Has anyone seen data from a test of one of these devices that is generated within a system that is totally isolated from outside power sources and connections? I suppose that will require a battery of some type. Also, it will gain much credibility if operated within a vacuum chamber which would eliminate any force due to interaction of air particles.
We need a drive that operates without requiring any form of exhaust if we are to reach the stars one day. Dave -----Original Message----- From: John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 12:58 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. When the thing being measured has been designed to be a reactionless thrust producing engine, then yes that is what they have been testing. I guess you could say a proposed & experimental reactionless engine. But since that is the intention and goal of the device measured to have apparently produced an reationless thrust so as to be used as an engine in space flight, then that is what it is. On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Sunil Shah <s.u.n....@hotmail.com> wrote: "Another example is the reactionless engine that NASA has just tested that supposedly violates Newton'sLaws of Motion." Sorry for being picky, but they haven't tested a reactionless engine. They have measured "anomalous thrust" in a test pendulum setup. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140009930.pdf .s Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 15:53:07 -0500 From: janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. Many, if not most, of the LENRdetractors/skeptics base their viewpoint on a position that LENRcan’t work because it contradicts the laws of physics. The heart ofthe matter lies in engineering. A good engineer will use the optimumphysical principle to get the job done. As a example, a Wakefieldaccelerator that is just a few feet in length uses a different set ofphysical laws to do what the CERN 17 mile diameter accelerator does.A scientist who specialized in nuclear physics may not understandwhat laws to apply to get his job done in a more optimized way. Thatdoes not make the physical principles applied in the optimizedsolution invalid. It just means that the engineers of the optimizedsolution have amazed the scientist to such a huge extent that thescientist is baffled into disbelief when he sees the results of theengineering. Another example is the reactionless engine that NASA has just tested that supposedly violates Newton'sLaws of Motion. It turns out that the EMF field used in the enginepushes against the virtual particles in the vacuum. This does not make the test thatNASA conducted of that engine a SCAM or the engineers who understandwhat is going on morons.
