Or the reality of the conservation of energy. It is just a theory. On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 4:56 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> It concerns me that an observer on Earth will notice that the mass and > thus energy of the stationary car held up by the drive is becoming lower > with time. He will not find where that energy is being deposited as the > mass drops. The heat due to cavity loss can be calculated directly, but > any other energy due to mass conversion will not be accounted for. > > This is a major issue with regard to accepting the reality of EM Drives. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Sun, May 10, 2015 10:48 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the > Theoretical Limit > > In reply to Craig Haynie's message of Sun, 10 May 2015 18:07:28 > -0400: > Hi, > [snip] > > It doesn't cost any energy at all to support a car. The > ground does this just > fine with no energy expenditure. E = F . d. If d = 0, > then E = 0. > I'm not sure how this applies to an EM drive (if at all), but > perhaps it needs > to be taken into consideration? > > >Hello! > > > >I was hoping > the Vorts could help me with this. Roger Shawyer, at minute > >2:56 in this > video, claims that the next generation EM Drive could > >generation 1 tonne of > thrust per kilowatt of power. This means that a 1 > >tonne car should be able to > hover above the ground for the price of one > >kilowatt. However, my calculation > shows that to be about 48 times a > >theoretical maximum. > > > >Here is the video > where he makes the claim at 2:56. > > > >http://tinyurl.com/ko5v6h7 > > > >But here > is my calculation for a theoretical maximum, calculated two > >different > ways: > > > > - > > > > A joule is a watt-second > > - > > > > A watt is a > joule / second > > - > > > > The power required to hover an object is the same > power required to > > increase the speed of the object from rest, in a > weightless environment, to > > 9.8 m/s in one second. We know this because the > pull of gravity is 9.8 > > meters/second2. > > - > > > > The kinetic energy in > an object travelling at 9.8 m/s = 1/2 * m * v2. So > > for a car of 1000 kg, > the energy = 1000 / 2 * 9.82 = 48,020 joules = 48 > > kilowatts to do this in > one second. > > - > > > > This power should be 1/2 the power to raise an object > of the same mass, > > to a height of 9.8 meters in one second, since it would > require twice as > > much energy to do this. > > - > > > > The formula to > determining how much energy it takes to raise something > > to height = E = m * > g (gravitational constant) * h = 1000 * 9.8 * 9.8 = > > 96,040 watts-seconds = > 96 kilowatts to do this in one second. So it agrees > > with the previous > result. > > > >So, I don't understand how any device could hover an object with > the mass > >of a tonne for less than a theoretical 48 kilowatts. Any thoughts on > this > >would be appreciated. > > > >Craig Haynie ( Manchester, > NH) > Regards, > > Robin van > Spaandonk > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > >
