"Impossible" EM space drive?
David L. Jones
Robert Baer
An antenna / waveguide can be thought of as a method of launching
energy in (roughly) one direction.
Not quite an ion engine, but...
Boris Mohar
wrote:
This thing is RF sealed.
--
Boris Mohar
TheM
Check the site in more detail, looks legit. But I don't get the underlying principle.
It this thing really working? The force is microscopic, though, but that might not
matter much for the intended purpose.
M
MooseFET
> "Boris Mohar" <borism_vo...@sympatico.ca> wrote in messagenews:24kpd492ap2onm7q5...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 21:25:38 -0700, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>David L. Jones wrote:
>
> >>> Have fun...
>
> >>>http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/chinese-buildin.html
>
> >>>http://emdrive.com/principle.html
>
> >>> Dave.
> >> An antenna / waveguide can be thought of as a method of launching
> >>energy in (roughly) one direction.
> >> Not quite an ion engine, but...
>
> > This thing is RF sealed.
> > --
>
> > Boris Mohar
>
> Check the site in more detail, looks legit. But I don't get the underlying principle.
>
> It this thing really working? The force is microscopic, though, but that might not
> matter much for the intended purpose.
You need dilithium crystals to get much power out of it.
JeffM
>>It this thing really working? The force is microscopic, though,
>>but that might not matter much for the intended purpose.
>>
>You need dilithium crystals to get much power out of it.
That's what I was thinking:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:7wI_TNSAoJQJ:patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2005/03/patents_string_.html+rejection+Mar.24.*.2005+*-patent-examiner+warp.drive+graviton+Andrew.Worsley+concerns+Peter.Twist+Worsley-Twist
8-)
TheM
Same guys? Figures, sounded way too good.
M
TheM
Believe it or not, it seems the British government is funding this crap!
M
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
There has been no definitive independent test of any force produced.
And if this thing does produce constant thrust for a fixed input of
electricity you have an over-unity engine.
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
Tim Williams
wrote:
> TheM wrote:
> > "Boris Mohar" <borism_vo...@sympatico.ca> wrote in messagenews:24kpd492ap2onm7q5...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 21:25:38 -0700, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> David L. Jones wrote:
>
> >>>> Have fun...
>
> >>>>http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/chinese-buildin.html
>
> >>>>http://emdrive.com/principle.html
>
> >>>> Dave.
> >>> An antenna / waveguide can be thought of as a method of launching
> >>> energy in (roughly) one direction.
> >>> Not quite an ion engine, but...
> >> This thing is RF sealed.
> >> --
>
> >> Boris Mohar
>
> > Check the site in more detail, looks legit. But I don't get the underlying principle.
>
> > It this thing really working? The force is microscopic, though, but that might not
> > matter much for the intended purpose.
>
> There has been no definitive independent test of any force produced.
> And if this thing does produce constant thrust for a fixed input of
> electricity you have an over-unity engine.
No, electromagnetic energy carries momentum. Just extremely little of
it.
2450MHz photons carry an energy of E = h*f = 1240 nm.eV * 2.45 GHz / 3
x 10^8 m/s = 1 x 10^-5 eV = 10 ueV and momentum of p = E/c = 3.38 x
10^-14 eV/c. 60 kJ (the equivalent of running your microwave, door
jimmied open, for one minute) thus carries 3.75 x 10^23 eV total
energy or n = 3.75 x 10^28 photons (a good 5 x 10^4 moles or so), or
1.26 x 10^15 eV/c = 6.75 x 10^-13 kg.m/s if I got the units right
(should've started with h in MKS, oh well). To accelerate a dust
particle of 65 ng to a rate of 1 m/s would require about 2.9 GJ of
microwave energy, assuming a massless reflector.
The proposed device evidently reflects microwaves multiple times,
leading to multiple momentum transfers. That's a good approach. But
there can't be any net momentum transfer between the device and its
surroundings, only between its surfaces, which are bolted together and
therefore don't move. Because of this, a little-known relativistic
principle is invoked. I don't know enough about relativity to make
any analysis of that. The fact remains, energy goes in, EM radiation
goes out, and thus only a limited amount of momentum leaves.
Conservation of momentum is one of the things Einstein specifically
preserved in his theory (note that conservation of mass or energy are
both specifically eliminated -- conservation of mass-energy is the new
rule), I think he would be annoyed to see his own work basically
perverted against its own principles.
Now, if the device does, in fact, make as much thrust as is claimed,
it should be pretty easy to find -- it's little more than a
differently-shaped microwave oven with the door open(?), and the
magnitude of the predicted force is easily measured using a torsion
pendulum. I'm mystified why such a garage-scale experiment might take
millions of dollars, even for a rather detailed analysis, construction
and optimization of the apparatus. That in itself might be a good
enough reason to suspect it!
Note that it is possible to use resonant reflection to transfer extra
momentum, but only between a remote reflector and the vehicle. Both
targets recieve equal and opposite momentum, and if the beams are
tightly focused and the reflectors have high Q (heck, if we're in
space I suppose superconducting dishes aren't out of the question),
the efficiency can be quite high, although maybe the power density not
so much (with superconductors, the limiting factor is critical field
strength; for ordinary conductors, power dissipation and overall
efficiency). The vehicle also doesn't have to be itself powered,
although it will be once it's simply too far to keep the beam
together. Obviously this isn't a very practical autonomous approach.
Tim
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
No.
The fact remains that EM only carries a certain amount of momentum and
this device claims to "amplify" it. And as I said above, any device that
can provide a constant thrust for a fixed electrical input *must* be an
over-unity device in free space irrespective of any relativistic effects.
Adrian Jansen
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
... snip ...
>
> No.
> The fact remains that EM only carries a certain amount of momentum and
> this device claims to "amplify" it. And as I said above, any device that
> can provide a constant thrust for a fixed electrical input *must* be an
> over-unity device in free space irrespective of any relativistic effects.
Actually no, a device can produce constant thrust without using energy,
as long as the thrust does not move the object over any distance, ie do
work.
All objects produce thrust against the ground ( gravity ) all the time,
but no work is done, as long as they dont rise or fall.
The catch is that you still cant use the thrust to
provide motion without using energy. So you can ( in principle ) hover,
but you cant climb, unles you provide extra energy. And it would seem
from the analysis presented that you can produce low thrust in free
space, and get some motion, as long as you keep either the thrust or the
velocity small. The energy you need comes from the input energy, so
there is no 'over unity' gain.
--
Regards,
Adrian Jansen adrianjansen at internode dot on dot net
Design Engineer J & K Micro Systems
Microcomputer solutions for industrial control
Note reply address is invalid, convert address above to machine form.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
>
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> ... snip ...
>>
>> No.
>> The fact remains that EM only carries a certain amount of momentum and
>> this device claims to "amplify" it. And as I said above, any device
>> that can provide a constant thrust for a fixed electrical input *must*
>> be an over-unity device in free space irrespective of any relativistic
>> effects.
>
> Actually no, a device can produce constant thrust without using energy,
> as long as the thrust does not move the object over any distance, ie do
> work.
>
> All objects produce thrust against the ground ( gravity ) all the time,
> but no work is done, as long as they dont rise or fall.
>
> The catch is that you still cant use the thrust to
> provide motion without using energy. So you can ( in principle ) hover,
> but you cant climb, unles you provide extra energy. And it would seem
> from the analysis presented that you can produce low thrust in free
> space, and get some motion, as long as you keep either the thrust or the
> velocity small. The energy you need comes from the input energy, so
> there is no 'over unity' gain.
Why should the velocity be kept small?
How does the engine know when to stop, since there is no absolute
reference frame? That's why I said "free space". In which case a
constant thrust will generate a constant acceleration for a constant
power. So for a constant power input the velocity increases linearly,
kinetic energy increases as velocity squared. Where does that extra
energy come from?
Jasen Betts
yup impossible.
either (a) the same number of photons reflect from both ends of the
funnel or b (b) some reflect from the tapered trunk.
either way there's no net force generated.
Bye.
Jasen
Tim Williams
wrote:
> No.
> The fact remains that EM only carries a certain amount of momentum
*Cough*
EM carries momentum. So a rate of EM carries a rate of momentum, and
kg.m/s per second = kg.m/s^2 = N, a force. The units work out
correctly, and the physics works too (I'm skipping this simple
analysis). Thus, a constant EM power output, which is easy to produce
from a power source, amplifier and antenna, will produce a constant
thrust. The question is magnitude, which is quite small.
> and
> this device claims to "amplify" it. And as I said above, any device that
> can provide a constant thrust for a fixed electrical input *must* be an
> over-unity device in free space irrespective of any relativistic effects.
I just gave two cases, one of constant thrust per electrical power
supply and one of potential resonant multiplication, both based on
well known and well tested physical facts. Do you doubt these facts?
I doubt this particular device, but you just stated "any device",
which is clearly false.
Tim
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Yes - no resonant multiplication.
> I doubt this particular device, but you just stated "any device",
> which is clearly false.
Not in the case of an engine that does not emit anything.
TheM
>> I doubt this particular device, but you just stated "any device",
>> which is clearly false.
>
> Not in the case of an engine that does not emit anything.
> --
> Dirk
I think thig guys setup leaks microwave RF and somehow this provides the
microscopic thrust he is measuring, or maybe the air inside heats up and leaks
generating thrust.
He himself mentions EMI problems with his camera so clearly there is some RF leaking.
So much for a demonstration.
What's amazing is that he managed to convince the idiots in British gov. to finance this crap.
M
MooseFET
wrote:
One solution:
From the point of view of someone outside, the thrust decreases and
the clocks on the spacecraft slow down. From the point of view of
those on the spacecraft the clocks are normal and the thrust is
constant. As a result, no extra energy would be needed but it still
won't work.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
The problem becomes acute long before SR effects are obvious.
Adrian Jansen
you can have significant thrust, you accelerate the device away from the
EM field trapped inside. The energy loss is the work done, and you gain
kinetic energy, but at the expense of reducing the Q of the device, so
you reduce the thrust accordingly. At the very high Q needed to get
significant thrust ( Kg, rather than mg ), the velocity change needed to
reduce the Q gets very small. Think about the detuning effects of
Doppler shift caused by the relative motion of the cavity and the field.
You can also look at it as though the device has some huge effective
mass, dependent on the Q, so the acceleration is very small, even though
the thrust can be reasonably high.
It still looks to me like a neat gadget, with limited applications in
moving small spacecraft around at low accelerations, and with a long
lifetime, not limited by carrying propellants. Moving anything else at
'reasonable' acceleration, or using it to create a hovercraft in the
Earths field, seems to be not possible.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
That doesn't work unless there is some absolute reference frame.
Otherwise how does the engine know how fast it's going?
Adrian Jansen
acceleration, and that is not subject to a local frame of reference.
However in thinking about this a bit further, I can see that you
probably cant get any more acceleration than you would by simply
pointing the microwave emitter out the 'back' of the rocket, and spewing
EM radiation (photons) out in a directed beam. At least that way you
dont have the problem of containing a very high energy density inside
your device, and the exhaust velocity is at least as high as you can
possibly get. Where you get the energy from for converting into photons
is another matter.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
An incandescent light bulb would work just as well in that case.
However, the claim is that this engine will produce vastly more thrust
than you would get from simply emitting the photons.
Adrian Jansen
Agreed.
> However, the claim is that this engine will produce vastly more thrust
> than you would get from simply emitting the photons.
>
It seems from the theory presented, and even the experimental results,
that it will produce the thrust. What they dont point out is that the
thrust wont produce useful acceleration.
Benj
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/chinese-buildin.html
http://emdrive.com/principle.html
> Dave.
Note: I'm cross-posting this to sci.physics so all the people "smarter
than Einstein" can have a look at it.
I'm not quite sure about it. My gut feeling has to do with the fact
that the device theory more or less ignores the forces along the
tapered portion of the guide. This feels a lot like so many hydraulic
"perpetual motion" machines where forces on tapered surfaces get
neglected and thus the thing seems to work. [but they really don't]
The relativistic explanation would need to be looked at in detail to
really be sure about the device. I'm not sure that the frame
difference between the radiation and the guide really has the thrust
effect claimed. Radiation pressure is obviously real, but that should
only be a stress between the large and small end. ( including the
tapered portion I presume). Conservation of momentum seems to preclude
this thing from working...BUT I'd point out that in Newtons system of
action and reaction being equal, which actually doesn't hold when
causality is taken into account, then it follows that mechanical
momentum is NOT conserved! [for more information on this see
Jefimenko, "Gravitation and Cogravitation" P. 7] So if Newton's laws
don't hold then we are starting to get somewhere strange.
So guys, do we have an "all-electric" satellite thruster or not?
[Follow the links to the theory paper]
Note that any opinion from clowns who "know" it's bunk, even though
they haven't read the paper, should be ignored as should all comments
about "tinfoil" helmets.
Eric Gisse
[snip]
This is called light propulsion.
It is fantastically inefficient and for all intents and purposes,
useless.
Salmon Egg
<62cd7944-1856-4f36...@u65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Benj <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
There is no doubt that radiation pressure is real. With ordinary
propellents, the system is most efficient when the space vehicle is
going at a speed such the exhaust is stationary as the craft flies on.
That is, any kinetic energy in the exhaust is energy that cannot be used
to provide kinetic energy to the spacecraft.
In the case of radiation pressure, the spacecraft sees pressure from
radiation at the frequency emitted. A "stationary" observer at the
launch facility sees a doppler shifted beam of radiation leave the
spacecraft. It is the difference in photon energy generated in the
spacecraft and the doppler shifted beam leaving the spacecraft that is
providing the kinetic energy for the spacecraft. For spacecraft as we
know them the doppler shift will be tiny, and consequently, the
efficiency will be tiny.
I think someone is flim-flamming the Chinese government.
Bill
--
Private Profit; Public Poop! Avoid collateral windfall!
Richard Herring
<abfb42eb-7c75-444c...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Eric Gisse <jow...@gmail.com> writes
>On Sep 29, 9:16 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>[snip]
>
>This is called light propulsion.
>
>It is fantastically inefficient
3 nanonewtons per watt, at best!
>and for all intents and purposes,
>useless.
--
Richard Herring
p.ki...@ic.ac.uk
> On Sep 25, 6:07 pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Have fun...
> http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/chinese-buildin.html
> http://emdrive.com/principle.html
This has been discussed before in one of the sci.*
groups, a few years ago IIRC. It's a drive based on
radiation pressure, with an additional (and erroneous)
claim that using a resonator multiplies the thrust by
the Q-factor of the resonator.
--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler
Blackett Laboratory (PHOT) (ph) +44-20-759-47734 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London, Dr.Paul...@physics.org
SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom. http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/
TheM
> Note that any opinion from clowns who "know" it's bunk, even though
> they haven't read the paper, should be ignored as should all comments
> about "tinfoil" helmets.
