On Aug 14, 2009, at 2:20 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:45:32
-0800:
Hi,
[snip]
The following update has been appended to:
http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ZPE-CasimirThrust.pdf
If the assumption is made that all mass is due to the ZPE, then the
change in
mass can be calculated as the change in energy density in the
cavity. This
should follow directly from the dimensions of the cavity, and the
excluded
wavelengths.
I think Hal already did this calculation in one of his papers,
though I'm afraid
I have no reference.
I don't recall seeing a paper that breaks out the inertia effect by
frequency, but there may well be one.
No, that's not what I meant. I'm pretty sure he covers the energy
density of the
vacuum in one of his papers. If you exclude a percentage of that
energy density
by creating a cavity, then it's pretty safe to assume that any mass
in the
cavity will change by the same percentage. This is based upon the
assumption
that all mass is due to interaction with the ZPE.
[snip]
We are apparently talking apples and oranges. First, I think it is
essential to distinguish inertial mass from gravitational mass. Just
because controlling the local ZPF may change inertial mass does not
mean it affects gravitational mass or the inherent energy of any
particle. If inertial mass is indeed due to the ZPF, then it is due
only to a very small low frequency portion of the ZPF bandwidth. The
ZPF badwidth is thought to extend to the Planck frequency. Ordinary
leptons and barions are very large with respect to the vast majority
of the ZPF spectrum, and are not thought to couple with it "all the
way down". AFAIK, the forces of inertia are forces related to
momentum exchanges, not energy, and involve the exchange rates of
virtual photons internal to or within the wave function of the
particle, and with the vacuum.
The challenge in building an inertial drive then is changing the
ratio of gravitational mass to inertial mass, or at least the
equivalence of that through momentum change, through influence or
control of the ZPF. Alternatively, some means may be found to
interface directly with the ZPF to tap its momentum.
As I noted earlier, the central problem with the methods posted in my
"ZPE-Casimir Inertial Drive" article:
http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ZPE-CasimirThrust.pdf
is apparent violation of COM. If any of the methods proposed extract
momentum from the ZPF directly it is not by design. I thus don't
think the Casimir drive concepts have the same credibility that the
Casimir energy extraction schemes do. Still, it is food for thought.
On Aug 10, 2009, at 7:45 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
I think a central problem with all this is getting some kind of
experiment to unmistakably demonstrate an inertia reducing effect.
Also, unlike the ideas in:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CasimirGenerator.pdf
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CasimirBoiler.pdf
which do not suffer the obvious flaw of violation conservation of
energy, all the concepts in this paper suffer from the glaring
violation of conservation of momentum. None of the concepts appear
to extract momentum from the ZPF directly. There are probably
dozens of ways momentum can rebalance that I have overlooked, like
forces between the pendula and the cavity walls, fringe effects,
etc. Still, I think all the concepts are good food for thought.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
