EM drive

[admformeto]

http://emdrive.com/

How does it work?

Mathew Orman

[Marvin the Martian]

If you read the paper and have taken a lower division physics track
introductory physics course, you know it doesn't provide thrust.

You CAN provide thrust using photons, as photons have momentum. That's
not the principle of this thing as the "thruster" emits no photons. On
the emitting side of the engine, there's a big METAL PLATE covering it.

Think Faraday cage. :-D

Here's from one of the papers:
"The inevitable objection raised, is that the apparently closed system
produced by this arrangement cannot result in an output force, but will
merely produce strain within the waveguide walls. However, this ignores
Einstein’s Special Law of Relativity in which separate frames of
reference have to be applied at velocities approaching the speed of
light. Thus the system of EM wave and waveguide can be regarded as an
open system, with the EM wave and the waveguide having separate frames of
reference."
End Quote

Everything after "... merely produce strain within the wave guide walls"
if you haven't noticed, meaningless crap.

The way it "works" is that you get all excited and send these guys a butt
load of money. Then they spend it.

[Oppie]

Look at the 'Theory' link http://emdrive.com/principle.html
Seems improbable though to get thrust without any kind of propellant. Even
the plasma engine uses a very small amount of propellant though accelerates
it greatly.
Alas my brain is stuck in Newtonian mechanics.

"admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu> wrote in message
news:jatdkh$5mg$1...@news.onet.pl...

[7]

admformeto wrote:

> http://emdrive.com/
>
> How does it work?

Video of it working:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57q3_aRiUXs

Generating 0.1N of thrust and slowly spinning the entire apparatus.

Gulp! The pillars of 'known' science is falling apart at the seams!!

If thats working, its probable this also will work:

http://www.enemygadgets.com/stellar.html

[Marvin the Martian]

OMG!! They have a Video on YOUTUBE!! It MUST be new!!

LOL!

[7]

Seriously the guy had a government funding in UK,
the final installment of which was only paid after demonstrations
and has now signed deals with US aerospace company.

Its not possible to fake a large 0.1N thrust.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 15:04:59 +0000, 7 wrote:

> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:42:25 +0000, 7 wrote:
>>
>>> admformeto wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://emdrive.com/
>>>>
>>>> How does it work?
>>>
>>>
>>> Video of it working:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57q3_aRiUXs
>>>
>>> Generating 0.1N of thrust and slowly spinning the entire apparatus.
>>>
>>> Gulp! The pillars of 'known' science is falling apart at the seams!!
>>>
>>> If thats working, its probable this also will work:
>>>
>>> http://www.enemygadgets.com/stellar.html
>>
>> OMG!! They have a Video on YOUTUBE!! It MUST be new!!
>>
>> LOL!
>
>
> Seriously the guy had a government funding in UK,

LOL! Well, if it is the UK, which gave us the funding of the climate gate
frauds... by all means.

Seriously, I've debunked similar crap science that was published and
funded by the government for my graduate thesis. That a idea gets funded
is proof of it's veracity is not only a stupid argument, but it is the
very basis of FRAUD.

> the final installment
> of which was only paid after demonstrations and has now signed deals
> with US aerospace company.
>
> Its not possible to fake a large 0.1N thrust.

T.T. Brown did. He showed all his professors and they were completely
unimpressed. Turns out that his propulsion device was a combination of
interaction with the earth's magnetic field, and an ionic drive effect.

Same story with the Naudin lifter... all well known conventional physics.

A good scientist learns not to full himself.

[7]

It doesn't say that anywhere here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Townsend_Brown
It was a small effect.

> He showed all his professors and they were completely
> unimpressed. Turns out that his propulsion device was a combination of
> interaction with the earth's magnetic field, and an ionic drive effect.
>
> Same story with the Naudin lifter... all well known conventional physics.

Naudin lifter claims 1000 times higher effect than ionic effect.
I can almost not believe it when the equipment is put in a vacuum
and shows this effect because the remaining ions in 10-6 torr vacuum would
accelerate and gain a lot more energy.

> A good scientist learns not to full himself.

I'm not a scientist - just engineer with big interest in science.

[admformeto]

"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:dO2dnQPUGMgmyU_T...@giganews.com...

Well, there is an effect called radiation pressure and it claims that the
momentum is twice of when total reflection compared to total absorption.

I would simply make a cylinder shape resonator and make one of the flat
sides significantly less absorptive.
Thus there should be a net force present as the two flat sides are parallel.
Such device have one disadvantage and that is acceleration makes a Doppler
effect which in turn reduces the thrust. Overall looks like the is no
contradiction to the established physics.
Yet the best is to build a demo sample and observe the real performance to
evaluate the correctness of physical theory behind it.

