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 jack forward against the mass and drive force of the
anchor. It can then pull the anchor forward pulling against only the
mass of the drive. The result is a dynamic mechanical asymmetry. The
emdrive would probably be jacked back and forth by a linear motor or a
crank driving a rod. For smooth operation you need several Inertial
Anchors cycling out of phase to produce uniform forward momentum.
Interestingly you could put emdrive inertial anchors on the ends of a
set of oars and simply "row" through outer space. A vac-suit would be
advisable.
Colin Quinney wrote:
Hi Steven,
I cannot follow it at that level,
sorry. But I wonder how much information has been filtered by the
article writers- the reporters.
Colin
-----
Original Message -----
Sent:
Wednesday, September 13, 2006 10:20 PM
Subject:
[Vo]:
Hi Colin,
Regarding this newfangled EM Drive, some things don't add up from my
point of view. In one article it was theorized by the researchers that
the "force" only works at maximum efficiency if the operating EMDrive
is stationary, that is, when it isn't moving. They went on to speculate
that the force emanating from the EMDrive weakens as velocity
accumulates. It was therefore suggested that the EMDrive (if it could
be made strong enough while in the stationary position) could only be
used as a kind of anti/counter gravity field. Kind of like a
hovercraft. It was suggested that would then need to employ a more
prosaic, secondary force to propel the vehicle in any direction.
I have a big problem with this kind of logic. It all comes down to what
one understands about Einstin's theory of relativity. It's all
"relative", as they say. Whose is to say that the stationary DMDRIve
object is really stationary. To someone traveling at a constant speed
of 2000 mph relative to the EMDrive object, from that person's POV the
EM Drive craft is speeding at a constant speed of 2000 mph. Therefore,
from the stationary person's perspective the DMDrive should not operate
as efficiently as compared to an individual who is actually traveling
at the same speed as the DMDrive object. That's what the researchers
seem to be implying.
Such logic clearly produces two conflicting POV's, where one individual
(moving at the same speed as the object) perceives the force from the
DMDrive as greater than the forced as perceived by the other individual
(who is stationary). Huston, we have a problem.
Something doesn't add up right here.
The only way I think they could get around this seeming contradiction
would be if the alleged weakening of the EMDrive force only becomes
noticeable as the object approaches the speed of light, that is, from
the perspective of a stationary observer. IOW, the weakening would
manifest on the same grand scale as how objects are perceived to
flatten (and gain mass) as they approach the speed of light, again as
perceived by individuals at a stationary position. However, when one
reads the article this doesn't appear to be the case. The article seems
to imply that the EMDrive force weakens pretty soon after it speeds up
implying that the effects of relativity play virtually no role
whatsoever.
This would appear to be a blatant contradiction of logic.
Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.Zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>
> Hi Steven,
>
> Coincidentally it also appeared in last
> week Sept.9's cover story for New Scientist.
> http://www.newscientist.com/archive.ns
>
> Regarding it's speculative nature...
>
>
> On the negative side:
>
> I have heard that in one of their experiments they
> utilized an electric balance (I'm assuming a digital scale)
> and that the thick power supply wires might have
> interfered with one of their experiments.
> Others have noted ..
> It violates (apparently) the law of
> momentum.There are several other possibilities of artefacts
> such as heat build-up causing hot gas to escape from the MW cavity?
> Or possible coulomb artefact due to charge build-up
> across the assembly?
> Or interaction with the earth's magnetic
> field?
> And strange that it is only patented in the UK.
>
>
> On the positive side:
>
> Anyone familiar with microwave cavity and waveguide
> work.. can inexpensively build the unit with a kitchen microwave,
sheet
> copper, and tubing.
>
> - - -
>
> In attempting to take a particular "side" in
> the controversy what are your potential rewards vs. your potential
> risks?
> **IF** we are curious AND we have building
> experience with waveguides etc... we might decide to (quietly)
attempt a
> replication. I suspect some folks are doing just that.
>
> Ridicule is anathema to science.
> So also is believing everything we
> read.
> As in all things in
> life we must find that 'balance'.
>
> Colin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From:
> OrionWorks
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 11:38
> AM
> Subject: [Vo]: EM Drives, revisited
> Recapping the potential ramifications of the highly speculative
> "EM Drive"
proposal.See:http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Articles/Article.aspx?liArticleID=295931(Sorry,
> Tinyurl.com was down when trying to make the abbreviated version
of this
> link.)If this speculative research turns out to be true, one can
> quickly extrapolate what the possibilities might quickly lead to,
particularly
> if Mark Golde's RTS Room Temperature Superconducting material were
also to
> become available on the market soon.From my perspective it seems
> conceivable that fast and efficient "EM Drives" could open up
commercial space
> exploration of the asteroid belt, where everyone knows that's
where the next
> Gold Gush is likely to exist in the form unlimited raw materials
just waiting
> to be mined.Sometimes I wish I was 20 years old again.Have
> Space Suit, will travel.Regards,Steven Vincent
> Johnsonwww.OrionWorks.comwww.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
|