Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

To: Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 1:27 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor Hi Robin, you write: Possible, but not exactly in evidence. Quoting Andre, "In the following we review the the theoretical model for the engine put forth by SPR..." The next paragrap

RE: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

Hi Robin, you write: >Possible, but not exactly in evidence. Quoting Andre, "In the following we review the the theoretical model for the engine put forth by SPR..." The next paragraph is then supposed to represent Rogers view, despite being phrased in the ( typically academic ) first person plur

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

In reply to Keith Nagel's message of Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:50:18 -0400: Hi Keith, [snip] >Hi Robin, > >I was confused by this also. I don't think english is Andres >first language, so his paper is a little obtuse at points. >What he's saying, after a more careful read on my part, is that >he assumes

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

In reply to Remi Cornwall's message of Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:04:36 +0100: Hi, [snip] >Robin, >Yes it is confusing. Also sometimes the phase velocity appears to be greater >than c (anomalous media) or the group velocity is. In either case they defer >to the one less than c. The Feynman articles give

RE: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor In reply to Remi Cornwall's message of Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:21:56 +0100: Hi Remi, [snip] >Don, > >I had a few thoughts on the paper: >http://uk.geocities.com/remicornwall/Electromagnet

RE: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

Relativity that seems to provide a proof that it is the group velocity that is relevant. Remi. -Original Message- From: Robin van Spaandonk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 September 2006 04:57 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor In reply to

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

In reply to Remi Cornwall's message of Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:21:56 +0100: Hi Remi, [snip] >Don, > >I had a few thoughts on the paper: >http://uk.geocities.com/remicornwall/ElectromagneticPropulsion.htm In http://uk.geocities.com/remicornwall/FeynmanIIpg24a7sections24a2to24a4.jpg it states very exp

RE: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

:31 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor   I meant to expand on my hose analogy. I was likening the impulse of the arc and aether flow to a hose being turned on because I heard once that droplets of water are found to orbit water coming out of a nosle at high speed

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

> I think I know how Podkletnovs second device works, the aether moves> through the donut superconductors inducing a second beam like aether > flow at 90 degrees, the exact same thing can be seen to happen in the> ATGroup device and Mortons device which was really Podkletnov on a> budget.>Close but

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

I meant to expand on my hose analogy.I was likening the impulse of the arc and aether flow to a hose being turned on because I heard once that droplets of water are found to orbit water coming out of a nosle at high speed. And this is exactly what I believe the aether is doing and furthermore while

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

John Berry wrote: Well if Kyle and Robin are right it can't be calculated because we can't really know what our velocity relative to the machian reference frame is. If I am right then, well I'm no good at the math but I think that a superconducting chamber bouncing EM around assuming the Q i

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

John Berry wrote: On 9/17/06, *Wesley Bruce* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: ZPE saves the conservation of energy yet again. John Berry wrote: snip I'm to thick to handle this bit. ;-) Plus you do not state by which mechanism the thrust would be

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

Title: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor The quantity mv^2 was what Leibniz termed vis viva (the living force) to distinguish it from Newton's vis inertia (the force of interia). Neglecting the constant of integration,  mv^2  is the integral of   mvdv . Harry John Berry

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

On 9/17/06, Wesley Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ZPE saves the conservation of energy yet again. John Berry wrote: snip I'm to thick to handle this bit. ;-) Plus you do not state by which mechanism the thrust would be effected, where my Doppler effect pushing it out of resonance l

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

ZPE saves the conservation of energy yet again. John Berry wrote: snip I'm to thick to handle this bit. ;-) Plus you do not state by which mechanism the thrust would be effected, where my Doppler effect pushing it out of resonance lowering the Q is pretty much what was stated in the arti

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to John Berry's message of Sun, 17 Sep 2006 10:10:37 +1200: Hi, [snip] No Kyle, your mistaken. You doubt KE = 1/2mv^2? Not in anything other than reactionless propulsion. Who says

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

ut?Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:> - Original Message - From: John Berry> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 6:27 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor>>>> What you should note is that this device if it works at all MUST>>