Start here for some criticism from someone who is not a clown:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/shawyerfraud.pdf
What's wrong with tinfoil helmets?
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
M
MooseFET
No, I was suggesting that you could get some "extra special" effects
for the RF. The only way such a drive could be working would require
that it bend space time.
Besides, the efficiency is: 0.00..65 zeros ..01 and only goes
up to 0.00..65 zeros ..02 as you get near C so there neaver really is
an issue.
>
> --
> Dirk
>
> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political partyhttp://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5- Our podcasts on weird stuff
Benj
Two points:
1. the claim is that because it's a cavity resonator the radiation
pressure is multiplied many times.
2. It's not actually radiation pressure as the cavity is sealed and
the light never leaves it...hence the "relativistic" explanation.
OK. Lets make it three points.
3. One presumed advantage would be that no fuel is expelled as in an
Ion drive. Hence you could suck power from the sun to drive around the
solar system forever. Efficiency is of course an engineering question.
The real question here would be is can this thing actually work even
inefficiently?
Benj
Benj
> This has been discussed before in one of the sci.*
> groups, a few years ago IIRC. It's a drive based on
> radiation pressure, with an additional (and erroneous)
> claim that using a resonator multiplies the thrust by
> the Q-factor of the resonator.
It seems based on radiation pressure, but since the cavity is sealed
at both ends, there is no radiation escaping. To me this says that all
you end up with is a stress in the structure between the cavity ends.
I don't see how the cavity ends being different sizes is going to
change anything. The claim is that there is some relativistic effect
that generates the force even with the radiation not leaving the
cavity. I haven't gone through their relativistic arguments in the
paper so I really can't comment on that. My hope was that someone else
had already done that and came to a conclusion about the relativistic
arguments. Anybody have a reference to those previous discussions?
Since no radiation is escaping I can't see how any of the arguments
against radiation pressure drives apply.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
I suspect the accuracy of the experimental results.
Benj
> "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in messagenews:62cd7944-1856-4f36...@u65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> > Note that any opinion from clowns who "know" it's bunk, even though
> > they haven't read the paper, should be ignored as should all comments
> > about "tinfoil" helmets.
>
> Start here for some criticism from someone who is not a clown:http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/shawyerfraud.pdf
Says you. He's as least a semi-clown! Allow me to quote his paper
(which I actually took time to read before ripping him)
"the third [reference] I never heard of and didn't need to read.
Shawyer's paper was complete rubbish."
He does actually sort of redeem himself later in the paper but really
just dismisses the "relativistic" arguments without much of an
explanation. He just says they are "nonesense" and then proceeds to
rip apart the "radiation presure" side of things which NOBODY claims
is the essence of the device. Everyone knows that without some
relativistic tweak all you'll get is tiny pressure stressing the bolts
holding the "mirrors" on. To attack that is to be using a strawman.
So it's an interesting paper but disappointing in the relativistic
criticism department and he is obviously a semi-clown. When ever a so-
called "scientist" starts telling you he doesn't need to read a paper
or it's fundamental reference to know it's rubbish, that's a clown
talking!
> What's wrong with tinfoil helmets?http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
I'll tell you bunky! IT'S A CONSPIRACY I TELL YOU! The "secret
government" that runs the world knows full well that this "tinfoil"
helmet thing is rubbish! I don't need to read this website to know
it's all a shill for the illuminati! The whole website was probably
programmed by Masons and maintained by the Jewish media!
First Off, these helmets are NOT made of "tinfoil", they are
constructed out of aluminum foil [or aluminium foil for helmets in the
Yoo Kay] And EVERYBODY knows that Aluminum is transparent to mind
control rays. So here are the power elite posting all over the web
the FALSE knowledge that aluminum helmets will protect you when they
all know it's a major fraud. The Secret Government knows damn well
that it takes LEAD FOIL to stop mind control rays!!!!!!!! Have you
ever seen THAT little fact on the net? No.
Quite frankly not me nor any other serious scientist needs to go read
this website to know it's all rubbish!
It's a conspiracy I tell you!
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
So how do you know what stationary means?
Puppet_Sock
> On Sep 25, 6:07 pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Have fun...
>
> http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/chinese-buildin.html
>
> http://emdrive.com/principle.html
It's junk. The "theory" ignores the effects of photons
hitting the sides of the tapered wave guide. If you
include this, you will recover the fact that electro-
magnetism, and QED, are exactly conservative.
No extra momentum out in any way.
Since this system does not purport to have any
new physics, "that's all" she wrote.
Socks
Richard Herring
<6ba6402f-906e-4f00...@d70g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Benj <bja...@iwaynet.net> writes
>. When ever a so-
>called "scientist" starts telling you he doesn't need to read a paper
No, he read the paper.
>or it's fundamental reference
which is evidently misapplied.
> to know it's rubbish, that's a clown
>talking!
If the introduction to a paper claims that it's applying some standard
physical theory (e.g. Maxwellian electrodynamics, Newton's laws) and the
conclusions (e.g. momentum is not conserved) are inconsistent with the
theory, then the only reason for reading what comes between them
(including your "fundamental reference") is to find _where_ the error
was made. Physical theories have to be (logically, mathematically)
self-consistent or they wouldn't be theories.
--
Richard Herring
MooseFET
> In message
> <6ba6402f-906e-4f00-badf-db9f7955c...@d70g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> writes
>
> >. When ever a so-
> >called "scientist" starts telling you he doesn't need to read a paper
>
> No, he read the paper.
>
> >or it's fundamental reference
>
> which is evidently misapplied.
>
> > to know it's rubbish, that's a clown
> >talking!
>
> If the introduction to a paper claims that it's applying some standard
> physical theory (e.g. Maxwellian electrodynamics, Newton's laws) and the
> conclusions (e.g. momentum is not conserved) are inconsistent with the
> theory, then the only reason for reading what comes between them
> (including your "fundamental reference") is to find _where_ the error
> was made. Physical theories have to be (logically, mathematically)
> self-consistent or they wouldn't be theories.
I've started building my own model of it to see if it really does work
and have run into a problem.
My output transistor is connected to the copper cone as a heatsink.
There is frost forming all around my power transistor and the added
weight of it is throwing the thrust measurement off.
Since the thrust will be very weak I decided to just hang the engine
from a couple of strings to see if it pushes its self forwards. I ran
two strings for the corners of my unicorn's cage so that the motor
would hang exactly in the center.
I made the holes to hang it from by using a drop of the universal
solvent so that I wouldn't leave stresses in the metal. I took the
dropper out of the bottle and dropped a drop of it in each corner.
When the frost forms, it shift the center of gravity so the motor
moves and I can't tell if there is any thrust.
Benj
> If the introduction to a paper claims that it's applying some standard
> physical theory (e.g. Maxwellian electrodynamics, Newton's laws) and the
> conclusions (e.g. momentum is not conserved) are inconsistent with the
> theory, then the only reason for reading what comes between them
> (including your "fundamental reference") is to find _where_ the error
> was made. Physical theories have to be (logically, mathematically)
> self-consistent or they wouldn't be theories.
This is exactly correct. However, in such a case one would expect the
person to 1. actually read the paper including the references. and 2.
find the exact location where the error was made and then write those
equations down saying, "look, this guy is a moron!". But that isn't
the usual thing in science. See the post of MooseFET below. It's just
a bunch of crap of no substance. His basic argument underlying all the
"fun" is that this paper is so ridiculous that we don't even need to
read it to know the author is "insane". But this should be no
surprise given the clownish name "MooseFET" he posts under.
So the bottom line is that I"m not going to accept the argument that
this thing is "nuts" because it violates "conservation of momentum".
That argument only says "I'm a lazy fool!". That immediately places
you in the list of candidates for person who was the largest moron and
who did the MOST to embarrass physics by saying really stupid things.
You know, that list that includes Tesla's professor who "proved" that
a motor could "never" be built without a commutator, and the French
"experts" who affirmed that heavier than air craft could never fly.
Jeeze, how can the public ever trust "science experts" again?
The bottom line here is that anyone who argues that this device
"cannot" work because momentum isn't conserved is a moron. The very
existence of the device (thruster) implies that somehow momentum isn't
being conserved! So, the real question is could this device actually
work. The fact that we've not seen the case where momentum is not
conserved doesn't make it impossible anymore than the fact that
Tesla's professor had never seen an induction motor makes commutator-
less electric motors "impossible". The true question is NOT "is this
possible"? Let us assume for the purposes of science that ALL THINGS
are "possible". The real question is "how does one do this?" If one
can't do it, then that only means you don't know how to do it, not
that it is impossible!
So the bottom line here is that the claim of the author that this
device relies upon some relativistic effect to obtain a differential
in radiation pressure on the two ends of the cavity is the ONLY
argument that needs attention. Is this true or not? Only a examination
of his relativistic equations would give the answer. Invoking
violation of conservation of momentum does not! I haven't examined his
equations. I actually try to avoid all discussions of who is "smarter
than Eisnstein" and relativity. And so far I haven't seen anybody else
point out where his relativity is in error either.
So what is the crux here? Say we have a cavity with radiation inside
it. HE says that if you taper the cavity, the EM radiation inside has
a different velocity at one end than at the other. HE says that by
relativity this means the radiation pressure on one end is different
from that one the other end. Could this possibly be true? What if we
had molecules in there instead? Note as they get closer and closer to
the speed of light they get larger and larger mass. SO, one might
suggest that if molecules banging into one plate are heavier than
those banging into the other plate there is more momentum transferred
in a given direction. This sounds like it wouldn't work, but can only
be proved wrong by a detailed examination of the forces. So far I
haven't done that, and I haven't seen anybody else do it.
This whole thing is one more "force glove" idea. This is the "popular
science" concept that one could build a "glove" you put on that
generates unidirectional forces that you can push over a building
with. So is momentum always conserved by Newton's laws? Nope. Is there
always an equal and opposite reaction of forces as a result? Nope.
Why? Because Newton's laws are not causal, that's why! As Jefimenko
explains, if I have two bodies in space attracted by their gravity,
the forces of each on the other balance, but as soon as I move one, it
takes TIME for that change to be transmitted from one to the other.
This leads to an unbalanced situation. It's a unidirectional force.
It's a "force glove"!!! Put relativity into this mix with changing
masses and all the rest and now what is going on? This will take some
thinking!
OK?
Androcles
"MooseFET" <kens...@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:5b6d2ce3-94b1-4525...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
===============================================
You could try a Peltier junction on the unicorn.
I had a unicorn in heat and it mated with a griffin,
the offspring was a flying rhinoceros.
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> So the bottom line is that I"m not going to accept the argument that
> this thing is "nuts" because it violates "conservation of momentum".
Don't accept it. Get as much cash as you can obtain,
mortgage your home, borrow money from loan sharks,
and give it all to the people working on this thing. With
no contract or promises.
I need the laugh.
> That argument only says "I'm a lazy fool!". That immediately places
> you in the list of candidates for person who was the largest moron and
> who did the MOST to embarrass physics by saying really stupid things.
Being lazy isn't the same as being a fool.
The claim is that this thing runs on electromagnetism.
A homework assignment in 3rd year undergrad included
showing that EM is conservative. That proof includes
*all* possible configurations of charges, EM fields, etc.
Being lazy means that I'm not interested in doing the
homework of these knobs. I've *done* my homework,
and don't need to repeat it. The proof is exact.
> You know, that list that includes Tesla's professor who "proved" that
> a motor could "never" be built without a commutator, and the French
> "experts" who affirmed that heavier than air craft could never fly.
> Jeeze, how can the public ever trust "science experts" again?
When you figure out the difference between what *those*
knobs were doing (making bad approximations) and the
mathematic proof that EM is conservative, do come back
and offer an apology.
> The bottom line here is that anyone who argues that this device
> "cannot" work because momentum isn't conserved is a moron. The very
> existence of the device (thruster) implies that somehow momentum isn't
> being conserved!
Well, of course, the device does *not* exist. What they
have is a lot of wire and plates and such, and it does
not work.
> So, the real question is could this device actually
> work.
Asked and answered. No, it could not work.
> The fact that we've not seen the case where momentum is not
> conserved doesn't make it impossible anymore than the fact that
> Tesla's professor had never seen an induction motor makes commutator-
> less electric motors "impossible".
Near as i can tell, no sensible person has said that not
having seen it is the reason we won't see it.
We won't see it because it depends on EM, and EM is
an exactly conservative force.
> The true question is NOT "is this
> possible"? Let us assume for the purposes of science that ALL THINGS
> are "possible". The real question is "how does one do this?" If one
> can't do it, then that only means you don't know how to do it, not
> that it is impossible!
Well, you assumed it was possible. You know what happens
when you assume, right? You make an ass out of u and me.
Well, you anyway.
When I was a kid, there was a farmer down the road with
a field that was divided by a roadway. He had this clever
tunnel thing that let the cows walk from one side to the
other without crossing the busy road.
This farmer was convinced that if he could get the cows
to walk through that tunnel the right way, he could get
more cows out than went in. He would spend hours
counting cows on each end, never losing faith. No matter
how many people told him that walking through a tunnel
didn't change the number of cows, he remained convinced.
One day, a cow went in the tunnel to be in the cool shade.
And while in there, she gave birth. Eventually she emerged
with her new calf. See? said the farmer. See? The tunnel
made me another cow! I'll be rich. After that, there was
no talking to him. He would not listen to any talk about
bulls and pregnancy and gestation and so on. He insisted
that it was the tunnel.
Well, the thing is, unless you slip in a little bull, your cows
are not going to produce extra cows, tunnel or not.
And unless you slip in a little bull, EM isn't going to be
non-conservative. That is, unless you put in physics beyond
EM, you won't make this "space drive" work. Tunnels
do not change the number of cows.
Socks
Benj
> On Oct 1, 11:07 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > So the bottom line is that I"m not going to accept the argument that
> > this thing is "nuts" because it violates "conservation of momentum".
>
> Don't accept it. Get as much cash as you can obtain,
> mortgage your home, borrow money from loan sharks,
> and give it all to the people working on this thing. With
> no contract or promises.
>
> I need the laugh.
Go laugh at Tesla (In case you forgot, the man who invented the 20th
century, easily proved with his list of patents, let alone the others
he influenced) Or go laugh at the Wright brothers. You can join the
knobs who embarrassed physics with their stupid pontifications.
Before you get yourself all worked up, I hope you noticed that I am
not supporting the conclusions given in this paper, I am QUESTIONING
them.
> > That argument only says "I'm a lazy fool!". That immediately places
> > you in the list of candidates for person who was the largest moron and
> > who did the MOST to embarrass physics by saying really stupid things.
