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.
