Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame

John Berry wrote: On 3/1/07, *Stephen A. Lawrence* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: If any divergence between inertial and gravitational mass is ever found, however small it may be, it will be a an enormous blow to the validity of GR, b

Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame

>> On 3/5/07, Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Borbas believes like many amateur physicists before him that he has >>> disproved the ion wind explanation, it's a long story he has been >>> multiposting/spamming several dozens of mailing lists with his uninformed >>> theory. He doesn

Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame

As far as I can tell he couldn't run below a certain pressure, ask him for more details if you're interested, I am not. Michel - Original Message - From: "Terry Blanton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 10:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: lift

Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame

- Original Message - From: "Terry Blanton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 8:14 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame > This guy puts his electrodes inside ping pong balls: > > http://bmiklos2000.freeweb.hu/unipolar.htm >

Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame

Michel Jullian wrote: > P.S. Oh yes I had forgotten my promise to Harry below, my comment was that > mv^2/r for the satellite can be thought of as a centrifugal force or as a > centripetal acceleration times mass depending on the frame (it changes sign > while going from the F side to the m*a side

Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame

Michel Jullian wrote: > Borbas believes like many amateur physicists before him that he has disproved > the ion wind explanation, it's a long story he has been multiposting/spamming > several dozens of mailing lists with his uninformed theory. He doesn't even > realize that the air discharge impli

Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame

ject: Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame > This guy puts his electrodes inside ping pong balls: > > http://bmiklos2000.freeweb.hu/unipolar.htm > > Terry > > On 3/3/07, Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> Unshackle and release t

Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame

This guy puts his electrodes inside ping pong balls: http://bmiklos2000.freeweb.hu/unipolar.htm Terry On 3/3/07, Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Unshackle and release the prisoner... 2W * 'kV/mm' * 'grams' = 2W * .9 * 10 = 18 W = 180 kW Harry Michel Jullian wrote: > I wi

Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame

Unshackle and release the prisoner... 2W * 'kV/mm' * 'grams' = 2W * .9 * 10 = 18 W = 180 kW Harry Michel Jullian wrote: > I will only comment when you'll have released the power consumed by the 100kg > lifter ;-) > > Michel

Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame

I will only comment when you'll have released the power consumed by the 100kg lifter ;-) Michel - Original Message - From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 7:28 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame

Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame

On 3/1/07, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: If any divergence between inertial and gravitational mass is ever found, however small it may be, it will be a an enormous blow to the validity of GR, because it will imply that gravity is /not/ a fictitious force, aft

Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame

Harry Veeder wrote: > > mv^2/r is the _derived_ centripetal force on an object rotating relative to > an inertial frame of reference. If the Earth is assumed to be rotating then > v = 0 for the satellite and the satellite's equation of motion is: > > GMm/r^2 - ma = 0, and a = GM/r^2 > > If th

Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame

Michel Jullian wrote: > Indeed in an inertial frame the fictitious force vanishes (from the analysis) > as a force, but it also magically reappears as mass times acceleration, simply > going from the left hand side to the right hand side of F=ma while changing > sign, so the equations remain the s

Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > > Harry Veeder wrote: >> Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: >> >>> When you are actually _in_ a rotating frame, such as a car going around >>> a corner, you naturally "think" about the situation from the POV of that >>> frame, and in that frame, the centrifugal force -- a

Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > > Harry Veeder wrote: >> Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: >> >>> When you are actually _in_ a rotating frame, such as a car going around >>> a corner, you naturally "think" about the situation from the POV of that >>> frame, and in that frame, the centrifugal force -- a

Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame

Harry Veeder wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: When you are actually _in_ a rotating frame, such as a car going around a corner, you naturally "think" about the situation from the POV of that frame, and in that frame, the centrifugal force -- and the Coriolis force -- are both quite real, eve

Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame

d the same result for orbital speed as a function of radius as would be expected. Michel - Original Message - From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 10:30 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame ... > A &q

Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > When you are actually _in_ a rotating frame, such as a car going around > a corner, you naturally "think" about the situation from the POV of that > frame, and in that frame, the centrifugal force -- and the Coriolis > force -- are both quite real, even though they are

Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame

In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Thu, 01 Mar 2007 08:10:46 +1100: Hi, [snip] >region below it. The difference in air pressure is multiplied by the entire >area >of the craft (Pi x r^2) to calculate the lifting force. By analogy we are >adding >wings to an aircraft, and pointing the e

Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame

thomas malloy wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: Michel Jullian wrote: Doing calculations in an accelerating frame makes me sick I am afraid ;-) But I guess it would be the same force, since it's not a ficticious one like e.g. the centrifugal force. Hum; ficticious force? Isn't the force that c

Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame

In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:55:41 +0100: Hi, [snip] >Not sure what you mean Robin, drawing welcome, I suspect it resembles a NASA >design where the wire was replaced by a sharp edge. I don't see how the thrust >could exceed the rate of change of momentum transmitt

Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame

Harry Veeder wrote: Michel Jullian wrote: Doing calculations in an accelerating frame makes me sick I am afraid ;-) But I guess it would be the same force, since it's not a ficticious one like e.g. the centrifugal force. Hum; ficticious force? Isn't the force that causes water going down d

Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame

Michel Jullian wrote: > Doing calculations in an accelerating frame makes me sick I am afraid ;-) But > I guess it would be the same force, since it's not a ficticious one like e.g. > the centrifugal force. That will do. I didn't mean to make you sick. Harry

Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame

ay, February 26, 2007 3:29 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame > In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:27:04 +0100: > Hi Michel, > [snip] >>Doing calculations in an accelerating frame makes me sick I am afraid ;-) But >>

Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame

Michel Jullian wrote: > > My turn to give you some homework Harry, could you try the new multiwire-plane > design guide I posted earlier today and let me know how usable it is? Say > design the mother of all lifters, with the following specs: > > 100 kg thrust, 1 m gap, 0.9 kV/mm > > Power cons

Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame

In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:27:04 +0100: Hi Michel, [snip] >Doing calculations in an accelerating frame makes me sick I am afraid ;-) But >I guess it would be the same force, since it's not a ficticious one like e.g. >the centrifugal force. > >My turn to give you

[Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame

Doing calculations in an accelerating frame makes me sick I am afraid ;-) But I guess it would be the same force, since it's not a ficticious one like e.g. the centrifugal force. My turn to give you some homework Harry, could you try the new multiwire-plane design guide I posted earlier today a