>
> Being lazy isn't the same as being a fool.
It's possible to be both. That usually occurs with someone (like you)
too lazy to actually do the work but then shoots off their mouths with
conclusions based on nothing (like you).
> The claim is that this thing runs on electromagnetism.
> A homework assignment in 3rd year undergrad included
> showing that EM is conservative. That proof includes
> *all* possible configurations of charges, EM fields, etc.
Are you ready to stake your life on this claim that EM fields are
ALWAYS conservative? If it proves otherwise, may I come and kill you?
OK? Hint: advances in Physics are usually not done by 3rd year
undergrad students. So if that is your level of understanding in
physics you are WAY behind the curve.
> Being lazy means that I'm not interested in doing the
> homework of these knobs. I've *done* my homework,
> and don't need to repeat it. The proof is exact.
Being lazy means you are sitting on your fat over-paid ass
pontificating using undergraduate level understanding while pretending
that you know it all. Maybe it fools undergrads and the PBS audiences,
but it doesn't fool me. It's being lazy. If you were one third the
brain you think you are, you'd take a few minutes to read the paper,
point out the errors in the theory (I mean in DETAIL not with some
professorial BS hand-waving) and get all our respect. If you are too
lazy to do that then you ought to respect science enough to keep your
mouth closed.
> > You know, that list that includes Tesla's professor who "proved" that
> > a motor could "never" be built without a commutator, and the French
> > "experts" who affirmed that heavier than air craft could never fly.
> > Jeeze, how can the public ever trust "science experts" again?
>
> When you figure out the difference between what *those*
> knobs were doing (making bad approximations) and the
> mathematic proof that EM is conservative, do come back
> and offer an apology.
"Bad approximations"? I don't think so. They doing JUST what you are
trying to do. Apply limited understanding to a totally new way of
thinking. They grabbed their undergrad course notes, checked all the
information in there they took down verbatim from the prof, and
immediately came to a sensible, but totally wrong, conclusion.
> > The bottom line here is that anyone who argues that this device
> > "cannot" work because momentum isn't conserved is a moron. The very
> > existence of the device (thruster) implies that somehow momentum isn't
> > being conserved!
>
> Well, of course, the device does *not* exist. What they
> have is a lot of wire and plates and such, and it does
> not work.
Of course, the device does not exist (as far as we know) but in trying
to understand something someone claims is a new concept, you have to
approach it with the assumption that it MIGHT work and then you have
to ask "how"? If you want to wait until a number of others have
verified the thrust etc. of the device, fine. But you ought to keep
your pie hole shut until something is tested one way or the other. To
simply say it's impossible without any information, just announces to
the world that you know nothing about how science works.
> > So, the real question is could this device actually
> > work.
>
> Asked and answered. No, it could not work.
So. It's settled then. Heavier than air craft simply don't fly and
induction motors don't exist. Glad we have your opinion on that.
Personally I'll wait for someone with the knowledge to examine the
relativity arguments to tell me it can't work. Excuse me if I don't
trust the opinion of someone too lazy to even read the paper before
forming an opinion. Do you know the difference between dogma and
science?
> > The fact that we've not seen the case where momentum is not
> > conserved doesn't make it impossible anymore than the fact that
> > Tesla's professor had never seen an induction motor makes commutator-
> > less electric motors "impossible".
>
> Near as i can tell, no sensible person has said that not
> having seen it is the reason we won't see it.
>
> We won't see it because it depends on EM, and EM is
> an exactly conservative force.
You really won't give up, will you? You are determined to make
yourself look like a moron in a world-wide forum. Allow me to suggest
you go back and hit the books again. Maybe this time go a little bit
beyond the freshman class notes. Go look up the term "non-conservative
fields". Here's a little quote for you Dr. "genius":
"With special arrangements, a nonconservative field can be set up so
that the energy accumulated in a complete circuit by a unit of charge
is available as kinetic energy".
Moron.
> Well, you assumed it was possible. You know what happens
> when you assume, right? You make an ass out of u and me.
And you assumed it was impossible.
> Well, you anyway.
Rats, you beat me to it!
> One day, a cow went in the tunnel to be in the cool shade.
> And while in there, she gave birth. Eventually she emerged
> with her new calf. See? said the farmer. See? The tunnel
> made me another cow! I'll be rich.
> Well, the thing is, unless you slip in a little bull, your cows
> are not going to produce extra cows, tunnel or not.
Oh sure, real cute. Your class is laughing like mad (at you!)
Let's see how this story measures up to YOUR attitude. You (and
everybody else) starts with the obvious assumption based on dogma and
little else that it is "impossible" for cows to multiply in a tunnel.
The farmer says you are wrong and of course you make fun of him and no
doubt suggest he construct a "tinfoil" helmet. Real "constructive"
criticism, I'm sure. And then, lo and behold the DATA proves you dead
wrong. The data staring you in the face says point blank that you are
a moron and the farmer is correct! Sure at that point a lot of
"jokes" and hand-waving is done to save your face, but the fact is
that your lazyness in failing to even consider that the farmer just
MIGHT be correct, led you to a whopper of an error: missing the fact
that cows can give birth. So you end up playing the fool and the
foolish farmer who really didn't understand all that "science" that
you did was proved smarter than you. And why not? You were guided by
"faith-based phsyics". You just parroted dogma, the farmer on the
other hand was not limited by dogma. In fact he may have even heard
stories (which doubtless you would have dismissed out of hand) of
OTHER tunnels where cows multiplied. The farmer was not in a straight
jacket of his own knowledge as you were. Which is why he made the
discovery and you ended up looking the fool.
> And unless you slip in a little bull, EM isn't going to be
> non-conservative. That is, unless you put in physics beyond
> EM, you won't make this "space drive" work. Tunnels
> do not change the number of cows.
See? There you go again. Go read my discussion of non-conservative
fields. And anyway, you've cleverly started to shift the tunnel story
from cows multiplying in the tunnel to the tunnel CAUSING the cows to
multiply. You've done that, of course, to try to make your position
seem more "correct" after the fact. But we see what you are trying to
do here. A bunch of Bull and clever manipulations with words only
means that you'll make a lot more money if you give up science and go
into politics. I think you've got what it takes for that. And in that
arena, it turns out that voting for bills you haven't read is not
considered bad form.
Eric Gisse
[snip]
> > The claim is that this thing runs on electromagnetism.
> > A homework assignment in 3rd year undergrad included
> > showing that EM is conservative. That proof includes
> > *all* possible configurations of charges, EM fields, etc.
>
> Are you ready to stake your life on this claim that EM fields are
> ALWAYS conservative? If it proves otherwise, may I come and kill you?
> OK? Hint: advances in Physics are usually not done by 3rd year
> undergrad students. So if that is your level of understanding in
> physics you are WAY behind the curve.
Are you a 3rd year undergrad in physics? Are you even a physics
student? Have you even taken a calculus course?
[snip]
Spaceman
How does the waters momentum take a corner in a pipe Eric?
If I have a pipe with a corner and it is blowing out gas in space.
Does it spin only or does it also move away from the direction it flows
before the corner?
Does the momentum take the corner?
Eric Gisse
wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > On Oct 1, 8:59 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> >>> The claim is that this thing runs on electromagnetism.
> >>> A homework assignment in 3rd year undergrad included
> >>> showing that EM is conservative. That proof includes
> >>> *all* possible configurations of charges, EM fields, etc.
>
> >> Are you ready to stake your life on this claim that EM fields are
> >> ALWAYS conservative? If it proves otherwise, may I come and kill you?
> >> OK? Hint: advances in Physics are usually not done by 3rd year
> >> undergrad students. So if that is your level of understanding in
> >> physics you are WAY behind the curve.
>
> > Are you a 3rd year undergrad in physics? Are you even a physics
> > student? Have you even taken a calculus course?
>
> How does the waters momentum take a corner in a pipe Eric?
Turbulently.
> If I have a pipe with a corner and it is blowing out gas in space.
> Does it spin only or does it also move away from the direction it flows
> before the corner?
If the flow is not perfect, there dispersion of fluid won't be
homogeneous and there will be net thrust in a particular direction.
How much, I have no idea however that's the way it would be.
Most of the thrust will be parallel to the pipe axis, and the degree
of which it will be true depends how far the joint is from the exit.
More specifically it depends on the viscosity of the fluid and how
long it takes for laminar or near laminar flow to be restored.
>
> Does the momentum take the corner?
Think about it. While doing that, consider an answer to this question:
What the fuck does this have to do with anything?
Richard Herring
<3bd16cf1-502e-4592...@t65g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Benj <bja...@iwaynet.net> writes
>On Oct 1, 5:57 am, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
>> If the introduction to a paper claims that it's applying some standard
>> physical theory (e.g. Maxwellian electrodynamics, Newton's laws) and the
>> conclusions (e.g. momentum is not conserved) are inconsistent with the
>> theory, then the only reason for reading what comes between them
>> (including your "fundamental reference") is to find _where_ the error
>> was made. Physical theories have to be (logically, mathematically)
>> self-consistent or they wouldn't be theories.
>
>This is exactly correct. However, in such a case one would expect the
>person to 1. actually read the paper including the references. and 2.
>find the exact location where the error was made and then write those
>equations down saying, "look, this guy is a moron!".
Why? He can come to the same valid conclusion with far less work by
following the method you agreed with above. If the conclusion is
inconsistent with the premises, you don't need to examine the details to
know that they are wrong.
>But that isn't
>the usual thing in science. See the post of MooseFET below. It's just
>a bunch of crap of no substance. His basic argument underlying all the
>"fun" is that this paper is so ridiculous that we don't even need to
>read it to know the author is "insane". But this should be no
>surprise given the clownish name "MooseFET" he posts under.
>
>So the bottom line is that I"m not going to accept the argument that
>this thing is "nuts" because it violates "conservation of momentum".
>That argument only says "I'm a lazy fool!".
Its proponent's argument is that it works because Newton's laws plus
Maxwellian electrodynamics, plus handwaving argument, proves something
inconsistent with the underlying assumptions of those laws. What does
_that_ argument say?
>That immediately places
>you in the list of candidates for person who was the largest moron and
>who did the MOST to embarrass physics by saying really stupid things.
>You know, that list that includes Tesla's professor who "proved" that
>a motor could "never" be built without a commutator, and the French
>"experts" who affirmed that heavier than air craft could never fly.
(As an aside, no, I don't know. People often cite these mythical
figures, but rarely give names and dates or verifiable references.)
>Jeeze, how can the public ever trust "science experts" again?
>
>The bottom line here is that anyone who argues that this device
>"cannot" work because momentum isn't conserved is a moron.
So what does that make the person who argues that it "must" work because
of Newton's laws and Maxwellian electrodynamics, even when that would be
inconsistent with the assumptions of those laws?
>The very
>existence of the device (thruster) implies that somehow momentum isn't
>being conserved!
You've seen it? Done the measurements to verify that claim?
> So, the real question is could this device actually
>work.
If he'd published a paper saying "experiment has determined that thrust
can be produced in excess of what the standard theory predicts", it
would be a different story, and the question would be whether we were
seeing experimental error (or a badly designed experiment), fraud, or
genuinely new physics. But that isn't the case here: his argument claims
new and inconsistent results from standard physics, not any new theory.
>The fact that we've not seen the case where momentum is not
>conserved doesn't make it impossible anymore than the fact that
>Tesla's professor had never seen an induction motor makes commutator-
>less electric motors "impossible". The true question is NOT "is this
>possible"? Let us assume for the purposes of science that ALL THINGS
>are "possible". The real question is "how does one do this?" If one
>can't do it, then that only means you don't know how to do it, not
>that it is impossible!
None of which is relevant to the actual claim being made here.
>
>So the bottom line here is that the claim of the author that this
>device relies upon some relativistic effect to obtain a differential
>in radiation pressure on the two ends of the cavity is the ONLY
>argument that needs attention. Is this true or not? Only a examination
>of his relativistic equations would give the answer. Invoking
>violation of conservation of momentum does not!
Of course it does. Momentum is conserved in special relativity just as
much as in Newtonian physics. Regardless of the details, the conclusion
is inconsistent with the premises.
>I haven't examined his
>equations. I actually try to avoid all discussions of who is "smarter
>than Eisnstein" and relativity. And so far I haven't seen anybody else
>point out where his relativity is in error either.
>
>So what is the crux here? Say we have a cavity with radiation inside
>it. HE says that if you taper the cavity, the EM radiation inside has
>a different velocity at one end than at the other.
For a definition of "velocity" that applies to macroscopic wavepackets,
not photons.
>HE says that by
>relativity this means the radiation pressure on one end is different
>from that one the other end. Could this possibly be true?
According to relativity the energy and momentum of a photon have a fixed
ratio, c. And for the duration of the photon's life, both are constant.
>What if we
>had molecules in there instead? Note as they get closer and closer to
>the speed of light they get larger and larger mass.
Photons don't behave like that, so you're now into idle speculation.
--
Richard Herring
TheM
> On Oct 1, 12:01 pm, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 1, 11:07 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> > So the bottom line is that I"m not going to accept the argument that
>> > this thing is "nuts" because it violates "conservation of momentum".
>>
>> Don't accept it. Get as much cash as you can obtain,
>> mortgage your home, borrow money from loan sharks,
>> and give it all to the people working on this thing. With
>> no contract or promises.
>>
>> I need the laugh.
>
> Go laugh at Tesla (In case you forgot, the man who invented the 20th
> century, easily proved with his list of patents, let alone the others
> he influenced) Or go laugh at the Wright brothers. You can join the
> knobs who embarrassed physics with their stupid pontifications.
> Before you get yourself all worked up, I hope you noticed that I am
> not supporting the conclusions given in this paper, I am QUESTIONING
> them.
Mentioning Tesla too often is a sure sign that... you need to put your
tinfoil hat back on. Or aluminum hat, whatever cures your particular
delusion.
M
Benj
> Are you a 3rd year undergrad in physics? Are you even a physics
> student? Have you even taken a calculus course?
Aren't you the one who figured out I mop floors at Burger King for a
living?
But I do recognize the importance of a calculus course given your
established fact that math is more real than reality.
Bill Miller
"Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:tlOfcLjM...@baesystems.com...
> In message
> <3bd16cf1-502e-4592...@t65g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Benj
> <bja...@iwaynet.net> writes
>>On Oct 1, 5:57 am, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>>
> Its proponent's argument is that it works because Newton's laws plus
> Maxwellian electrodynamics, plus handwaving argument, proves something
> inconsistent with the underlying assumptions of those laws. What does
> _that_ argument say?
>
> So what does that make the person who argues that it "must" work because
> of Newton's laws and Maxwellian electrodynamics, even when that would be
> inconsistent with the assumptions of those laws?
