Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.space.policy > #58241 > unrolled thread

Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!)

Back to article view | Back to sci.space.policy

Contents

  Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) Non Newtonian Propulsion <calmagorod@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 01:37 -0700
    Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-13 11:58 +1100
      Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) Non Newtonian Propulsion <calmagorod@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 02:32 -0700
        Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-10-16 09:39 +0000
          Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) Non Newtonian Propulsion <calmagorod@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 03:11 -0700
            Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-10-16 10:18 +0000
        Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-17 11:57 +1100
          Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) Non Newtonian Propulsion <calmagorod@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 02:09 -0700
            Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-18 14:44 +1100
    Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) David Spain <nospam@127.0.0.1> - 2016-10-18 10:35 -0400
      Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) dumpster4@hotmail.com - 2016-10-18 13:45 -0700
        Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) David Spain <nospam@127.0.0.1> - 2016-10-18 22:50 -0400
        Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-20 14:15 +1100
          Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) David Spain <nospam@127.0.0.1> - 2016-10-21 14:54 -0400
            Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) dumpster4@hotmail.com - 2016-11-05 17:47 -0700
              Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) David Spain <nospam@127.0.0.1> - 2016-11-06 15:36 -0500
                Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) David Spain <nospam@127.0.0.1> - 2016-11-06 16:12 -0500
                  Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) dumpster4@hotmail.com - 2016-11-07 16:33 -0800
                    Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) David Spain <nospam@127.0.0.1> - 2016-11-10 02:59 -0500
                      Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) David Spain <nospam@127.0.0.1> - 2016-11-10 03:02 -0500
                        Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) dumpster4@hotmail.com - 2016-11-19 14:52 -0800
                          Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) Non Newtonian Propulsion <calmagorod@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 01:01 -0800
                            Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-11-24 07:41 -0500
                              Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) Non Newtonian Propulsion <calmagorod@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 09:12 -0800
                                Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-11-24 12:38 -0500
                                  Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) Non Newtonian Propulsion <calmagorod@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 10:11 -0800
                                Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-24 17:43 +0000
                                  Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) David Spain <nospam@127.0.0.1> - 2016-11-26 14:14 -0500
                                    Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-26 19:21 +0000
                              Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-11-26 22:11 -0500
                                Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) David Spain <nospam@127.0.0.1> - 2016-11-28 12:50 -0500
                                  Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-11-28 12:56 -0500
    Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 22:16 -0800
      Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 00:37 -0800
        Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 18:22 -0800
          Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 19:49 -0800
            Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 21:15 -0800
          Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-11-24 07:38 -0500
            Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 13:44 -0800
              Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) Non Newtonian Propulsion <calmagorod@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 14:30 -0800
                Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2016-11-24 18:46 -0500
                  Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) Non Newtonian Propulsion <calmagorod@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 23:20 -0800
                Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 17:32 -0800
                  Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) Non Newtonian Propulsion <calmagorod@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 23:38 -0800
            Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 08:12 -0800
              Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) dumpster4@hotmail.com - 2016-12-03 19:15 -0800
                Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) David Spain <nospam@127.0.0.1> - 2016-12-06 13:02 -0500
                  Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) dumpster4@hotmail.com - 2016-12-20 23:05 -0800
                Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 01:31 -0800
                  Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) Non Newtonian Propulsion <calmagorod@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 15:28 -0800
                    Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) dumpster4@hotmail.com - 2017-02-14 01:42 -0800
                      Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) Non Newtonian Propulsion <calmagorod@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 10:19 -0800
                        Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) David Spain <nospam@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-12 23:17 -0400
                          Re: Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!) Non Newtonian Propulsion <calmagorod@gmail.com> - 2017-04-21 14:28 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#58241 — Emdrive might change the law of inertia (for the Earth too!)

For the fact that action reaction violation need the change of the first law of newtonian inertia 
and for the fact that is in contact with the terrestrial environment

https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2015/10/01/as-if-one-wasnt-enough-pnn-breaks-another-law/

https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/4gihnf/an_interesting_clue_in_the_change_of_the_law_of/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#58270

On 12/10/2016 7:37 PM, Non Newtonian Propulsion wrote:
>
>
> For the fact that action reaction violation need the change of the first law of newtonian inertia
> and for the fact that is in contact with the terrestrial environment
>
> https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2015/10/01/as-if-one-wasnt-enough-pnn-breaks-another-law/
>

It conveniently assumes that it's possible to change the charges on such 
a time-scale without the resulting magnetic fields totally negating the 
effect.

A full analysis will show either that there's no net force, or that the 
change in momentum is matched by the momentum carried off as a result of 
a net radiation of electromagnetic waves in the opposite direction.

Oh, and the fact that this thing will inevitably radiate electromagnetic 
waves means that it requires a constant input of power.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58409

Il giorno giovedì 13 ottobre 2016 02:58:23 UTC+2, Sylvia Else ha scritto:
> On 12/10/2016 7:37 PM, Non Newtonian Propulsion wrote:
> >
> >
> > For the fact that action reaction violation need the change of the first law of newtonian inertia
> > and for the fact that is in contact with the terrestrial environment
> >
> > https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2015/10/01/as-if-one-wasnt-enough-pnn-breaks-another-law/
> >
> 
> It conveniently assumes that it's possible to change the charges on such 
> a time-scale without the resulting magnetic fields totally negating the 
> effect.
> 
> A full analysis will show either that there's no net force, or that the 
> change in momentum is matched by the momentum carried off as a result of 
> a net radiation of electromagnetic waves in the opposite direction.
> 
> Oh, and the fact that this thing will inevitably radiate electromagnetic 
> waves means that it requires a constant input of power.
> 
> Sylvia.

If one assumes that the principle of action and reaction can be overcome in electrodynamics it must accept the consequences also on the law of inertia.
And the change of the law of inertia is a great opportunity to shorten the time of interstellar travel

E.Laureti

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58410

Non Newtonian Propulsion <calmagorod@gmail.com> wrote:
> Il giorno giovedì 13 ottobre 2016 02:58:23 UTC+2, Sylvia Else ha scritto:
>> On 12/10/2016 7:37 PM, Non Newtonian Propulsion wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > For the fact that action reaction violation need the change of the first law of newtonian inertia
>> > and for the fact that is in contact with the terrestrial environment
>> >
>> > https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2015/10/01/as-if-one-wasnt-enough-pnn-breaks-another-law/
>> >
>> 
>> It conveniently assumes that it's possible to change the charges on such 
>> a time-scale without the resulting magnetic fields totally negating the 
>> effect.
>> 
>> A full analysis will show either that there's no net force, or that the 
>> change in momentum is matched by the momentum carried off as a result of 
>> a net radiation of electromagnetic waves in the opposite direction.
>> 
>> Oh, and the fact that this thing will inevitably radiate electromagnetic 
>> waves means that it requires a constant input of power.
>> 
>> Sylvia.
>
> If one assumes that the principle of action and reaction can be overcome in electrodynamics it must accept the consequences also on the law of inertia.
> And the change of the law of inertia is a great opportunity to shorten the time of interstellar travel
>
> E.Laureti

Let's wait and see until they can provide an actually working lab
demonstration of the principle.  "we tried it with a microwave but
we blew our microwave" does not sound like a very convincing attempt,
to the contrary: it is what could have been expected by those who do
not believe in all this.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58411

Il giorno domenica 16 ottobre 2016 11:39:09 UTC+2, Rob ha scritto:
> Non Newtonian Propulsion <calmagorod@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Il giorno giovedì 13 ottobre 2016 02:58:23 UTC+2, Sylvia Else ha scritto:
> >> On 12/10/2016 7:37 PM, Non Newtonian Propulsion wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > For the fact that action reaction violation need the change of the first law of newtonian inertia
> >> > and for the fact that is in contact with the terrestrial environment
> >> >
> >> > https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2015/10/01/as-if-one-wasnt-enough-pnn-breaks-another-law/
> >> >
> >> 
> >> It conveniently assumes that it's possible to change the charges on such 
> >> a time-scale without the resulting magnetic fields totally negating the 
> >> effect.
> >> 
> >> A full analysis will show either that there's no net force, or that the 
> >> change in momentum is matched by the momentum carried off as a result of 
> >> a net radiation of electromagnetic waves in the opposite direction.
> >> 
> >> Oh, and the fact that this thing will inevitably radiate electromagnetic 
> >> waves means that it requires a constant input of power.
> >> 
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > If one assumes that the principle of action and reaction can be overcome in electrodynamics it must accept the consequences also on the law of inertia.
> > And the change of the law of inertia is a great opportunity to shorten the time of interstellar travel
> >
> > E.Laureti
> 
> Let's wait and see until they can provide an actually working lab
> demonstration of the principle.  "we tried it with a microwave but
> we blew our microwave" does not sound like a very convincing attempt,
> to the contrary: it is what could have been expected by those who do
> not believe in all this.


I say you only this:

1) It is right that everything passes first by a valid and convincing evidence of breach of the principle of action and reaction

2) When it is made public the pnn  know-how  everyone  will be convinced by itself theoretically  before than experimentally  and anyone who has a lab of electrodynamics and wants the start of a new astronautica  will try to redo experimentally what I'm doing since 2001

E.Laureti

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58412

Non Newtonian Propulsion <calmagorod@gmail.com> wrote:
> Il giorno domenica 16 ottobre 2016 11:39:09 UTC+2, Rob ha scritto:
>> Non Newtonian Propulsion <calmagorod@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Il giorno giovedì 13 ottobre 2016 02:58:23 UTC+2, Sylvia Else ha scritto:
>> >> On 12/10/2016 7:37 PM, Non Newtonian Propulsion wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > For the fact that action reaction violation need the change of the first law of newtonian inertia
>> >> > and for the fact that is in contact with the terrestrial environment
>> >> >
>> >> > https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2015/10/01/as-if-one-wasnt-enough-pnn-breaks-another-law/
>> >> >
>> >> 
>> >> It conveniently assumes that it's possible to change the charges on such 
>> >> a time-scale without the resulting magnetic fields totally negating the 
>> >> effect.
>> >> 
>> >> A full analysis will show either that there's no net force, or that the 
>> >> change in momentum is matched by the momentum carried off as a result of 
>> >> a net radiation of electromagnetic waves in the opposite direction.
>> >> 
>> >> Oh, and the fact that this thing will inevitably radiate electromagnetic 
>> >> waves means that it requires a constant input of power.
>> >> 
>> >> Sylvia.
>> >
>> > If one assumes that the principle of action and reaction can be overcome in electrodynamics it must accept the consequences also on the law of inertia.
>> > And the change of the law of inertia is a great opportunity to shorten the time of interstellar travel
>> >
>> > E.Laureti
>> 
>> Let's wait and see until they can provide an actually working lab
>> demonstration of the principle.  "we tried it with a microwave but
>> we blew our microwave" does not sound like a very convincing attempt,
>> to the contrary: it is what could have been expected by those who do
>> not believe in all this.
>
>
> I say you only this:
>
> 1) It is right that everything passes first by a valid and convincing evidence of breach of the principle of action and reaction
>
> 2) When it is made public the pnn  know-how  everyone  will be convinced by itself theoretically  before than experimentally  and anyone who has a lab of electrodynamics and wants the start of a new astronautica  will try to redo experimentally what I'm doing since 2001
>
> E.Laureti

I don't want to withhold you from doing experiments but I do not believe
in those that have a controversial theory and see their experiments fail
all the time, then blame it on "not enough resources" instead of an error
in their theory.

Futhermore, I think even when a relativistic effect could be exploited
(like the conversion of energy to mass), it should always be taken into
account that for a drive to be useful, it has to be generating enough
force relative to the equipment mass and energy consumption to yield
a noticable accelleration.  When a 50kg experiment taking a kilowatt
of power results in a force that is buried in the noise of supporting
the weight of the equipment, it is not a useful drive system.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58443

On 16/10/2016 8:32 PM, Non Newtonian Propulsion wrote:
> Il giorno giovedì 13 ottobre 2016 02:58:23 UTC+2, Sylvia Else ha scritto:
>> On 12/10/2016 7:37 PM, Non Newtonian Propulsion wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> For the fact that action reaction violation need the change of the first law of newtonian inertia
>>> and for the fact that is in contact with the terrestrial environment
>>>
>>> https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2015/10/01/as-if-one-wasnt-enough-pnn-breaks-another-law/
>>>
>>
>> It conveniently assumes that it's possible to change the charges on such
>> a time-scale without the resulting magnetic fields totally negating the
>> effect.
>>
>> A full analysis will show either that there's no net force, or that the
>> change in momentum is matched by the momentum carried off as a result of
>> a net radiation of electromagnetic waves in the opposite direction.
>>
>> Oh, and the fact that this thing will inevitably radiate electromagnetic
>> waves means that it requires a constant input of power.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> If one assumes that the principle of action and reaction can be overcome in electrodynamics it must accept the consequences also on the law of inertia.
> And the change of the law of inertia is a great opportunity to shorten the time of interstellar travel
>
> E.Laureti
>

I don't know why one would make such an assumption, given the lack of 
experimental evidence to support it.

It should also be noted that any anisotropic radiator experiences a net 
force, completely in accordance with current theory. To be compelling, 
an experiment has to show a force in excess of that that would be 
produced by radiation for a given power input.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58448

Il giorno lunedì 17 ottobre 2016 02:57:05 UTC+2, Sylvia Else ha scritto:
> On 16/10/2016 8:32 PM, Non Newtonian Propulsion wrote:
> > Il giorno giovedì 13 ottobre 2016 02:58:23 UTC+2, Sylvia Else ha scritto:
> >> On 12/10/2016 7:37 PM, Non Newtonian Propulsion wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> For the fact that action reaction violation need the change of the first law of newtonian inertia
> >>> and for the fact that is in contact with the terrestrial environment
> >>>
> >>> https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2015/10/01/as-if-one-wasnt-enough-pnn-breaks-another-law/
> >>>
> >>
> >> It conveniently assumes that it's possible to change the charges on such
> >> a time-scale without the resulting magnetic fields totally negating the
> >> effect.
> >>
> >> A full analysis will show either that there's no net force, or that the
> >> change in momentum is matched by the momentum carried off as a result of
> >> a net radiation of electromagnetic waves in the opposite direction.
> >>
> >> Oh, and the fact that this thing will inevitably radiate electromagnetic
> >> waves means that it requires a constant input of power.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > If one assumes that the principle of action and reaction can be overcome in electrodynamics it must accept the consequences also on the law of inertia.
> > And the change of the law of inertia is a great opportunity to shorten the time of interstellar travel
> >
> > E.Laureti
> >
> 
> I don't know why one would make such an assumption, given the lack of 
> experimental evidence to support it.
> 
> It should also be noted that any anisotropic radiator experiences a net 
> force, completely in accordance with current theory. To be compelling, 
> an experiment has to show a force in excess of that that would be 
> produced by radiation for a given power input.
> 
> Sylvia.

The essence of the problem is that in the electrodynamic principle of action and reaction does not make sense to theoretical level. As it says W. Moretti in www.asps.it/azione.htm 

"Now in electrodynamics if the two bodies are charged, because of the delay effect you mention due to the mediation of the electromagnetic field, the third principle as I have set out above is not the case. The EM field can not 'be considered a body for various reasons (not even in the continuous theory mainly because 'does not define a field of speed' ...) for which the third principle can not 'even be formulated for the system charges + EM field. “


Unfortunately many physical books ignore this thing

https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2016/10/16/about-e-m-thrusters-orbital-tests/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58493

On 17/10/2016 8:09 PM, Non Newtonian Propulsion wrote:
> Il giorno lunedì 17 ottobre 2016 02:57:05 UTC+2, Sylvia Else ha
> scritto:
>> On 16/10/2016 8:32 PM, Non Newtonian Propulsion wrote:
>>> Il giorno giovedì 13 ottobre 2016 02:58:23 UTC+2, Sylvia Else ha
>>> scritto:
>>>> On 12/10/2016 7:37 PM, Non Newtonian Propulsion wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For the fact that action reaction violation need the change
>>>>> of the first law of newtonian inertia and for the fact that
>>>>> is in contact with the terrestrial environment
>>>>>
>>>>> https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2015/10/01/as-if-one-wasnt-enough-pnn-breaks-another-law/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
It conveniently assumes that it's possible to change the charges on such
>>>> a time-scale without the resulting magnetic fields totally
>>>> negating the effect.
>>>>
>>>> A full analysis will show either that there's no net force, or
>>>> that the change in momentum is matched by the momentum carried
>>>> off as a result of a net radiation of electromagnetic waves in
>>>> the opposite direction.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, and the fact that this thing will inevitably radiate
>>>> electromagnetic waves means that it requires a constant input
>>>> of power.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> If one assumes that the principle of action and reaction can be
>>> overcome in electrodynamics it must accept the consequences also
>>> on the law of inertia. And the change of the law of inertia is a
>>> great opportunity to shorten the time of interstellar travel
>>>
>>> E.Laureti
>>>
>>
>> I don't know why one would make such an assumption, given the lack
>> of experimental evidence to support it.
>>
>> It should also be noted that any anisotropic radiator experiences a
>> net force, completely in accordance with current theory. To be
>> compelling, an experiment has to show a force in excess of that
>> that would be produced by radiation for a given power input.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> The essence of the problem is that in the electrodynamic principle of
> action and reaction does not make sense to theoretical level. As it
> says W. Moretti in www.asps.it/azione.htm
>
> "Now in electrodynamics if the two bodies are charged, because of the
> delay effect you mention due to the mediation of the electromagnetic
> field, the third principle as I have set out above is not the case.
> The EM field can not 'be considered a body for various reasons (not
> even in the continuous theory mainly because 'does not define a field
> of speed' ...) for which the third principle can not 'even be
> formulated for the system charges + EM field. “
>
>

This takes us back to the assumption that it's possible to charge the 
bodies without thereby having a current which creates a magnetic field. 
If you assume the impossible, then all bets are off.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58508

On 10/12/2016 4:37 AM, Non Newtonian Propulsion wrote:
>
>
> For the fact that action reaction violation need the change of the first law of newtonian inertia
> and for the fact that is in contact with the terrestrial environment
>
> https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2015/10/01/as-if-one-wasnt-enough-pnn-breaks-another-law/
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/4gihnf/an_interesting_clue_in_the_change_of_the_law_of/
>
Utter non-sense. Learn some EM theory. There is no force "delay", the 
'B' component acts on the EM field in its presence. As the field weakens 
so does the force. There is no delayed force propagating to the protons 
of 'A',  If you tuned and tuned all day you could produce standing waves 
between the two, but that's about it. If this worked as described you 
could easily demonstrate the ability to make the elements of any dipole 
antenna wave around simply by tuning the transmitter. I offer proof that 
this is wrong by contradiction.

Junk.

As for EM Drive....

Before we resort to that let's wait for the experimental results to come 
back from those experiments soon to take place using Mu metals*.

At the present time it's looking quite possible that this device is not 
much more that a *really* expensive electrically powered magnetic 
compass. In other words, the extremely weak forces generated may not be 
present in deep space w/o the Earth's geomagnetic field to help out.

The only other theory currently extant is that this device is drawing 
(somehow) on quantum vacuum energy. Shawyer's conception of it deriving 
its propulsive force strictly via SR mechanics has been thoroughly 
debunked. Without the QVE theory it violates conservation of momentum. 
And with a thrust superior to that of a photon rocket it violates 
conservation of energy as well (i.e. it becomes a perpetual motion 
machine when used to drive a generator). I won't provide the cites, look 
them up yourself (Google).

Dave

*Although why no one has tried changing thrust directions using far 
easier to obtain or make Helmholtz coils is beyond me. Maybe I should 
ping the forums on that...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58520

Superconducting EMDrive Patented:

"Shawyer describes a new EMdrive thruster design that has a single flat 
superconducting plate on one end, with a uniquely shaped, non-conducting plate 
on the other.

This is necessary to minimiZe the internal Doppler shift - a change in 
frequency or wavelength of a wave for an observer moving relative to its source 
- and also keep manufacturing costs down.

* It enables the drive to be easily manufactured
* It will make a viable superconducting thruster easier. Shawyer believes a 
superconducting thruster will produce a lot of thrust

Shawyer is working with an unnamed UK aerospace company to develop his second 
generation EM Drive, which he says will produce thrust many orders of magnitude 
greater than that observed by NASA’s Eagleworks team or any other laboratory."

See:

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/10/superconducting-emdrive-patented.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58523

On 10/18/2016 4:45 PM, dumpster4@hotmail.com wrote:
> Shawyer is working with an unnamed UK aerospace company to develop his second
> generation EM Drive, which he says will produce thrust many orders of magnitude
> greater than that observed by NASA’s Eagleworks team or any other laboratory."
>
> See:
>
> http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/10/superconducting-emdrive-patented.html
>
>

Seeing is believing. Well in this case not even seeing is believing. 
I've seen videos of Shawyer's work twisting away on a torsion pendulum. 
That older device design is known and has been replicated. However a 
compass would do the same.

I don't know how patents work in the UK, but in the US a patent requires 
full disclosure and reveal of how the device works. If a patent was 
granted on it in the US the construction and method of operation must be 
revealed. Thus everyone is free to replicate it, no one is free to 
profit from it w/o a license.

However, patents are also often issued for things that do not work.
Patent examiners are not perfect. And legally there isn't really 
anything wrong with a patent on a non-working invention. It's just not 
very profitable.

There's a little too much secrecy here for my liking. For now I will say 
it's borderline pathological science. Borderline, but the trend is not 
encouraging....

Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58555

On 19/10/2016 7:45 AM, dumpster4@hotmail.com wrote:
> Superconducting EMDrive Patented:
>
> "Shawyer describes a new EMdrive thruster design that has a single flat
> superconducting plate on one end, with a uniquely shaped, non-conducting plate
> on the other.
>
> This is necessary to minimiZe the internal Doppler shift - a change in
> frequency or wavelength of a wave for an observer moving relative to its source
> - and also keep manufacturing costs down.
>
> * It enables the drive to be easily manufactured
> * It will make a viable superconducting thruster easier. Shawyer believes a
> superconducting thruster will produce a lot of thrust
>
> Shawyer is working with an unnamed UK aerospace company to develop his second
> generation EM Drive, which he says will produce thrust many orders of magnitude
> greater than that observed by NASA’s Eagleworks team or any other laboratory."
>
> See:
>
> http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/10/superconducting-emdrive-patented.html
>
>

The patent application is here

<https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-find-publication-getPDF.pdf?PatentNo=GB2537119&DocType=A&JournalNumber=6647>

Looks to me like a microwave photon drive, with a bunch of stuff thrown 
in which may, or may not, actually improve its performance. In 
particular, I'm sceptical of the super-conducting aspect given the 
requirement to keep the conductors cold.

Even if it works, it is not a reaction-less drive. Photon drives are 
known to he possible, but they don't produce much thrust.

The strategy of obtaining a patent on something that is real, but not 
particularly effective, can be used to convince clueless investors that 
they're investing in something revolutionary.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58566

On 10/19/2016 11:15 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> The patent application is here
>
> <https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-find-publication-getPDF.pdf?PatentNo=GB2537119&DocType=A&JournalNumber=6647>

Thanks! I'll take a closer look when I get the time.

Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58678

New NASA Emdrive paper shows force of 1.2 millinewtons per kilowatt in a 
Vacuum and a low thrust pendulum and tests were at 40, 60 and 80 watts:

"The newest NASA emdrive paper concludes a force generation of 1.2mn/kw after errors 
measurement is accounted for.

A low thrust pendulum at the NASA Johnson space center was used."

See:

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/new-nasa-emdrive-paper-shows-force-of.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58682

On 11/5/2016 8:47 PM, dumpster4@hotmail.com wrote:
> New NASA Emdrive paper shows force of 1.2 millinewtons per kilowatt in a
> Vacuum and a low thrust pendulum and tests were at 40, 60 and 80 watts:
>
> "The newest NASA emdrive paper concludes a force generation of 1.2mn/kw after errors
> measurement is accounted for.
>
> A low thrust pendulum at the NASA Johnson space center was used."
>
> See:
>
> http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/new-nasa-emdrive-paper-shows-force-of.html
>

Null magnetic field present? Behavior characterized within a magnetic 
field? Force direction affected by presence and orientation of magnetic 
field?

The cited article, about this paper, says nothing [about that] <- phrase 
optional.

Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58683

On 11/6/2016 3:36 PM, David Spain wrote:
>
> Null magnetic field present? Behavior characterized within a magnetic
> field? Force direction affected by presence and orientation of magnetic
> field?
>
> The cited article, about this paper, says nothing [about that] <- phrase
> optional.
>
> Dave
>
>

The actual link to the paper was in blue text w/o attribution. You have 
to know to click on the blue text to get to the reference paper.

However once there, this looked old to me. There is no date on the paper 
but the file name says 'Q-Thruster In-Vacuum Fall 2015 Test Report.pdf" 
which puts it a year behind the DIY'ers over on the NasaSpaceFlight.com 
forum.

Nevertheless, what I said originally stands. You know its not hard to 
buy or build Helmholtz coils folks.

Dave

PS: Now OTOH if you can prove there is an all encompassing magnetic 
field on the cosmic scale.... Well even if you can you probably don't 
get much:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1005.1924

/quote
  The observational and theoretical upper
bounds on IGMF constrain their magnitudes to be below 10−9
G (Barrow, Ferreira & Silk 1997), whereas any value above
∼10−30G is sufficient to explain the ∼μG Galactic magnetic
fields generation by the dynamo mechanism (Davis, Lilley & T ̈ornkvist
1999)
/end-quote

The above paper does not contain a glossary but I'm going with G==gauss.

As opposed to the Earth about which Google/Wikipedia says:
/quote
Its [Earth's magnetic field strength] magnitude at the Earth's surface 
ranges from 25 to 65 microteslas (0.25 to 0.65 gauss). Roughly speaking 
it is the field of a magnetic dipole currently tilted at an angle of 
about 10 degrees with respect to Earth's rotational axis, as if there 
were a bar magnet placed at that angle at the center of the Earth.
/end-quote

> https://www.google.com/search?q=field+strength+of+earth%27s+magnetic+field&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

But perhaps propulsion within our solar system? Weeeellll:

Again Wikipedia says:

/quote
The plasma in the interplanetary medium is also responsible for the 
strength of the Sun's magnetic field at the orbit of the Earth being 
over 100 times greater than originally anticipated. If space were a 
vacuum, then the Sun's magnetic dipole field, about 10−4 teslas at the 
surface of the Sun, would reduce with the inverse cube of the distance 
to about 10−11 teslas. But satellite observations show that it is about 
100 times greater at around 10−9 teslas [0.0001 gauss by my conversion, 
just to keep apples to apples]. Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) theory 
predicts that the motion of a conducting fluid (e.g. the interplanetary 
medium) in a magnetic field, induces electric currents which in turn 
generates magnetic fields, and in this respect it behaves like a MHD dynamo.
/end-quote

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_magnetic_field


Not holding my breath.

Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58693

Controversial Propellentless EmDrive is said to be undergoing tests in 
space on the Tiangong-2 station and US Air Force X-37B plane:

"IBTimes UK has been informed that the US Air Force is currently testing out a 
version of the EmDrive electromagnetic microwave thruster on the X-37B unmanned 
military space plane, while the Chinese government has made sure to include the 
EmDrive on its orbital space laboratory Tiangong-2."

See:

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/controversial-propellentless-emdrive-is.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58709

On 11/7/2016 7:33 PM, dumpster4@hotmail.com wrote:
> Controversial Propellentless EmDrive is said to be undergoing tests in
> space on the Tiangong-2 station and US Air Force X-37B plane:
>
> "IBTimes UK has been informed that the US Air Force is currently testing out a
> version of the EmDrive electromagnetic microwave thruster on the X-37B unmanned
> military space plane, while the Chinese government has made sure to include the
> EmDrive on its orbital space laboratory Tiangong-2."
>
> See:
>
> http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/controversial-propellentless-emdrive-is.html
>

This article is a jumble of unattributed "reports" plus known unrelated 
historical facts vis-a-vis the EMDrive experiments performed in China.

Nothing to see here.

Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58710

On 11/10/2016 2:59 AM, David Spain wrote:
> This article is a jumble of unattributed "reports" plus known unrelated
> historical facts vis-a-vis the EMDrive experiments performed in China.
>
> Nothing to see here.
>
> Dave

The IBTimes UK article is a jumble of unattributed "reports" plus known 
unrelated historical facts vis-a-vis the EMDrive experiments performed 
in China.

Nothing to see here.

Dave

PS: The IBTimes UK website is not ad blocker friendly...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.space.policy

csiph-web