deuterium became available from Norway, which were said to be actual proof of cold fusion, but no one would believe him - following the earlier retraction by Paneth and Peters. Anyway, this inventor - Streicher - apparently recognized that a unique morphology will happen to palladium after about 50 to 60 cycles of full hydrogen absorption, but COLD absorption, followed by full desorption of hydrogen under heat. This is time consuming and tedious ! How many early CF researchers attained this favored morphology? It could require one or two months of preparation to do properly since the inventor presumably takes the palladium below freezing temperatures every time - requiring active refrigeration (or wintertime) - which makes the date of the invention important in the context of refrigeration. It has been said that activated CF electrodes can require as much as 10^6 seconds of run time, so presumably it has been understood that a version of this morphology-change phenomenon takes considerable time without thermal cycling - which probably involves creating nanostructure. This makes the codep technique all the more important in time saving - but very likely is the possibility that codep itself could be improved with cold/hot cycling and active freeze-loading - since codep alone does not guarantee anything other than high loading done quickly. The inventor calls the activated palladium: pseudomorphic palladium having spherical bodies obtained by the repeated sorption with hydrogen such that the material becomes pyrophoric when the treatment is completed. Pyrophoricity is usually a function of nanostructure with catalysts. Given that one specialty use of palladium in this era was for hydrogen cigarette lighters (the Dobereiner Cigarette Lighter made famous by Dunhill) and given that the patent mentions that untreated palladium will not self-ignite hydrogen, but that the treated Pd becomes pyrophoric, then this is a clue as to how chemical catalysis depends on morphology (which may play a part in CANR). Had they understood the terminology back then - this is probably nanotechnology in an early form. The important parameter in LENR for loading in the palladium matrix could shift from simply loading % to loading% into a fully developed nanostructure. It is a subtle distinction. It is sad to imagine that better results could have been had 25 years ago, had freeze-loading and hot desorption, for a minimum of 50 cycles, been known and implemented (assuming that it works better - and there is no real proof of that, so this falls into the category of alternative history).
Re: [Vo]:Forbes article (May 1): Did Tesla Just Kill Nuclear Power?
Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: I'm under the impression that combined wind and solar generation is still a tiny fraction (single digits) of the aggregate nuclear and fossil fuel market. I think wind is close to 6% of actual provided electricity (not capacity), and solar is just below 1%. In Iowa wind is 25%. Nuclear is 20% of actual electricity. So, wind is about a quarter of nuclear power. It is gaining rapidly. Wind provides ~42% of new capacity added each year. I think it is expanding faster than nuclear did in its heyday. At this rate it will catch up with nuclear power in a few decades, just about the time most nuclear plants will have to retired. With batteries to overcome the problem of intermittency, there is no reason why wind could not replace nearly all nuclear plants, except in places such as Georgia where there is not much wind. Natural gas, wind and solar could replace all coal plants now. http://awea.files.cms-plus.com/FileDownloads/pdfs/AWEA%20U.S.%20Wind%20Industry%20Annual%20Market%20Update%202012.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit
Dave-- I believe there are 2 forces that are involved in moving a massive object in space/time system. One is the inertial force required to achieve a velocity relative to some point and the other is the force to overcome a gravitational attraction to a large body as a result of a significant gravitation force field. If the EM drive only voids the gravitation field, there would still be a need to overcome the inertial force to achieve motion in the space/time coordinate system(F=MA). It is my understanding that the EM drive only voids the gravitation field and thus eliminates that force of gravity on a massive object. How it does this trick is the hard-to-believe phenomena being stated by the inventor. It seems there is a conjecture that the invention bends or cancels the gravitational field so that it does not act on the object being shielded. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 10:31 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit I agree that hovering does not violate Newton's laws. That is a special case. Take away the gravitational attractive mass and that is no longer true. That same force should cause the ship to accelerate, which then violates the laws. Most of the uses for an EM Drive appear to involve accelerating the mass of the ship in regions of space that are not balanced by gravitational forces. Why concentrate upon a very special case instead of the more general applications for these drives? Hovering is useful, but it is not going to enable one to travel among the stars. Is there any reason to suspect that the typical EM Drives that we are discussing are only useful to balance gravitational forces? Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 11, 2015 9:49 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit Hovering does not violate Newton's laws IMHO. Energy and momentum are conserved. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit In reply to Frank Znidarsic's message of Mon, 11 May 2015 18:58:16 -0400: Hi Frank, [snip] The video states that m drive obeys Newtow's laws. It has no reaction mass. It does not obey Newton's laws. That comment was an understatement bordering on misinformation. Frank Z Which of Newton's laws does it violate? Does a car going down the road doesn't have reaction mass? Does it violate Newton's laws? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