Mathew Orman

http://www.faster-than-light.us/

[7]

The effect is same as shining a light on an object and expecting
it to move. Its small unfortunately.

1kw source can't generate the 0.1N being claimed for this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57q3_aRiUXs
unless it is a completely different mechanism.

[admformeto]

"7" <email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote in message
news:XEtAq.53103$Rz.4...@newsfe29.ams2...

It is a resonant cavity which means that intensity of radiation inside is
amplified by factor which is determine by Q.
Since Q for superconducting resonator is several orders of magnitude larger
he claims that large thrust can be obtained if SC materials are used.

Mathew Orman

http://www.faster-than-light.us/

[Marvin the Martian]

Yes. That is what he claims. There was an independent study that said, in
effect, he was full of shit. The paper was by Bahder and Fazi. Naudin
even had a link on his page to the paper before he realized that the
paper didn't support his conclusion.

> I can
> almost not believe it when the equipment is put in a vacuum and shows
> this effect because the remaining ions in 10-6 torr vacuum would
> accelerate and gain a lot more energy.
>
>
>> A good scientist learns not to full himself.
>
>
> I'm not a scientist - just engineer with big interest in science.

By all means, take your life savings and invest in these "projects'. LOL!

[Marvin the Martian]

You've never heard of Newton's laws, huh?

Just saying.

[admformeto]

"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message

news:M-adndXwkK7C7E_T...@giganews.com...

What is wrong?

Mathew Orman

http://www.faster-than-light.us/

[Marvin the Martian]

What is wrong is that this thing producing thrust is a violation of
Newton's 2nd and 3rd laws of motion.

Draw a closed surface around the device. Now, where does the force act on
it. There isn't any force acting on it that passes through the surface.
The claim is that the force is entirely within the device itself.
Violation of the 2nd law.

Where's the equal and opposite reaction? That's a violation of the 3rd
law.

If you can't see that, then it isn't worth discussing it with you. ;-D
And you couldn't even pass a Physics 2A test.

[admformeto]

"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message

news:M-adndbwkK4o6E_T...@giganews.com...

No, there is none of such.
It is the action of EM field on the flat wall of the resonator.

Mathew Orman

http://www.faster-than-light.us/

[Marvin the Martian]

You're too ignorant to understand this. Why the hell are you posting in a
physics news group if you don't even know Newton's laws of motion?!

[Marvin the Martian]

I mean, damn. The flat wall of the resonator is BOLTED to the same
housing as the Microwave emitter. There is no force that acts OUTSIDE the
housing.

Your claim is like claiming that the air pressure inside of balloon
causes it to move, and it does NOT.

Learn a little physics.

[7]

The Bahder and Fazi paper
http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0211001
At no place does it claim what you say and their results
are 1000 times effect of ions!!!!!!!
(It does go on to say the effect is reduced in vacuum but Naudin
has video with it present in 10-6 torr vacuum.)

http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0211001 page 27:

6. Summary and Suggested Future Work

We have presented a brief history of the Biefeld-Brown effect: a net force
is observed on an
asymmetric capacitor when a high voltage bias is applied. The physical
mechanism responsible
for this effect is unknown. In section 4, we have presented estimates of the
force on the
capacitor due to the effect of an ionic wind and due to charge drift between
capacitor electrodes.
The force due to ionic wind is at least three orders of magnitude too small.
The force due to
charge drift is plausible, however, the estimates are only scaling
estimates, not a microscopic
model.
In section 5, we have presented a detailed thermodynamic theory of the net
force on a capacitor
that is immersed in a nonlinear dielectric fluid, such as air in a high
electric field. The main
result for the net force on the capacitor is given in equation (33). The
thermodynamic theory
requires knowledge of the dielectric properties of the fluid surrounding the
capacitor plates. It is
not possible to estimate the various contributions to the force until we
have detailed knowledge
about the high-field dielectric properties of the fluid.
More experimental and theoretical work is needed to gain an understanding of
the Biefeld-
Brown effect. As discussed, the most pressing question is whether the
Biefeld-Brown effect
occurs in vacuum. It seems that Brown may have tested the effect in vacuum,
but not reported it
(Appendix B). More recently, there is some preliminary work that tested the
effect in vacuum,
and claimed that there is some small effect—smaller than the force observed
in air; see the
second report cited in reference [2]. Further work must be done to
understand the effect in
detail. A set of experiments must be performed in vacuum, and at various gas
pressures, to
determine the force versus voltage and current. A careful study must be made
of the force as a
function of gas species and gas pressure. In order to test the thermodynamic
theory presented
here, the dielectric properties of the gas must be carefully measured.
Obtaining such data will be
a big step toward developing a theoretical explanation of the effect. On the
theoretical side, a
microscopic model of the capacitor (for a given geometry) must be
constructed, taking into
21
account the complex physics of ionization of air (or other gas) in the
presence of high electric
fields. Only by understanding the Biefeld-Brown effect in detail can its
potential for applications
be evaluated.

