There is ambiguity here based upon a 3D vs 4D perspective but maybe some of these patents regarding remediation of radioactive gas in a catalyst could shed some light. I would posit that this reaction is actually based upon relativistic effects on radioactive gas when local vacuum wavelengths are compressed by Casimir geometry. I think ZPE / HUP keeps physical/ persistent matter floating in our 3d ant farm like a canoe stuck in a water fall and matter pushed away is pushed back by the stream or like atmosphere being forever resupplied in front of an aircraft prop, my gut feeling is the more fractionalized/ condensed hydrogen becomes the harder you can push against the ether. I don't think the hydrogen is lost but will slowly be pushed back into the "waterfall" where persistent matter is trapped to make room for more hydrogen to gain entry [passive exploitation like Rossi/Mills] - forcing a circulation like Modell Haisch describe in their patent may be a better way to exploit this effect. Fran From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 10:31 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
David-- If Dirac was correct about his negative energy sea containing epos with its below energy electron-positron pairs (epos), then there might be "negative energy momentum"--my term--as well, which is where the momentum of virtual particles in the spaceman's 3-D space disappear to upon an--annihilation"--a term invented in the 1930's to counter Dirac's concept of energy returning to the negative energy sea. (Keep in mind that the modern concepts of pair production from empty space and the opposite reaction of e-p annihilation do not conserve energy associated with angular momentum of the electron and positron nor the change of energy of the electric field creation or collapse associated with the creation or loss of charge respectively.) The spaceman in his 3-D space would think that momentum transfer did not occur because there would be no particles or other evidence of mass or energy moving away from his space ship, yet his ship would be accelerating in his 3-D space based on observation of objects he considered to be fixed relative to his initial position. This would be the reaction less drive device in his space ship. Bob Cook ----- Original Message ----- From: David Roberson<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. I agree Axil. And those particles that are produced are then given the momentum required to balance out that obtained by the ship. Also, they must remain in existence as real particles and not disappear after a brief time interval. The folks who speak of reactionless drives claim that their are no measurable particles remaining to locate after the momentum is imparted into the ship. That is where I can not agree. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>> Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 11:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. There is no such think as a reactionless drive. Particles must be being produced in the vacuum by EMF. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:40 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>> wrote: Yes Axil. The drive would then qualify as a standard one and the problem dissolves. This does not appear to what the proponents of a reactionless drive believe is occurring from what I have determined. They suggest that there is nothing available to carry away the balancing momentum. Why call it a reactionless drive if exhaust can be measured? Dave -----Original Message----- From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>> Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 5:41 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. No one knows what is going on in the vacuum. If real particles are being produced by EMF in the vacuum, then the drive is not reactionless. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>> wrote: That is the point Robin. In the case of a car you can find where all of the original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity. It might not be easy, but it can be done. The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed to be converted into energy to generate thrust. A person onboard the ship will only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his velocity is constant after the drive is cut off as far as he knows. Of course he will feel the acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no way to determine his velocity relative to the universe before or after that occurs. Velocity is relative to the observer. If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass of the original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the reactionless drive. Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to drift in space. As far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and has no kinetic energy. But where did all that original mass end up? It just vanished, which makes no sense. With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of the mass that has been ejected can be located. Whether in the form of electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the same as before the drive is activated. This makes complete sense and is what has been demonstrated so far in real life. In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its existence. In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as expected. I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are possible. How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a reactionless drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located? Have atoms of fuel actually disappeared? Even if some form of nuclear reaction is used to power the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the nuclear process. Dave -----Original Message----- From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com<mailto:mix...@bigpond.com>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>> Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500: Hi, [snip] >My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that the mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to the local observer at least. I include the mass that can be attributed to energy which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other ways. So far, every attempt that I have made to calculate or measure this combination yields the same result. As you know, the total mass-energy would have to change if the system were to be subject to a reactionless drive. > It's just the same as a car on a road. You know that some of the energy in the fuel ends up as kinetic energy of the car, and this doesn't surprise you at all. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