>
>>
> --
> Richard Herring
I snipped most of the interchange because I see a pattern in the above that
has been replicated in some other postings. The pattern (and error) is in
establishing an equivalency between Maxwell's Equations and those of Newton.
We know that Maxwell's Equations (when we understand that they are
descriptive and not causal) appear to provide a complete description of EM
phenomena.( I say "appear" because there seem to be some "glitches" when we
try to apply them to the classic double slit experiment. The keyword is
"Plasmons." But that is probably for another thread.)
However, Newtons laws do not have this robust behaviour. This is because
Newtons laws do not include any terms that are related to relative motion,
acceleration or rotation. Heaviside in 1893 noted the similarity between
Maxwell and Newton. He suggested that forces analagous to magnetism were
probably present in the world of graviutation. Others have followed, noting
that there are instances when -- using Newton's *static* laws, momentum
appears NOT to be conserved. An explanation of this is way beyond the scope
of this post. For a full explanation and derivation of a *potential
augmentation* of Newton, please see Jefimenko's "Causality..." book and the
follow-on book "Gravitation and Cogravitation."
So, let's try to be cautious when we affirm the equivalence of Maxwell and
Newton. 'tain't so!
Cheers!
Bill
Benj
> Why? He can come to the same valid conclusion with far less work by
> following the method you agreed with above. If the conclusion is
> inconsistent with the premises, you don't need to examine the details to
> know that they are wrong.
The "catch 22" in your logic is that he is using established dogma to
make the leap. The proposed result seems to violate established dogma.
Therefore the argument is circular and worthless. Only hard data and
detailed examination of the proposal can be valid.
> Its proponent's argument is that it works because Newton's laws plus
> Maxwellian electrodynamics, plus handwaving argument, proves something
> inconsistent with the underlying assumptions of those laws. What does
> _that_ argument say?
It's the "handwaving" part that is the fundamental question here! In
particular one has to ask the question if relativity can produce a
differential in radiation pressure by reason of differences in wave
propagation velocities. My point is and has been that if the author is
simply handwaving then it should be simple to look at his derivation
and say, Hey! Look right HERE, this is a bunch of handwaving! But as
far as I can tell nobody (me included) has bothered to do that.
Everybody is arguing that establishment dogma says this can't work,
therefore, it's impossible. People have argued that non-conservative
fields do not exist, even though I quoted a major E&M textbook that
says they do. And Gisse of course added that such statements by me are
to be ignored because I'm uneducated and ignorant. (never mind that I
personally knew the authors and studied under them). TheM of course
goes further saying that my statements are all to be ignored because
I'm insane. Proof of insanity being that I told a story regarding
Tesla. So you tell me, are Gisse and TheM on the right track here?
Are libelous accusations without any proof the way science was meant
to be done? Will a little taste of the rack, induce me to renounce my
views? Inquiring minds want to know.
> (As an aside, no, I don't know. People often cite these mythical
> figures, but rarely give names and dates or verifiable references.)
Are you saying that these "deniers" don't exist and are fictional? The
professor story is in Tesla's biographies (Not good enough? ) The
statements about heavier than air craft being "impossible" are all
over the scientific literature of the age if you bother to dig back
(as I have!). I've seen this SO much in science it makes me want to
puke. It's the standard ploy to "prove" that you are always right and
everyone else is always wrong. I can't tell you how many times over
the years I've had knock-down yelling matches with geologists arguing
with me, saying that the "theory of uniformity" was absolute
unassailable, irrefutable FACT! And that I needed a "tinfoil" helmet,
and mentioned Velikovsky too much, and had no education in geology
etc. etc. But gee suddenly there was a whole body of undeniable
evidence that the old dogma was not only wrong but just plain stupid!
And guess what? Why, nobody actually EVER thought the theory of
uniformity was actually correct. Maybe a few "mythical" clowns
supposedly supported it, but no "real" scientist ever did. All those
arguments I had with these clowns? Guess what? They actually never
happened! Just ask them! These guys ALWAYS knew the "theory of
uniformity" wasn't always correct. Feh.
Cute politics, but very bad science.
> So what does that make the person who argues that it "must" work because
> of Newton's laws and Maxwellian electrodynamics, even when that would be
> inconsistent with the assumptions of those laws?
It means you damn well better check his work closely which is exactly
what I've been suggesting.
> You've seen it? Done the measurements to verify that claim?
Obviously not, Mr. "head of the debating team". The question is about
his THEORY, not the existence of the device, of course the device DOES
supposedly exist (there's a picture of it) The question is about the
measurement of forces it might generate. But as I have been stating
over and over, I am NOT trying to defend the validity of the device. I
am questioning whether the authors explanation of it is in error. All
the people saying that the device is "impossible" without even reading
the explanation of it, clearly have no leg to stand on.
> If he'd published a paper saying "experiment has determined that thrust
> can be produced in excess of what the standard theory predicts", it
> would be a different story, and the question would be whether we were
> seeing experimental error (or a badly designed experiment), fraud, or
> genuinely new physics. But that isn't the case here: his argument claims
> new and inconsistent results from standard physics, not any new theory.
So new and inconsistent results from standard physics is not possible
in your opinion? Never read any Jefimenko I take it? I hate to be the
one to point this out, but physicists are human and often get just as
sloppy and lazy and anyone else. Just using quick and dirty
assumptions instead of the actual "standard physics" true
calculations. For example, it's just too easy to ignore causality.
It's just too easy to say that the magnetic field outside a long
solenoid is always zero. Never mind that statements like these are
both ignorant and dead wrong by standard physics. So this is a lesson
that quick and dirty "rules" that declare this or that is "impossible"
are ALWAYS suspect. Statements that this or that is "impossible" like
all the predictions about what science will be like in the future (got
that household robot washing your dishes yet?) are always popular and
the height of stupidity. That anyone can defend them with a straight
face is even WORSE!
> >The fact that we've not seen the case where momentum is not
> >conserved doesn't make it impossible anymore than the fact that
> >Tesla's professor had never seen an induction motor makes commutator-
> >less electric motors "impossible". The true question is NOT "is this
> >possible"? Let us assume for the purposes of science that ALL THINGS
> >are "possible". The real question is "how does one do this?" If one
> >can't do it, then that only means you don't know how to do it, not
> >that it is impossible!
>
> None of which is relevant to the actual claim being made here.
Sorry but this is EXACTLY the point! Your and MooseFET's claim that
it's totally valid to declare phenomena and theory "impossible" based
on scientific dogma and that one actually doesn't need to read and
understand a theory to be able to assert that the author is not only
wrong but insane, seems just a tad "unscientific" to me. And I'll be
specific as to why. If you make a claim of "impossiblity" based upon
standard science dogma there is the underlying assumption that science
today knows all there is to know about mathematics (the ultimate
reality) as well as it's child the physical universe. Such claims are
easily observed by anyone outside the science community to be
obviously false. The assumption underlying your assertions is that
science today is NEVER wrong, NEVER makes mistakes, and has ZERO wrong
assumptions about the nature of reality. And you are sitting there
with a straight face trying to get everyone to buy this whopper! Give
us a break, please. We are not the PBS audience here.
> Of course it does. Momentum is conserved in special relativity just as
> much as in Newtonian physics. Regardless of the details, the conclusion
> is inconsistent with the premises.
Ok. fine. Then point to the place in his theory where he makes this
mistake. Simple.
But I believe that your argument is that it's valid to simply
pontificate that something is "wrong" without actually taking time to
read and understand what is being said. If it's BS it should be a
small matter to prove it for someone with the understanding of physics
at your level, right? So why all the resistance? Lazy?
> For a definition of "velocity" that applies to macroscopic wavepackets,
> not photons.
Valid point. OF course since nobody is quite sure what a "photon"
actually is I find it interesting that people are claiming to "know it
all" about this theory.
> According to relativity the energy and momentum of a photon have a fixed
> ratio, c. And for the duration of the photon's life, both are constant.
See, now THIS is the sort of discussion that I expected with respect
to this "theory". It certainly is a much better and more valid
argument than to say fields are always conservative (which is
obviously false).
> >What if we
> >had molecules in there instead? Note as they get closer and closer to
> >the speed of light they get larger and larger mass.
>
> Photons don't behave like that, so you're now into idle speculation.
Yes, I know that and it is idle speculation as you say, but since
when is idle speculation prohibited when kicking around some purported
"new" theory or at least some "new" interpretation of "standard
physics". I'm thinking, of course, what if there is a plasma inside
this cavity? I think it's an interesting question. You apparently
think it's heresy and perhaps taste of the stake might discourage such
evil speculations. But then nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Benj
> Mentioning Tesla too often is a sure sign that... you need to put your
> tinfoil hat back on. Or aluminum hat, whatever cures your particular
> delusion.
Oh now heres a truly useful contribution. Lessee. Tesla never existed.
He never invented anything of value. All the inventions the cranks
attribute to him were actually done by others first. I'm glad you set
us straight on this point.
And now you seem to have some evaluation stating that I am suffering
from delusional mental illness. Could you be more specific? Perhaps
you could reference the appropriate sections of the DSM-IV for us?
And while you are at it, please list your psychiatric credentials that
give you the authority to perform such a diagnosis.
Obviously you are one of the "clowns" I spoke of in the opening post.
Puppet_Sock
> ALWAYS conservative? If it proves otherwise, may I come and kill you?
You should consider getting competent medical therapy.
You clearly have some bolts not completely tightened.
Actually, it's more than possible you don't have *any*
bolts completely tightened.
Socks
Spaceman
AHA!
It has to do with thinking about it.
Apparently you did not "really" think about it or you
would not ask what it had to do with.
:)
Richard Herring
Bill Miller <billmil...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>
>"Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
>news:tlOfcLjM...@baesystems.com...
>> In message
>> <3bd16cf1-502e-4592...@t65g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Benj
>> <bja...@iwaynet.net> writes
>>>On Oct 1, 5:57 am, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>>>
>> Its proponent's argument is that it works because Newton's laws plus
>> Maxwellian electrodynamics, plus handwaving argument, proves something
>> inconsistent with the underlying assumptions of those laws. What does
>> _that_ argument say?
>>
>> <snip>
>> So what does that make the person who argues that it "must" work because
>> of Newton's laws and Maxwellian electrodynamics, even when that would be
>> inconsistent with the assumptions of those laws?
>>
>>>
> <snip>
>> --
>> Richard Herring
>
>I snipped most of the interchange because I see a pattern in the above that
>has been replicated in some other postings. The pattern (and error) is in
>establishing an equivalency between Maxwell's Equations and those of Newton.
The "Newton's laws" referred to above are the three laws of motion, not
his gravitational law, which is irrelevant to this discussion.
--
Richard Herring
Richard Herring
<8d97bdaf-8620-41a0...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Benj <bja...@iwaynet.net> writes
>On Oct 1, 12:46 pm, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
>> Why? He can come to the same valid conclusion with far less work by
>> following the method you agreed with above. If the conclusion is
>> inconsistent with the premises, you don't need to examine the details to
>> know that they are wrong.
>
>The "catch 22" in your logic is that he is using established dogma to
>make the leap. The proposed result seems to violate established dogma.
>Therefore the argument is circular and worthless.
Nice try, but fallacious.
The implication of your paraphrase is that I'm begging the question by
assuming the validity of "established dogma".
I'm not. I simply say that his conclusion contradicts the assumptions
built into his own premises. Whether those premises are "established
dogma" or science fiction is beside the point.
[Counting the fallacies is left as an exercise for the reader]
--
Richard Herring
Bill Miller
"Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
OK Let me add to my list of suggestions that when one is referencing a
parameter, it is usually appropriate to define what you are talking about.
I'm not all that sure that gravitational effects are irrelevant when/if we
drag in relatavistic activities.
Bill
stric...@gmail.com
Look who's talking. Let me guess, your screws' threads are so lose,
they are like crochet needles.
Strich.9
>
> - Show quoted text -
Come on Eric, show us that 4 dollar watch you lifted from Walmart.
Timo A. Nieminen
> On Oct 1, 12:46 pm, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
>> Its proponent's argument is that it works because Newton's laws plus
>> Maxwellian electrodynamics, plus handwaving argument, proves something
>> inconsistent with the underlying assumptions of those laws. What does
>> _that_ argument say?
>
> It's the "handwaving" part that is the fundamental question here! In
> particular one has to ask the question if relativity can produce a
> differential in radiation pressure by reason of differences in wave
> propagation velocities. My point is and has been that if the author is
> simply handwaving then it should be simple to look at his derivation
> and say, Hey! Look right HERE, this is a bunch of handwaving! But as
> far as I can tell nobody (me included) has bothered to do that.
Easy enough to do.
(a) Using eqn (1) to justify the dependence of radiation pressure on wave
speed is crap - v in (1) is _not_ wave velocity. This is worse than
handwaving.
(b) What is the difference in the force acting on the end plates (in the
rest frame of the resonator)? With propagation constant beta, wavenumber k
(which will be the free-space wavenumber), power P, angular frequency w,
and phase and group velocities vp and vg the force acting on an endplate
is F = 2P*beta/(ck) = 2P*beta/w = 2P/vp = 2P*vg/c^2. Therefore, equation
(6) is correct. The derivation, however, from the radiation pressure of a
beam at normal incidence, is handwaving, and looks wrong. Specifically,
the text between (3) and (4) appears to be using a result from [3] (alas,
not available via IEEE, and google scholar doesn't provide it - note that
the title given is probably wrong, so don't depend on it for searching),
which is either (i) a result for non-perpendicular incidence or (ii) for a
beam in a dielectric medium. Neither is mentioned. If (ii), the result is
wrong (it's 2 time the Abraham momentum of the beam, which is _not_ equal
to the force on the reflector). So, handwaving, but yielding the correct
result.
(c) Bottom of pg (4). Since with the resonator in steady-state, the
time-averaged force on each endplate is constant, why not just use F1 - F2
as the force difference? To use the relativistic velocity transformation
formula is needless, and potentially misleading (consider, for example,
the force-on-moving-stars paradox). Just find the thrust in the rest frame
of the resonator, and, if the resonator is moving fast enough, then use
the relativistic transformation law to find the thrust in the frame of
interest. At the top of page (5), "each operating within its own reference
frame" is handwaving of the worst kind - it's just wrong.
(d) Page 6, following figure 2. The statement that no force will be
exerted on a reflection-free interface due to a beam entering a dielectric
medium is wrong. This has been experimentally falsified (OK, the
experiment would have had some reflection, but you can compensate for that
by putting the beam through the interface both ways - the reflection force
would change direction, but other forces would not). The theory for this
was all done in the 1970s (if not earlier). Also, this claim directly
opposes the author's (correct, but note the problems with using the
Abraham force to predict the radiation pressure) claim that the momentum
flux of the beam changes upon entry into the dielectric medium.
(e) Use of the Abraham force only to predict the force on the
dielectric-immersed endplate is wrong. Note experiments done by R. V.
Jones (1948, and later, iirc 1960s).
(f) Entire paper: the force on the tapered walls of the waveguide is
ignored. Consider the vacuum-filled case: the force on the large endplate
is F = 2P*beta1/w (my P = Q*author's P, being the power flux in
the resonator, not the power provided by the microwave source), and F =
2P*beta2/w on the small plate. Note that the overall effect of the tapered
section is to convert beta1 to beta2, while leaving the wavenumber
unchanged. This requires the wavevector to change direction, and there is
a resultant radiation pressure force on the tapered section. This force
cannot be handwaved away, as it results from exactly the same process that
gives rise to the force on the endplates: a change in direction of the
wavevector. This force is equal to F = 2P*(beta2-beta1)/w, for a total
force of zero. Since the radiation pressure forces on the walls of a
vacuum-filled non-absorbing stationary waveguide result from the change in
the direction of the wavevector, it is instructive to consider propagation
in a closed path from point A to one end plate, reflection to the other,
and back to A - the wavevector at A is equal to the wavevector at A, in
both magnitude and direction, and hence the total force is equal to zero.
So, plenty of handwaving, claims that have been demonstrated to be wrong
by experiments done decades ago, a bizarre, un-necessary, and probably
wrong application of relativistic transformations, and the crucial error
of ignoring the force on the tapered section of the waveguide.
What more is needed?
However, if somebody wants to build it to test it, let them go ahead!
Cheap enough to do out of curiosity if one has the time available (and
likely enough to lead to publication in New Scientist, even if only as an
experimental refutation of the original NS publication). Of course, if the
would-be builders are deliberately scamming investors, then that's another
story.
--
Timo
Eric Gisse
> On Oct 2, 1:34 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Are you a 3rd year undergrad in physics? Are you even a physics
> > student? Have you even taken a calculus course?
>
> Aren't you the one who figured out I mop floors at Burger King for a
> living?
No, why? Is it true?
>
> But I do recognize the importance of a calculus course given your
> established fact that math is more real than reality.
Never said that either. You are a confused soul.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Somehow I don't think you will get many detailed replies to the above :)
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
Richard Herring
>
>"Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
>news:w+ZoqqZW...@baesystems.com...
>> In message <Ju5Fk.251451$102.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> Bill Miller <billmil...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>>>
>>>"Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
>>>news:tlOfcLjM...@baesystems.com...
>>>> In message
>>>> <3bd16cf1-502e-4592...@t65g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Benj
>>>> <bja...@iwaynet.net> writes
>>>>>On Oct 1, 5:57 am, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> Its proponent's argument is that it works because Newton's laws plus
>>>> Maxwellian electrodynamics, plus handwaving argument, proves something
>>>> inconsistent with the underlying assumptions of those laws. What does
>>>> _that_ argument say?
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>> So what does that make the person who argues that it "must" work because
>>>> of Newton's laws and Maxwellian electrodynamics, even when that would be
>>>> inconsistent with the assumptions of those laws?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>that
>>>has been replicated in some other postings. The pattern (and error) is in
>>>establishing an equivalency between Maxwell's Equations and those of
>>>Newton.
>>
>> The "Newton's laws" referred to above are the three laws of motion, not
>> his gravitational law, which is irrelevant to this discussion.
>>
>
>parameter,
"Parameter"?
>it is usually appropriate to define what you are talking about.
It's implicit in the newsgroup names, the thread title and the actual
paper under discussion. *Electromagnetic* space drive. Not electrogravic
or gravimagnetic or <insert alphabet soup here>...
>
>I'm not all that sure that gravitational effects are irrelevant when/if we
>drag in relatavistic activities.
Don't let the R-word confuse you: there are two distinct theories
labelled "relativity". The relativity being invoked here is _special_
relativity, as it relates to electrodynamics. The only forces being
considered are electromagnetic.
_General_ relativity is a theory of gravity; special relativity is not.
--
Richard Herring
Jasen Betts
no the momentum pushes on the pipe and the pipe pushes on the water.
if water flows south and turns east, net force on the pipe
the net force on the pipe is to the southwest.
Bye.
Jasen
Benj
wrote:
> Timo A. Nieminen wrote:
<snip Timo's extensive critique and analysis of the thruster paper>
> Somehow I don't think you will get many detailed replies to the above :)
I don't either! GREAT JOB, Timo!!!
See guys? That wasn't so hard now was it? Timo didn't need to invoke
dogma and not even bother to read the paper to pretend to prove that
there were holes in the theory. He just went right in and pointed
right at the holes!
And then having done that he properly pointed out that if you still
think physics is somehow mistaken about this device that the next step
is to build one and measure the forces (if any) it produces. Notice
that he did not say "it's impossible for this device to work", since
that would imply he believes physics knowledge has no gaps and is
never wrong. Obviously such a statement is far from justified.
I hope all you clowns that who actually trying to justify rejecting
papers you haven't even read with quick and dirty arguments such as
"everybody" knows E&M is conservative and the like are now properly
embarrassed by Timo showing you how it's supposed to be done!
Again, Great Job, Timo.
And the rest of you, maybe you'll be a bit more cautious next time...
TheM
> I hope all you clowns that who actually trying to justify rejecting
> papers you haven't even read with quick and dirty arguments such as
> "everybody" knows E&M is conservative and the like are now properly
> embarrassed by Timo showing you how it's supposed to be done!
Maybe people don't have time for every fruitcake who comes out with
a zero-point generator or faster than light coaxial cable?
I wonder what happened to that FTL coaxial cable thing, was it Omar
who proposed it and even sold it on eBay?
M
Bill Miller
"Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
tsk tsk We have discussed the similarities between EM and gravity many, many
times on this group. Far too many, I would suggest, for us to categorically
dismiss gravitation as being "irrelevant" when we are discussing ideas about
accelerating masses. That's kinda what gravity does, isn't it?
>>
>>I'm not all that sure that gravitational effects are irrelevant when/if we
>>drag in relatavistic activities.
>
> Don't let the R-word confuse you: there are two distinct theories labelled
> "relativity". The relativity being invoked here is _special_ relativity,
> as it relates to electrodynamics. The only forces being considered are
> electromagnetic.
>
> _General_ relativity is a theory of gravity; special relativity is not.
It sounds like you may not have read any of Jefimenko's work on gravitation.
If you had, you would have noted that he has derived many (all?) aspects of
GR without delving into GR or SR. Just logical arguments derived from the
simple concept of Causality. So, if gravitational effects can be derived
without GR or SR, then it's not TOO much of a stretch to consider that the
inverse might be true.
--
> Richard Herring
Bill
Aetherist
Hi Timo,
This is not the first I've seen this design. IIRC some fifteen years back
there was an AIAA paper on this. Also, here are some related resources,
http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.3721v1
(I think this is the AIAA paper)
http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=406&gTable=mtgpaper&gID=81596
http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=406&gTable=mtgpaper&gID=56066
Bottom line, it'll work...
Uncle Al
[snip crap]
> Bottom line, it'll work...
Outhouse basement, it won't work...
http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
<http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf>
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html>
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
No Lorentz violation
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Aetherist
>Aetherist wrote:
>[snip crap]
>
>> Bottom line, it'll work...
>
>Outhouse basement, it won't work...
>
>http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
>Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
>http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
><http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf>
> No aether
>
>http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
>http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
><http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html>
>http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
> No Lorentz violation
Which has nothing to do with this thread...
Timo A. Nieminen
Hopefully not by the same author - the lapses would be much less
forgivable. If it's over a decade old, why haven't the errors been
corrected? Why hasn't the force on the tapered section of the waveguide
been considered? This last point is the critical one - it's the most
important, and obvious, error.
If the earlier version was by different authors, and sank into obscurity
without working (it wouldn't be hard to build it, would it?), it's a
strong indication that it doesn't work.
> Also, here are some related resources,
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.3721v1
Interesting [1], but hardly related. The closest that it comes to it is
discussing, e.g., the force exerted by a solenoid on a charged particle.
Clearly related to electromagnetically-accelerated-exhaust drives, but
nothing to do with the "drive" discussed above.
That hydrodynamic/electromagnetic analogies work so well suggests that the
proposed device won't work. Waves within a fluid enclosed inside a rigid
container aren't going to make the container move through empty space, are
they?
> (I think this is the AIAA paper)
> http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=406&gTable=mtgpaper&gID=81596
"Sorry, no results were found."
> http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=406&gTable=mtgpaper&gID=56066
Uses an electric arc discharge to ablate a block of teflon, and spits it
out one end. What does this have to do with the "EM drive" being
discussed?
Why would you expect it to work?
(IIRC, there's another thing to watch for in the paper - the author's Q is
not the usual Q (for quality factor) of a resonator.)
Now, if somebody wants to develop a real working funky EM drive, perhaps
they should consider the "runaway" solutions to the motion of a charged
particle subject to radiation reaction.
[1] Not read this in detail yet, but it isn't a surprise that they find a
Galilei-relativistic force law. What else would you expect when coming
from (Galilei-relativistic) hydrodynamics? Even less of a surprise when
one considers that Maxwell-Hertz-Heaviside electrodynamics was
Galilei-relativistic, not Lorentz-relativistic.
Anyway, thanks for the interesting paper. Interesting looking references,
too.
--
Timo
Salmon Egg
Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> Outhouse basement, it won't work...
In principle, it does work, but so poorly that there is no point to
using it. It turns out that you are better off carrying along inert
material you spew out at lower speed for the same energy content. That
is what an ion engine does.
In a sense, you have an impedance matching problem. You should eject at
the same speed you are traveling. Light is too fast, heavy combustion
products may be too slow.
Bill
--
Private Profit; Public Poop! Avoid collateral windfall!
Aetherist
>In article <48E80A27...@hate.spam.net>,
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
>> Outhouse basement, it won't work...
>
>In principle, it does work, but so poorly that there is no point to
>using it. It turns out that you are better off carrying along inert
>material you spew out at lower speed for the same energy content. That
>is what an ion engine does.
Exactly! How much momentum can you get from an EM pulse striking an
antenna????
Aetherist
>On Sat, 4 Oct 2008, Aetherist wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 08:03:08 +1000, "Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Timo,
>>
>> This is not the first I've seen this design. IIRC some fifteen years back
>> there was an AIAA paper on this.
>
>Hopefully not by the same author - the lapses would be much less
>forgivable. If it's over a decade old, why haven't the errors been
>corrected? Why hasn't the force on the tapered section of the waveguide
>been considered? This last point is the critical one - it's the most
>important, and obvious, error.
It is impractical since, while it works, it generates so little
thrust that mass needed to build it (let alone, any payload)
means the acceleration is almost non-existent... Try calc...ing
the momentum transfer, even assuming 100%.
>If the earlier version was by different authors, and sank into obscurity
>without working (it wouldn't be hard to build it, would it?), it's a
>strong indication that it doesn't work.
There a subtle but significant difference between doesn't work and
impractical.
>> Also, here are some related resources,
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.3721v1
>
>Interesting [1], but hardly related. The closest that it comes to it is
>discussing, e.g., the force exerted by a solenoid on a charged particle.
>Clearly related to electromagnetically-accelerated-exhaust drives, but
>nothing to do with the "drive" discussed above.
>
>That hydrodynamic/electromagnetic analogies work so well suggests that the
>proposed device won't work. Waves within a fluid enclosed inside a rigid
>container aren't going to make the container move through empty space, are
>they?
There is no such thing as rigid to the EM field. The AIAA article I
remember (I don't have any copy and it has been at least 15 years)
described a basic omni-directional pulse transmitter and a conic
receiving antenna as the momentum collector. Which, if I understood
the layout of this one, are very similar.
>> (I think this is the AIAA paper)
>> http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=406&gTable=mtgpaper&gID=81596
>
>"Sorry, no results were found."
>
>> http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=406&gTable=mtgpaper&gID=56066
>
>Uses an electric arc discharge to ablate a block of teflon, and spits it
>out one end. What does this have to do with the "EM drive" being
>discussed?
>
>Why would you expect it to work?
>
>(IIRC, there's another thing to watch for in the paper - the author's Q is
>not the usual Q (for quality factor) of a resonator.)
>
>Now, if somebody wants to develop a real working funky EM drive, perhaps
>they should consider the "runaway" solutions to the motion of a charged
>particle subject to radiation reaction.
>
>[1] Not read this in detail yet, but it isn't a surprise that they find a
>Galilei-relativistic force law. What else would you expect when coming
>from (Galilei-relativistic) hydrodynamics? Even less of a surprise when
>one considers that Maxwell-Hertz-Heaviside electrodynamics was
>Galilei-relativistic, not Lorentz-relativistic.
>
>Anyway, thanks for the interesting paper. Interesting looking references,
>too.
There are some very novel and interesting concepts in this area. The
classic propellent-less drive is a simple rod which has a spring coiled
around its center. On each end is mounted a stop plug. There are two
plungers fitted on either side of the spring that can travel along the
rod. The plungers are compressed against the spring and then released.
they then travel in opposite directions along the rod until impacting
the stop plugs. One stop lug is metal, the other a cotton wad. The
difference in efficency of transfering the plunger's energy to the
rod, rather tan the cotton and rod, will propel the rod in one direction.
This also will work, but so far as I know, has found no practical
applications...
a
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
It won't work in free space. All that happens is that the centre of mass
is shifted back and forth.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 22:06:29 -0700, Salmon Egg <Salm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <48E80A27...@hate.spam.net>,
>> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Outhouse basement, it won't work...
>> In principle, it does work, but so poorly that there is no point to
>> using it. It turns out that you are better off carrying along inert
>> material you spew out at lower speed for the same energy content. That
>> is what an ion engine does.
>
> Exactly! How much momentum can you get from an EM pulse striking an
> antenna????
As much as is carried by the sum of the absorbed photons.
Timo A. Nieminen
> Aetherist wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 22:06:29 -0700, Salmon Egg <Salm...@sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <48E80A27...@hate.spam.net>,
>>> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Outhouse basement, it won't work...
>>> In principle, it does work, but so poorly that there is no point to using
>>> it. It turns out that you are better off carrying along inert material you
>>> spew out at lower speed for the same energy content. That is what an ion
>>> engine does.
>>
>> Exactly! How much momentum can you get from an EM pulse striking an
>> antenna????
>
> As much as is carried by the sum of the absorbed photons.
... and scattered photons. (Well, for the simple case of omni-directional
scattering aka re-radiation.)
--
Timo
Timo A. Nieminen
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 13:29:31 +1000, "Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Oct 2008, Aetherist wrote:
>>> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 08:03:08 +1000, "Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Timo,
>>>
>>> This is not the first I've seen this design. IIRC some fifteen years back
>>> there was an AIAA paper on this.
>>
>> Hopefully not by the same author - the lapses would be much less
>> forgivable. If it's over a decade old, why haven't the errors been
>> corrected? Why hasn't the force on the tapered section of the waveguide
>> been considered? This last point is the critical one - it's the most
>> important, and obvious, error.
>
> It is impractical since, while it works, it generates so little
> thrust that mass needed to build it (let alone, any payload)
> means the acceleration is almost non-existent... Try calc...ing
> the momentum transfer, even assuming 100%.
Zero is very little thrust. The proposed drive _doesn't_ radiate. For
"standard" electromagnetic-only propulsion, I agree that thrust=P/c sucks
for efficiency. (Which doesn't mean it's always impractical. There can be
specialised application where it is the best solution, especially where we
are interested in torque and not thrust. Consider the practical uses of
radioactive decay thermoelectric generators - not efficient, but sometimes
the best usable choice.)
>> If the earlier version was by different authors, and sank into obscurity
>> without working (it wouldn't be hard to build it, would it?), it's a
>> strong indication that it doesn't work.
>
> There a subtle but significant difference between doesn't work and
> impractical.
Which is my point.
It is claimed in the paper that the _ideal_ device works. My comments
addressed the basis of that claim. More below.
>>> Also, here are some related resources,
>>>
>>> http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.3721v1
>>
>> Interesting [1], but hardly related. The closest that it comes to it is
>> discussing, e.g., the force exerted by a solenoid on a charged particle.
>> Clearly related to electromagnetically-accelerated-exhaust drives, but
>> nothing to do with the "drive" discussed above.
>>
>> That hydrodynamic/electromagnetic analogies work so well suggests that the
>> proposed device won't work. Waves within a fluid enclosed inside a rigid
>> container aren't going to make the container move through empty space, are
>> they?
>
> There is no such thing as rigid to the EM field. The AIAA article I
> remember (I don't have any copy and it has been at least 15 years)
> described a basic omni-directional pulse transmitter and a conic
> receiving antenna as the momentum collector. Which, if I understood
> the layout of this one, are very similar.
Completely enclosed, so that there is no escaping radiation?
Sure, in theoretical practice (assuming classical radiation and treating
the conducting walls as a classical conducting continuum), some radiation
will escape. Sure, in practice, the thing will heat up, and thermally
radiate. These are irrelevant to the claims made in the paper, which are
that the device will experience a non-zero force, even with no escaping
radiation or thermal radiation. The theoretical treatment assumes an ideal
"electromagnetically rigid" resonator, and predicts a force.
Again, the paper treated the ideal device. If you made the real device,
and put it into interplanetary space, you'll see some thrust, due to
radiation pressure due to sunlight and pushing by the solar wind. Then
some thrust due to asymmetric thermal radiation or asymmetric leakage
(likely directly away from the side the microwave source is on). This
doesn't mean that the device works.
If I build a man-powered flapping-wing fly, and claim I can fly (as in
really fly, not glide or soar) with it, and the best I can do is fall a
little more slowly than I would without it, it doesn't mean the device
works. If I design a "highly-efficient" LED, and all I get is
unmeasureable (but theoretically present) visible radiation from thermal
radiation due to dissipated power heating the device, the device doesn't
work.
The prediction is that the proposed EM drive gives a thrust of F,
in a particular direction for a power input of P. If the observed thrust
is F/x, where x is a _large_ number, in a different direction, this is not
a case of the device working inefficiently; it's a case of the device not
working at all.
You don't want to consider the idealised device? You want to explicitly
consider all of the spurious effects? Note that this kind of idealisation
is Galileo's biggest contribution to physics, his big break with
Aristotleanism.
The author considered the ideal device, and I'm content to restrict
discussion of the paper to the ideal device.
Why do you think this would work? Was Newton so wrong?
Isn't the standard version of this drive one in which the internal moving
mass moves slowly from A to B and then quickly from B to A? Then, when you
build it and test it on Earth, external friction lets it crawl along.
--
Timo
Aetherist
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008, Aetherist wrote:
<Snip...>
>> It is impractical since, while it works, it generates so little
>> thrust that mass needed to build it (let alone, any payload)
>> means the acceleration is almost non-existent... Try calc...ing
>> the momentum transfer, even assuming 100%.
>
> Zero is very little thrust. The proposed drive _doesn't_ radiate.
> For "standard" electromagnetic-only propulsion, I agree that
> thrust=P/c sucks for efficiency. (Which doesn't mean it's always
> impractical. There can be specialised application where it is the
> best solution, especially where we are interested in torque and
> not thrust. Consider the practical uses of radioactive decay
> thermoelectric generators - not efficient, but sometimes the best
> usable choice.)
Yeah, but as a propulsive device I don't see a future here, even
working as descibed.
>>> If the earlier version was by different authors, and sank into
>>> obscurity without working (it wouldn't be hard to build it,
>>> would it?), it's a strong indication that it doesn't work.
>>
>> There a subtle but significant difference between doesn't work
>> and impractical.
>
> Which is my point.
Well, we'll let the Chinese find out, and agree to disagree here.
However, I don't think that they would invest any effort in it if
it was as easy to see it wouldn't work as you say.
> It is claimed in the paper that the _ideal_ device works. My
> comments addressed the basis of that claim. More below.
>
>>>> Also, here are some related resources,
>>>>
>>>> http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.3721v1
>>>
>>> Interesting [1], but hardly related. The closest that it comes to it is
>>> discussing, e.g., the force exerted by a solenoid on a charged particle.
>>> Clearly related to electromagnetically-accelerated-exhaust drives, but
>>> nothing to do with the "drive" discussed above.
>>>
>>> That hydrodynamic/electromagnetic analogies work so well suggests that the
>>> proposed device won't work. Waves within a fluid enclosed inside a rigid
>>> container aren't going to make the container move through empty space, are
>>> they?
>>
>> There is no such thing as rigid to the EM field. The AIAA article I
>> remember (I don't have any copy and it has been at least 15 years)
>> described a basic omni-directional pulse transmitter and a conic
>> receiving antenna as the momentum collector. Which, if I understood
>> the layout of this one, are very similar.
>
> Completely enclosed, so that there is no escaping radiation?
OK, I went back and looked at this design. It is NOT identical to the AIAA
one I saw earlier. That one was an open design as described above. This
one is similar to TT Brown's Grad E capacitor designs. So without further
study I can't say since I assumed they principle was similar to the open
design I described. It might work though, and the Chinese appear to think
so.
>> classic propellant-less drive is a simple rod which has a spring coiled
>> around its center. On each end is mounted a stop plug. There are two
>> plungers fitted on either side of the spring that can travel along the
>> rod. The plungers are compressed against the spring and then released.
>> they then travel in opposite directions along the rod until impacting
>> the stop plugs. One stop lug is metal, the other a cotton wad. The
>> difference in efficency of transfering the plunger's energy to the
>> rod, rather tan the cotton and rod, will propel the rod in one direction.
>>
>> This also will work, but so far as I know, has found no practical
>> applications...
>
> Why do you think this would work? Was Newton so wrong?
I don't. Momentum is alway a vector, energy is not. If I have two
equally energetic masses who's vectors are, intially in opposing
directions. Assuming that we imparted this energy as vectors at the
same time the the net momentum to the imparting device is zero.
The question is, how do we dissapate the kinetic energy. In the
description I provided, one side 'impacts' the rod stop with the rigid
plumger transfering all the plunger's energy (thus momentum) into
the rod stop along the line of travel. On the other end the cotton
acts to dissapate (randomize the plunger's momentum) into other
directions reducing the amount that is transfered back along the
original direction. In both cases, total momentum and energy is
conserved, just that some of the momentum at one end does not remain
coherrent.
>Isn't the standard version of this drive one in which the internal moving
>mass moves slowly from A to B and then quickly from B to A? Then, when you
>build it and test it on Earth, external friction lets it crawl along.
No, this is not in the class of the 'Dean Drive' and will pass the free
hang test.
Bill Miller
"Aetherist" <TheAet...@best.net> wrote in message
news:gq8ie4lanrhha56qp...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 05:34:24 +1000, "Timo A. Nieminen"
> <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008, Aetherist wrote:
>
> <Snip...>
>
> However, I don't think that they would invest any effort in it if
> it was as easy to see it wouldn't work as you say.
>
I can't resist!
The Chinese ALSO invested quite a lot of money building "compact"
Cross-Field MW antennas that "worked" by taking the cross product (ExH = S =
Power) of the E field AND the H field "caused" by Displacement Current.
So, the Chinese can make technical blunders just like the rest of us!
Bill
Benj
> >>> That hydrodynamic/electromagnetic analogies work so well suggests that the
> >>> proposed device won't work. Waves within a fluid enclosed inside a rigid
> >>> container aren't going to make the container move through empty space, are
> >>> they?
Point 1. So long as things are non-relativistic, nobody has a prayer
of making this work for all the usual reasons. The claim here is that
relativistic effects change the outcomes of Newton's laws. So yes,
Newton was wrong but ONLY for devices with relativistic speeds in
them, not for any hydrodynamic models or devices.
> >> There is no such thing as rigid to the EM field. The AIAA article I
> >> remember (I don't have any copy and it has been at least 15 years)
> >> described a basic omni-directional pulse transmitter and a conic
> >> receiving antenna as the momentum collector. Which, if I understood
> >> the layout of this one, are very similar.
Point 2. The tapered part of the cone was ignored. This is really a
fatal error in the analysis in my opinion.
> > Completely enclosed, so that there is no escaping radiation?
Point 3. While radiation pressure devices would theoretically work,
this one is sealed so it's not that kind of thing. It's a cavity which
means waves are going BOTH ways inside.
> OK, I went back and looked at this design. It is NOT identical to the AIAA
> one I saw earlier. That one was an open design as described above. This
> one is similar to TT Brown's Grad E capacitor designs. So without further
> study I can't say since I assumed they principle was similar to the open
> design I described. It might work though, and the Chinese appear to think
> so.
The TT Brown drive is of interest in the following way. In air the TT
Brown drive is basically an Ion wind device (you can buy one over at
the Sharper Image) with enough wind it could fly a light glider. The
fringe story is that the TT Brown device ALSO works in hard vacuum. Of
course we always have to raise the question how "hard" is thy vacuum?
If there are significant ions left behind then some thrust has to be
expected. Now IF and that is a VERY big "if" it is true that the TT
Brown device does work in hard vacuum, then it's clear that such a
device could be enclosed in a [large enough] conducting metal box, and
still produce thrust. In that case even though the TT Brown device is
electrostatic and the Chinese one claims to be electrodynamic, one
might see the famed unidirectional forces from a sealed electrical
device. However, I personally am not convinced that the TT Brown
device works in a hard vacuum. [But of course, I'm not saying it's
"impossible"!]
Eric Gisse
[...]
>
> The TT Brown drive is of interest in the following way. In air the TT
> Brown drive is basically an Ion wind device (you can buy one over at
> the Sharper Image) with enough wind it could fly a light glider. The
> fringe story is that the TT Brown device ALSO works in hard vacuum.
The reason it is fringe is because that is /wrong/. Ion drives without
an ion source tend to not work.
[snip]
Richard Herring
Regardless of the similarities, real or imagined, it's irrelevant when
the claim is that conventional electromagnetism is doing the
accelerating.
>That's kinda what gravity does, isn't it?
For a suitable definition of "kinda", maybe. Falling around the nearest
star isn't normally considered to be a "gravitational space drive". In
GR it isn't even considered to be acceleration. Gravitation doesn''t
provide a mechanism for using controlled external sources of energy to
power that acceleration, the way electromagnetism does.
>>>
>>>I'm not all that sure that gravitational effects are irrelevant when/if we
>>>drag in relatavistic activities.
>>
>> Don't let the R-word confuse you: there are two distinct theories labelled
>> "relativity". The relativity being invoked here is _special_ relativity,
>> as it relates to electrodynamics. The only forces being considered are
>> electromagnetic.
>>
>> _General_ relativity is a theory of gravity; special relativity is not.
>
>It sounds like you may not have read any of Jefimenko's work on gravitation.
>If you had, you would have noted that he has derived many (all?) aspects of
>GR without delving into GR or SR. Just logical arguments derived from the
>simple concept of Causality.
Basically he's seeing how far you can push Newton's model of gravity by
using the same re-formulation using retardation methods that he applied
to EM. From that, he has a theory which is either equivalent to
Einstein's, or is testably (in principle) different.
> So, if gravitational effects can be derived
>without GR or SR, then it's not TOO much of a stretch to consider that the
>inverse might be true.
What's the "inverse" here?
It's not much of a stretch to consider that almost anything _might_ be
true. Speculation is cheap. Proving it is another matter.
--
Richard Herring
Richard Herring
<73527490-4072-467b...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Benj <bja...@iwaynet.net> writes
>
>I hope all you clowns that who actually trying to justify rejecting
>papers you haven't even read with quick and dirty arguments such as
>"everybody" knows E&M is conservative and the like are now properly
>embarrassed by Timo showing you how it's supposed to be done!
Why? Because he has _confirmed_ the holes in the logic that the lack of
self-consistency between premises and conclusion implies must
necessarily be there?
--
Richard Herring
Benj
> Why? Because he has _confirmed_ the holes in the logic that the lack of
> self-consistency between premises and conclusion implies must
> necessarily be there?
You STILL don't get it you you? You can't prove ANYTHING by quoting
freshman physics texts or the bold assertions on PBS. And to do that
without even reading someone's arguments is the height of fraud. You
are saying in effect, "I am proud to say I know absolutely no details
about what this person is claiming, but I do know that I am so smart
and knowledgeable and physics is always so infallible that I don't
need to go any further than my own uninformed opinion to prove that
this won't work!"
Note that Timo did this RIGHT. He read the paper. He went in and found
some errors of logic in the proposed theory. And finally even after
doing that he STILL didn't say the thing was "impossible"! He said
you'd have to build it to prove it doesn't work. In other words Timo
did the SCIENCE. All the rest was people doing faith-based physics.
His conclusion was totally different from yours. Timo said, "Here are
some holes in the suggested theory, but to really test these ideas
you'd have to build it." You and Uncle Al and some others in effect
said, "I really don't know anything about how this device is supposed
to work in detail, but in my opinion it is impossible that it could
work." Timo did science, you did a political discussion.
The difference between what Timo did and what you are trying to say is
like night and day. Don't try to use his work to justify your own
laziness!
Benj
What is "wrong" is you. You have assumed the device is ONLY an ion
drive. Clearly in some cases it would work as one. But the claim has
also been made that it works in a hard vacuum. You are claiming that
this device in your opinion is ONLY an ion drive and thus cannot work.
The fringe claims it works in a vacuum which obviously means in that
mode it would not be an ion drive. [Actually it could be, but would
have to use it's own material rather than surrounding gas for ions]
You thus are saying that the discovery of any new principle (like
electrostatic propulsion in a vacuum) without your permission is
"impossible".
Did you notice that there is a subtle difference between "My opinion
is completely correct and everyone else is "wrong"" and the statement
"In my opinion this thing wouldn't work.". Obviously the only
scientific true test is to put the damn thing in a vacuum and see if
it still produces force. I see no evidence that your opinion is so
infallible that we should accept it without proof or question.
And while we are on a roll here, let me point out some shortcomings of
"infallible" "omniscient" physics.
1. Nobody from Newton on has the slightest clue what gravity "is".
Lots of mathematical descriptions of how it operates, but no models as
to what is the actual mechanism of that force.
2. Nobody has the slightest clue what a photon is. Again lots of very
strange mathematics describing truly weird behavior but no real models
or understanding of what a photon at the fundamental level actually is
doing.
3. Because of 1 and 2 above, nobody has the slightest clue if there is
some electrical or electromagnetic connection between gravity and E&M.
In other words could there possibly be SOME way to build a
"electrical" device that generates a localized gravitational field?
"Gravity plating" for a starship if you will. Nobody knows. BUT IF
such a thing were possible, then clearly by applying such a device to
an object in space and IF one finds NO Newtonian reaction back upon
the gravity field generator, [obviously action-reaction is not a "law"
that always must be obeyed] then one clearly has the unidirectional
thruster in question.
And given the total lack of knowledge in 1., 2. and 3., it should be
obvious that anyone asserting that such a device is "impossible" is a
clown.
Richard Herring
<8e698f0a-be40-4099...@64g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, Benj
<bja...@iwaynet.net> writes
>On Oct 6, 5:16 am, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
>> Why? Because he has _confirmed_ the holes in the logic that the lack of
>> self-consistency between premises and conclusion implies must
>> necessarily be there?
>
>You STILL don't get it you you?
Mirror, mirror...
>You can't prove ANYTHING by quoting
>freshman physics texts or the bold assertions on PBS. And to do that
>without even reading someone's arguments is the height of fraud. You
>are saying in effect,
For an appropriate definition of "in effect", meaning something like
"here comes a fraudulent misrepresentation of what was actually said",
maybe.
>"I am proud to say I know absolutely no details
>about what this person is claiming, but I do know that I am so smart
>and knowledgeable and physics is always so infallible that I don't
>need to go any further than my own uninformed opinion to prove that
>this won't work!"
Nonsense. Take your strawman arguments elsewhere.
I'm making no claims whatsoever about physics, only about logic. (The
clue is in words like "premise" and "conclusion".)
>
>Note that Timo did this RIGHT. He read the paper. He went in and found
>some errors of logic in the proposed theory. And finally even after
>doing that he STILL didn't say the thing was "impossible"! He said
>you'd have to build it to prove it doesn't work.
I don't think so. What he actually said was this (in Message-ID:
<Pine.WNT.4.64.0810030648100.596@newbox>)
>>So, plenty of handwaving, claims that have been demonstrated to be
>>wrong by experiments done decades ago, a bizarre, un-necessary, and
>>probably wrong application of relativistic transformations, and the
>>crucial error of ignoring the force on the tapered section of the waveguide.
>>
>>What more is needed?
Since there's only one possible answer to that (rhetorical) question, I
don't think the following sentence has quite the implications you'd
like:
>>
>>However, if somebody wants to build it to test it, let them go ahead!
especially when followed by this:
>>Cheap enough to do out of curiosity if one has the time available (and
>>likely enough to lead to publication in New Scientist, even if only as
>>an experimental refutation of the original NS publication). Of course,
>>if the would-be builders are deliberately scamming investors, then
>>that's another story.
[end Timo quote]
> In other words Timo
>did the SCIENCE. All the rest was people doing faith-based physics.
>His conclusion was totally different from yours. Timo said, "Here are
>some holes in the suggested theory, but to really test these ideas
>you'd have to build it."
No, he said:
>>So, plenty of handwaving, claims that have been demonstrated to be
>>wrong by experiments done decades ago, a bizarre, un-necessary, and
>>probably wrong application of relativistic transformations, and the
>>crucial error of ignoring the force on the tapered section of the waveguide.
>>
>>What more is needed?
> You and Uncle Al and some others in effect
There you go with "in effect" again. Al can speak for himself, but I
said nothing like the following:
>said, "I really don't know anything about how this device is supposed
>to work in detail, but in my opinion it is impossible that it could
>work."
Then you should have no difficulty in providing a message-ID for where I
said that, if I actually had.
But of course your strawman is (as usual) a misrepresentation. All I
have said is that it couldn't work _by the method claimed_, because the
claim is logically inconsistent and therefore incoherent.
>Timo did science, you did a political discussion.
>
>The difference between what Timo did and what you are trying to say is
>like night and day. Don't try to use his work to justify your own
>laziness!
>
And since when are _you_ paying me for my time?
--
Richard Herring
gabydewilde
> On Oct 6, 3:03 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The reason it is fringe is because that is /wrong/.
Eric cant think
therefor he isn't.
> You are claiming that
> this device in your opinion is ONLY an ion drive and thus cannot work.
> You thus are saying that the discovery of any new principle (like
> electrostatic propulsion in a vacuum) without your permission is
> "impossible".
> Did you notice that there is a subtle difference between "My opinion
> is completely correct and everyone else is "wrong"" and the statement
> "In my opinion this thing wouldn't work.". Obviously the only
> scientific true test is to put the damn thing in a vacuum and see if
> it still produces force. I see no evidence that your opinion is so
> infallible that we should accept it without proof or question.
Oh, but here you are wrong. The blind dogmatic faith driven
preconceived arguments worked for so many years we have to accept it
as empirical truth. Why else MKULTA, why else COINTELPRO?
x-rays are a hoax and so are heavier than air flying machines, heat
engines, radiant solar panels. etc etc all nonsense.
After world war I Germany was a very wealthy country. Hitler didn't
need IBM, Prescot Bush or Henry Ford to help him.
Werner von Braun didn't do any anti gravity research and the
technology was most definitely not moved to the US after the war.
See how easy that was?
> 1. Nobody from Newton on has the slightest clue what gravity "is".
Just because it's teached to be a forbidden fruitcake in skools
doesn't mean we don't know. It's fringe, quack, pseudo, crank etc Now
look the other way, you.
> 2. Nobody has the slightest clue what a photon is.
Pro-ton is a name label like New-ton, mega ton, magne-ton, electio-ton
etc
> Again lots of very strange mathematics describing truly weird
behavior...
Yes, it's not like I'm telling you anything you didn't know.
> ..... but no real models
> or understanding of what a photon at the fundamental level actually is
> doing.
The photon is trying to convince you of it's existence.
> 3. Because of 1 and 2 above, nobody has the slightest clue if there is
> some electrical or electromagnetic connection between gravity and E&M.
Ah ha, but "nobody" suggests you know what everybody knows.
This proves the model does exactly what it was designed for.
> In other words could there possibly be SOME way to build a
> "electrical" device that generates a localized gravitational field?
I doubt you would live very long.
> "Gravity plating" for a starship if you will.
The stealth bomber ionises the air utilising a strip on it's wings.
It's existence is declassified which means they have something that
makes it look like a toy.
If they didn't they wouldn't be allowed to declassify it.
> And given the total lack of knowledge in 1., 2. and 3., it should be
> obvious that anyone asserting that such a device is "impossible" is a
> clown.
Use your brains Benj, why would people make such enormous effort to
debunk things? It can only be their job or their programming. Either
way they are pretty obvious.
Remember, half the planet is starving so that they can sit on their
fat ass worshiping their LHC.
So when they argue something is safe to ignore they are basically
dismissing peoples lives as some insignificant statistic.
Think Benj, how simple is geothermal energy? How simple is solar? How
simple is wind energy? How simple is wave energy?
And now you think you can convince the liars of antigravity
technology?
Not even a primitive magnetron drive can be allowed.
It's not real because of it not being real and my opinion. It's
fringe, quack, kooky, nutty, and loopsy. Didn't you know?
You are going to stay on this planet till the end of time which is
pretty soon actually.
Ow wait, we didn't want to know about that either right?
lol
Szczepan Białek
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote
news:ff176ca7-ce04-4ecf...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>
> 2. Nobody has the slightest clue what a photon is. Again lots of very
> strange mathematics describing truly weird behavior but no real models
> or understanding of what a photon at the fundamental level actually is
> doing.
People from optics know that light travel in packets. They know even how
they are long (from Newton rings).
S*
>
> 3. Because of 1 and 2 above, nobody has the slightest clue if there is
> some electrical or electromagnetic connection between gravity and E&M.
Some know it from Aepinus.
> In other words could there possibly be SOME way to build a
> "electrical" device that generates a localized gravitational field?
Electrical and gravitational are the same. The field is a math.
> "Gravity plating" for a starship if you will.
Plating or screaning is impossible (electric or gravity). Proved
superposition rule tells it.
S*
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> That hydrodynamic/electromagnetic analogies work so well suggests that the
> proposed device won't work. Waves within a fluid enclosed inside a rigid
> container aren't going to make the container move through empty space, are
> they?
Careful there Timo. Benj will be in here telling you that you
are not doing science by invoking conservation of momentum
in mechanical systems.
Socks
Androcles
"Szczepan Białek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:gcdetk$412$1...@node1.news.atman.pl...
Jacoby logic: "I don't know, therefore nobody knows."
Timo A. Nieminen
> On Oct 6, 5:16 am, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
>> Why? Because he has _confirmed_ the holes in the logic that the lack of
>> self-consistency between premises and conclusion implies must
>> necessarily be there?
>
> You STILL don't get it you you? You can't prove ANYTHING by quoting
> freshman physics texts or the bold assertions on PBS.
No, but it's a useful filter to determine what is worth investing more
time on. If it claims to use the principles taught in undergraduate
physics courses, but the results contradict the principles of
undergraduate physics, it's very, very, very likely to be crap.
Invest time if interested or paid. Even a professional or amateur
scientist has no obligation to investigate every outlandish claim - the
amateur's time is limited, and they should pursue thheir own interests,
while the professional may well be supposed to be working on a specific
project for their boss (otherwise, is usually supposed to be trying to
produce something).
It isn't meant to be a proof; it's a simple heuristic which usually works.
So what? Reading the paper and finding errors doesn't prove anything
either. One can come up with a correct result through a series of errors.
One can still claim the device _really works_, despite the supposed theory
behind it being a crock of shit. Since going through the details takes a
lot more time, and still doesn't _prove_ anything, why do it, unless (a)
you're interested in the details, (b) it's your "job" as a peer reviewer,
or (c) a potential investor wants to make sure they might be making a
better investment than spending their money on lottery tickets.
> And to do that
> without even reading someone's arguments is the height of fraud.
No, it isn't even remotely fraud.
An example of fraud would be claiming that you have a design for an EM
drive that works, while knowing that you've fudged the theory to make it
appear it might work, when you know it won't (and I'm not claiming this is
the case here; the errors and omissions may very well be accidental - easy
to make the theory fit when convinced beforehand it should work), and
seeking money from investors that will be used to support your lifestyle,
not development of the device (also something I'm not claiming here;
spending all of the investor money, and then more of your own, on
development of the device is a good sign of sincerity).
> Note that Timo did this RIGHT. He read the paper. He went in and found
> some errors of logic in the proposed theory.
Which I did because I was interested in the details (electromagnetic
transport of momentum is my job). I didn't think it would take very long.
Doing it while sitting at home drinking coffee meant it didn't even take
time away from annything else I should have been doing.
> And finally even after
> doing that he STILL didn't say the thing was "impossible"! He said
> you'd have to build it to prove it doesn't work.
No. This still wouldn't prove it doesn't work. I said that if anybody
wants to build it, it's up to them. In the context of where it appeared in
the post, take it to mean "build it knowing the theory provided is deeply
flawed".
> The difference between what Timo did and what you are trying to say is
> like night and day.
No, I just went further into the details. Neither the simple assessment
nor the finding the errors in the details _proves_ anything about whether
or not the device _works_. Neither _proves_ that the theoretical
conclusions are _wrong_. The first simply shows that since A is assumed
in the theory, and the result contradicts A, there must be an error, and
the conclusion is incompatible with the assumptions. The second, finding
errors in the details, simply shows that there is an error, but does not
show that the conclusions are necessarily wrong, or incompatible with the
assumptions (unless one provides a correct derivation, leading to a
different result, which I did partly, but only partly) - this is actually
a _weaker_ result, and only serves to amplify the first conclusion.
> Don't try to use his work to justify your own
> laziness!
Appropriately prudent with the investment of one's time is not laziness. A
comes up with a list of outlandish ideas. B says "Support them". A comes
back with supposed support full of holes, and B says "Here is a critical
error; go away and come back if you can fix it." What's wrong with that?
Using classical electromagnetic theory to come up with a result
contradicting classical electromagnetic theory is a pretty good sign of a
critical error, even if you don't bother to find out exactly where it is.
You want to suggest it should be investigated "properly" - why don't you
do it?
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
Benj
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Benj wrote:
> > On Oct 6, 5:16 am, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> It isn't meant to be a proof; it's a simple heuristic which usually works.
I won't argue with the "usually works" part, but you are putting words
in Herr Herrings mouth here. His (and uncle Al's, and others) words
clearly state that they MEANT it to be taken as a "proof"! And even
worse it's a "proof" of nonsense. To declare that this or that is
"impossible" and then site the laws of physics as "proof" is nonsense.
It only "proves" that the proposed phenomena either doesn't follow
ideas that establishment physics currently holds OR that the person
making the statement does not have a complete grasp of how those laws
should be applied.
Bottom line: "impossible" = nonsense.
> So what? Reading the paper and finding errors doesn't prove anything
> either. One can come up with a correct result through a series of errors.
> One can still claim the device _really works_, despite the supposed theory
> behind it being a crock of shit. Since going through the details takes a
> lot more time, and still doesn't _prove_ anything, why do it, unless (a)
> you're interested in the details, (b) it's your "job" as a peer reviewer,
> or (c) a potential investor wants to make sure they might be making a
> better investment than spending their money on lottery tickets.
a). If you are making high pronouncements about the viability of the
given paper and it's contents, presumably one has an interest in it.
So if you are interested then spending the time to examine the details
makes sense.
b). Fine, but maybe your "job" is to censor certain subjects from
publication that are not considered "politically correct" for this or
that reason. And even if the review is fair and you are paid to do it,
what does that prove?
c). What is wrong with checking investments?
All these are valid reasons to check a paper in detail. So?
> > And to do that
> > without even reading someone's arguments is the height of fraud.
>
> No, it isn't even remotely fraud.
Come on Timo! You are a better scientist that that! You are standing
there (sitting there?) telling us that if a peer reviewer rejects a
paper without even reading it, just based on some vague "opinion" that
isn't fraud? How long will you keep that job? (Yeah, I know, it
depends upon how much political suction you've got with those in
authority). And you tell me that if you advise investors on a paper
WITHOUT even reading the paper that this isn't fraud? I hope I never
hire YOU to rate venture capital investments for ME! And it follows
by logical extension that simply declaring a paper to describe things
that are "impossible" without even reading the paper is far from
ethical science. Yet Herring (and now you) seem to be taking that
position. Yikes!
> An example of fraud would be claiming that you have a design for an EM
> drive that works, while knowing that you've fudged the theory to make it
> appear it might work, when you know it won't (and I'm not claiming this is
> the case here; the errors and omissions may very well be accidental - easy
> to make the theory fit when convinced beforehand it should work), and
> seeking money from investors that will be used to support your lifestyle,
> not development of the device (also something I'm not claiming here;
> spending all of the investor money, and then more of your own, on
> development of the device is a good sign of sincerity).
Well yes, that is fraud too. Are you arguing that if you have one type
of fraud it precludes all other types? I thought not.
> > Note that Timo did this RIGHT. He read the paper. He went in and found
> > some errors of logic in the proposed theory.
>
> Which I did because I was interested in the details (electromagnetic
> transport of momentum is my job). I didn't think it would take very long.
> Doing it while sitting at home drinking coffee meant it didn't even take
> time away from anything else I should have been doing.
BINGO! The reason we are discussing this here is that we are ALL
interested in the phenomena to a degree. I have no problem with a
person so uninterested in a suggested phenomena that they don't bother
to examine it in any detail. Where I'm taking exception is when THOSE
people start making hand-waving pronouncements that this or that is
"impossible" when they don't even have enough interest to examine a
few details. Our personal schedules and what our time is worth is
irrelevant. WE determine our interests and act accordingly. However if
you are interested enough to make pronouncements one should be
interested enough to find out what you are talking about. [of
course "should" and what humans routinely do can be two different
things]
> > And finally even after
> > doing that he STILL didn't say the thing was "impossible"! He said
> > you'd have to build it to prove it doesn't work.
>
> No. This still wouldn't prove it doesn't work. I said that if anybody
> wants to build it, it's up to them. In the context of where it appeared in
> the post, take it to mean "build it knowing the theory provided is deeply
> flawed".
Obviously. So your evaluation is important investor information, isn't
it. Obviously any decision to invest time and or money in building and
testing the device is theirs and operates independent of the opinion
of others. And if I'm doing the investing, while I'll take all so-
called advice into consideration, the decision whether or not to
invest is clearly mine. Hence it's up to ME to sort out the clowns who
are asserting that this or that is "impossible" while proudly
proclaiming they have not enough interest to even read the details of
the device in question. My money isn't going to take seriously any
advice that claims this or that is "impossible". Virtually all the
"big" winners in investments had a herd of nay-sayers who judged it
"impossible" without any detailed information to back it up. How
gullible do they think people are?
> > The difference between what Timo did and what you are trying to say is
> > like night and day.
>
> No, I just went further into the details. Neither the simple assessment
> nor the finding the errors in the details _proves_ anything about whether
> or not the device _works_. Neither _proves_ that the theoretical
> conclusions are _wrong_. The first simply shows that since A is assumed
> in the theory, and the result contradicts A, there must be an error, and
> the conclusion is incompatible with the assumptions. The second, finding
> errors in the details, simply shows that there is an error, but does not
> show that the conclusions are necessarily wrong, or incompatible with the
> assumptions (unless one provides a correct derivation, leading to a
> different result, which I did partly, but only partly) - this is actually
> a _weaker_ result, and only serves to amplify the first conclusion.
No, you just didn't go "further" into the details, you actually WENT
into the details. Thus, your opinion had basis in science. Herr
Herring's statements didn't bother with any details. He just parroted
some dogma and proclaimed the device bogus. I would note (and since
you are into E&M you'd know) that his dogma was wrong in that he
asserted that Fields are ALWAYS "conservative" and ignored (or was
ignorant of) non-conservative fields. I even quoted my own dogma from
well-accepted textbooks to demonstrate this and he ignored it.
The bottom line is that you went into details, and came up with viable
conclusions. Others ignored the details and then gave wild untenable
pronouncements based on dogma provably wrong. I call that Night and
Day!
> > Don't try to use his work to justify your own
> > laziness!
Note that "laziness" has nothing to do with not being interested in
the question. It has to do with not bothering to examine the question
and then making snap pronouncements as if one actually HAD examined it
in detail. The hope obviously being that others will just uncritically
accept your word as an "expert".
> Appropriately prudent with the investment of one's time is not laziness. A
> comes up with a list of outlandish ideas. B says "Support them". A comes
> back with supposed support full of holes, and B says "Here is a critical
> error; go away and come back if you can fix it." What's wrong with that?
> Using classical electromagnetic theory to come up with a result
> contradicting classical electromagnetic theory is a pretty good sign of a
> critical error, even if you don't bother to find out exactly where it is.
Not quite. This device made the claim (which you investigated in some
detail) that it was RELATIVITY that caused the results to contradict
classical electromagnetic theory! The fact that the paper ALSO
included some classic electromagnetic theory doesn't disprove
anything. There was no assertion that classic EM theory contradicted
itself. (even though some times it does! :) And using an argument
that isn't even right (the non-existence of non-conservative fields)
on top of an admission that one has no knowledge of the details of the
theory certainly doesn't place the conclusions of that argument in a
very credible light.
> You want to suggest it should be investigated "properly" - why don't you
> do it?
Because I get to decide how I spend my time. But... and this is the
KEY element here... I am NOT making wild pronouncements about how this
device is "impossible" and "can't work" or "violates all we know about
physics"
etc. I am also not making "crank" pronouncements that the device DOES
work or that it represents a "new physics" either! So since I have
not investigated it "properly" and for that matter have not personally
gone through the paper in detail personally as you have, I am not
about to make high pontifications as to whether or not this device is
"impossible". Only a "proper" investigation can shed light on that. I
certainly can have an "opinion" on it. And I can tell others of my
"opinion" but it's only that. And as you know opinions are like
assholes. But as soon as I assert that my opinion represents some kind
of "proof" then I am the asshole.
And that, I assert, is still the difference between you and Herr
Herring. Night and Day.
Cheers.
Timo Nieminen
> On Oct 6, 4:02 pm, "Timo A. Nieminen" <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Benj wrote:
> > > On Oct 6, 5:16 am, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
> > It isn't meant to be a proof; it's a simple heuristic which usually works.
>
> I won't argue with the "usually works" part, but you are putting words
> in Herr Herrings mouth here.
I suggest you go back and (re-)read the actual thread - if you are basing
your posts on your memory of the thread, your memory appears to be flawed.
> > So what? Reading the paper and finding errors doesn't prove anything
> > either. One can come up with a correct result through a series of errors.
> > One can still claim the device _really works_, despite the supposed theory
> > behind it being a crock of shit. Since going through the details takes a
> > lot more time, and still doesn't _prove_ anything, why do it, unless (a)
> > you're interested in the details, (b) it's your "job" as a peer reviewer,
> > or (c) a potential investor wants to make sure they might be making a
> > better investment than spending their money on lottery tickets.
>
> a). If you are making high pronouncements about the viability of the
> given paper and it's contents, presumably one has an interest in it.
> So if you are interested then spending the time to examine the details
> makes sense.
The few-sentences statement that the proposal doesn't appear viable, so
one isn't interested in looking at the details is an indication that one
is interested enough to look at the details?
> b). Fine, but maybe your "job" is to censor certain subjects from
> publication that are not considered "politically correct" for this or
> that reason.
There are many topics sensitive enough so that the parties concerned might
well consider political correctness. Gender/race differences, some
historical topics, etc. What topics in physics present such danger?
Climate modelling results - in conflict with each other, and various
political claims - get published, and the researchers don't lose their
jobs. Cold fusion stuff gets published, and the researchers don't lose
their jobs. There's a steady trickle of various heretical physics papers
in the mainstream journals.
> And even if the review is fair and you are paid to do it,
> what does that prove?
Paid? To review? I wish!
If the review is fair, and the review says the paper is crap, doesn't that
suggest that the paper is crap?
> c). What is wrong with checking investments?
Nothing. Why imply that there is?
> All these are valid reasons to check a paper in detail. So?
Yes, that was my point (well, except for the "censorship" nonsense, which
is one of your favourite hobby-horses).
_You're_ the one insisting that people (apparently other than yourself)
look at the details. I see you didn't provide any further reasons why they
should.
> > > And to do that
> > > without even reading someone's arguments is the height of fraud.
> >
> > No, it isn't even remotely fraud.
>
> Come on Timo! You are a better scientist that that! You are standing
> there (sitting there?) telling us that if a peer reviewer rejects a
> paper without even reading it, just based on some vague "opinion" that
> isn't fraud? How long will you keep that job?
Given that peer reviewers generally aren't paid, the worst that will
happen is that they get fewer papers sent to them to review. Papers do get
rejected without being read in detail; sometimes this is appropriate,
sometimes not.
> And you tell me that if you advise investors on a paper
> WITHOUT even reading the paper that this isn't fraud?
No, I don't tell you that.
Do you really have no sensible argument? Do you really have to resort to
deliberately lying and distorting for rhetorical effect (or trolling
effect)? If you have a real point to make, make it, or fuck off.
> BINGO! The reason we are discussing this here is that we are ALL
> interested in the phenomena to a degree.
Yet you avoid discussing the phenomenon, and spend your time and words
insulting the other correspondents, lying about what they said, etc. Your
usual habits, it seems.
Again, if you want to discuss science, do so. If you just want to troll,
fuck off.
--
Timo
Aetherist
TT Brown's devices are not primarily ion drives, they are dielectic
pumps. Feynman describe its basic principle in his lectures.
David L. Jones
> On Oct 6, 3:12 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 6, 3:03 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The reason it is fringe is because that is /wrong/.
>
> Eric cant think
>
> therefor he isn't.
>
> > You are claiming that
> > this device in your opinion is ONLY an ion drive and thus cannot work.
> > You thus are saying that the discovery of any new principle (like
> > electrostatic propulsion in a vacuum) without your permission is
> > "impossible".
> > Did you notice that there is a subtle difference between "My opinion
> > is completely correct and everyone else is "wrong"" and the statement
> > "In my opinion this thing wouldn't work.". Obviously the only
> > scientific true test is to put the damn thing in a vacuum and see if
> > it still produces force. I see no evidence that your opinion is so
> > infallible that we should accept it without proof or question.
>
> Oh, but here you are wrong. The blind dogmatic faith driven
> preconceived arguments worked for so many years we have to accept it
> as empirical truth. Why else MKULTA, why else COINTELPRO?
>
> x-rays are a hoax and so are heavier than air flying machines, heat
> engines, radiant solar panels. etc etc all nonsense.
>
> After world war I Germany was a very wealthy country. Hitler didn't
> need IBM
Actually, he did:
http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/
Thomas Watson even got a medal from Hitler for his efforts.
Dave.
Benj
> Do you really have no sensible argument? Do you really have to resort to
> deliberately lying and distorting for rhetorical effect (or trolling
> effect)? If you have a real point to make, make it, or fuck off.
I HAVE made it. OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN! And it just flies right
over your stupid head. All you know how to do is shill for the
establishment, twist all reason into political spin and throw chaff
into the wind. Even when you are RIGHT, you still won't even admit
you did the right thing and still defend clowns trying to do a quick
snow job on every one.
I gave you credit for being right. And I stick by it because it's
truth. But I sure don't condone your usual assholey attitude and
defense of people who wouldn't know the scientific method if it bit
them on the ass.
I now return you to your "important" job of building better ways to
kill your fellow humans.
And I don't have to "fuck off" because this is usenet and it
represents something you oppose: Free Speech! And I will continue to
say what I wish right up until those in power finally succeed in
shutting it down! (So far .alt groups are the first to go)
Benj
> TT Brown's devices are not primarily ion drives, they are dielectic
> pumps. Feynman describe its basic principle in his lectures.
Really? Are you saying they work even if the air is not ionized? That
would be interesting. Isn't the aether a dielectric? Doesn't that
imply it would work in a vacuum? Also would violate conservation of
momentum, conservative fields and all the rest and would be an
(apparent) unidirectional force. Tell us more. What is the lectures
page?
Aetherist
Vol II, Chapter 10, Section 10-5 page 10-8 (see figure 10-8 and related text).
OK, when one places a dielectic in an asymmetrical electic field (a field
where the gradient of the field is not zero) each molecule is polarised
and one end, being slightly physically closer to the shaping electrode,
is attracted to it with more force than the other end is to the larger
or dispersive electrode. Thus, if the dielectic is free to, it will
move in the field toward the shaping (smalller, more concentrative)
electrode. Like, as Feynman explains, a small fleck of paper will
be attacted to a comb charged with static electricity even though it
is neutral (has no net charge). This is NOT! an ion flow phenomena.
Of course as flow is started, if the electrodes are exposed ion flow
can be part of the process also. That is why, making the shaping
electrode positive will enhance the effect.
Eric Gisse
> On Oct 6, 3:03 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 5, 8:59 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > > The TT Brown drive is of interest in the following way. In air the TT
> > > Brown drive is basically an Ion wind device (you can buy one over at
> > > the Sharper Image) with enough wind it could fly a light glider. The
> > > fringe story is that the TT Brown device ALSO works in hard vacuum.
>
> > The reason it is fringe is because that is /wrong/. Ion drives without
> > an ion source tend to not work.
>
> What is "wrong" is you. You have assumed the device is ONLY an ion
> drive. Clearly in some cases it would work as one. But the claim has
> also been made that it works in a hard vacuum. You are claiming that
> this device in your opinion is ONLY an ion drive and thus cannot work.
The device in the OP is a wickedly inefficient EM drive that operates
off momentum transfer of the fields. Whether it will actually work or
not, I don't know. The ion wind style devices are lifter devices which
use the air as the driving medium. Neither of these will work for shit
in vacuum.
> The fringe claims it works in a vacuum which obviously means in that
> mode it would not be an ion drive. [Actually it could be, but would
> have to use it's own material rather than surrounding gas for ions]
> You thus are saying that the discovery of any new principle (like
> electrostatic propulsion in a vacuum) without your permission is
> "impossible".
Did I say that? Learn to read.
[snip rest of whining based on watching star trek]