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

. Mcallister wrote: - Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 6:27 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor What you should note is that this device if it works at all MUST violate the conservation of energy, there is no

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

On 9/17/06, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In reply to  John Berry's message of Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:29:05+1200:Hi,[snip]>> BTW I also suspect that it is real, because the measured mass>> change was +2 gm in one orientation, and -2 gm when turned upside >> down. This is not the sort

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

In reply to John Berry's message of Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:29:05 +1200: Hi, [snip] >> BTW I also suspect that it is real, because the measured mass >> change was +2 gm in one orientation, and -2 gm when turned upside >> down. This is not the sort of thing that results from measurement >> error caused

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

On 9/17/06, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In reply to  John Berry's message of Sun, 17 Sep 2006 10:10:37+1200:Hi,[snip]>> >No Kyle, your mistaken. You doubt KE = 1/2mv^2?>>>Not in anything other than reactionless propulsion. Who says it's reactionless? Personally, I think it re

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

Indeed, it would seem that the hypothesized preferred frame would act as the "road". Or the "air". There is another word that could be used, it startswith an "e" (or "ae") but I will remain a gentleman. :)I'm not so much of a gentleman then.  > But if you accept that Morton and ATGroup and especial

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

Hi, Here's a variation on a theme. An atom may be seen as a small spherical resonant chamber, with infinite Q, with EM energy in it. In that respect it looks like one of these drive units, except that it wouldn't develop any force because it is symmetrical. If placed in a severely asymmetric inten

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

In reply to John Berry's message of Sun, 17 Sep 2006 10:10:37 +1200: Hi, [snip] >> >No Kyle, your mistaken. >> >> You doubt KE = 1/2mv^2? > > >Not in anything other than reactionless propulsion. Who says it's reactionless? Personally, I think it reacts against space itself via the interaction tha

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

- Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 6:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor Not in anything other than reactionless propulsion. But why make it a special case? But you must assume that the

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

>No Kyle, your mistaken.You doubt KE = 1/2mv^2?Not in anything other than reactionless propulsion. To postulate a scenario where a supposedreactionless engine consumes power at a rate based on an "absolute" velocity and therefore obeys energy conservation I think is less mistaken than tosimply ass

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

- Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 12:30 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor No Kyle, your mistaken. You doubt KE = 1/2mv^2? To postulate a scenario where a supposed reactionless engine consumes

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

on of energy really is just a general observation and not true in all cases. On 9/16/06, Kyle R. Mcallister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message -From: John BerryTo: vortex-l@eskimo.comSent: Friday, September 15, 2006 6:27 AMSubject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial a

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

- Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 6:27 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor What you should note is that this device if it works at all MUST violate the conservation of energy, there is no way round it

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

tinkerers like myself- do it :) Colin - Original Message - From: "Robin van Spaandonk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 3:13 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Fri, 15 Sep 200

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

if its based on difference in wave velocity, wouldnt stationary be based on the surrounding radiation fields? and if so... now, uber amateur here, im einsteinian, in that, im great with theory, weak with mathematics, would two of these drives mounted at an angle to each other, say, a 90 between

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

I suppose KWh is a poor unit of energy to use when my example only ran for a few seconds, so change to some other suitible measure of energy.On 9/15/06, John Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:No, Wesely is correct, it is an inertial anchor. (it could be used to push off or it could be used by moving

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

No, Wesely is correct, it is an inertial anchor. (it could be used to push off or it could be used by moving it in the direction of travel and turning it on then bringing it to rest relative to the ship, or both)The reason acceleration is tricky is not because the energy is converted into motion bu

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:41:50 +1000: Hi, [snip] >A stationary emdrive can still push a ship in a given direction. It >becomes an inertial anchor. An inertial anchor resists being moved but >does not move itself. You can push down or back on it and it wont move

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

A stationary emdrive can still push a ship in a given direction. It becomes an inertial anchor. An inertial anchor resists being moved but does not move itself. You can push down or back on it and it wont move but pulling upon it and it moves freely. A craft with an inertial anchor on it can ja