In reply to  Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 23 Feb 2007 01:29:58 -0500:
Hi Harry,
[snip]
>Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>
>> In reply to  Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:11:03 -0500:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>>> Michel Jullian wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> The tube doesn't oscillate because the process Robin described is
>>>> continuous.
>>> 
>>> For this to be plausible the tube could never be neutral. In fact, if the
>>> tube's charge were to fall below some minimum value the tube's weight will
>>> cause it to drop.
>>> 
>>> Harry 
>> 
>> As long as power is supplied, it isn't neutral. Since the mass of the tube(s)
>> is
>> by definition less than that of the whole lifter, as power is applied, the
>> tube
>> will lift first, then with application of additional power, the whole lifter
>> will rise.
>> 
>
>
>Yes, but how can you be certain (other than by a the "laws of physics"
>argument) that the tube is not contributing a novel lifting force when the
>power exceeds a certain value.

I can't. I'm just explaining it as I see it. If you think I'm wrong, then build
the device, and measure the lift. Then you will know for sure who's right.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/

Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation,
Cooperation (communism) provides the means.

Reply via email to