> Naudin
> even had a link on his page to the paper before he realized that the
> paper didn't support his conclusion.
>
>
>
>> I can
>> almost not believe it when the equipment is put in a vacuum and shows
>> this effect because the remaining ions in 10-6 torr vacuum would
>> accelerate and gain a lot more energy.
>>
>>
>>> A good scientist learns not to full himself.
>>
>>
>> I'm not a scientist - just engineer with big interest in science.
>
> By all means, take your life savings and invest in these "projects'. LOL!

Talk is cheaper.

[admformeto]

"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message

news:M-adndLwkK6l50_T...@giganews.com...

You need to examine the post more carefully.
I said that two flat walls of cylinder shaped resonator are parallel and if
radiation pressure is not equal on both of them then there is a net force
which act on one flat wall which is the absorptive one.
The Microwave emitter is just a payload and it only adds to the inertia or
mass of the system or craft.

Mathew Orman

http://www.faster-than-light.us/

[7]

Q does not mean amplify!!! - Q means less resistance at a specific
frequency. So a high Q resonant cavity has a tighter tolerance of frequency
bands it will not attenuate, and outside that it will attenuate any signal
entering the cavity and kill it.

> Since Q for superconducting resonator is several orders of magnitude
> larger he claims that large thrust can be obtained if SC materials are
> used.

So his device needs tightly controlled resonant cavity which he can't
get if using magnetron. Magnetrons can easily have +/-10MHz bandwidth
drift and that means a couple of millimeters the resonant cavity must
be tuned to which is very slack!!!


> Mathew Orman
>
> http://www.faster-than-light.us/

[7]

It makes *no* difference to this discussion.

Just like Einstein limit makes *no* difference to solving
the FTL result at CERN.

[Marvin the Martian]

Your clearly don't understand simple physics, nor can you learn.

[Marvin the Martian]

Naudin said the force was 1000 times that which could be due to ions.

Bahder and Fazi point out that the force is greater the same way a high
bypass jet engine produces more thrust than a low bypass jet engine of
the same energy; it moves more mass with a lower velocity causing there
to be more force.

> (It does go on to say the effect is reduced in vacuum but Naudin
> has video with it present in 10-6 torr vacuum.)

Still enough to move ions, which is why it works.

[admformeto]

"7" <email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote in message

news:64vAq.89042$uS.5...@newsfe19.ams2...

Chek the quote from Wiki:

"Sinusoidally driven resonators having higher Q factors resonate with
greater amplitudes (at the resonant frequency) but have ...".
The "but have..." is irrelevant as the design of the resonator allows for
fine tuning.

Mathew Orman

http://www.faster-than-light.us/

[admformeto]

"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message

news:M-adncnwkK7PHE_T...@giganews.com...

Then please, by the way of this example explain where do you see
reaction-less force.

The EM field action on the wall results in reaction of accelerated motion of
the EM drive or a craft.

Mathew Orman

http://www.faster-than-light.us/

[Marvin the Martian]

please, just believe me, you're an idiot.

You don't know basic physics and you can't be educated. That's an idiot.

If there is a force on the plate, then that force produces a force in the
bolts that hold it to the frame, and the frame holds the transmitter,
which must undergo a equal and opposite force. Thus, there is no net
force to drive the machine.

You can't see that. Idiot. I don't mean it in a bad way, just that you
don't understand Newton's laws, and thus you don't have a chance to
understand physics.

[PD]

On 11/27/2011 12:08 PM, admformeto wrote:
>

>
> You need to examine the post more carefully.
> I said that two flat walls of cylinder shaped resonator are parallel and
> if radiation pressure is not equal on both of them then there is a net
> force which act on one flat wall which is the absorptive one.

No. You are not analyzing this correctly.

A hint to you should be that the momentum of a closed system is
conserved. In the analysis you've just provided, momentum would not be
conserved. So what do you think is wrong?

[7]

Nope. You snipped the answer to ride over the results.
Refer to earlier post, or the original article and its summary
They have no idea why it works and they say in plain English:
http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0211001 page 27

>> (It does go on to say the effect is reduced in vacuum but Naudin
>> has video with it present in 10-6 torr vacuum.)
>
> Still enough to move ions, which is why it works.

In your opinion only, and I can take on board as a sensible comment.
However, it is not supported by the research results:
http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0211001 page 27

[7]

Thats completely correct - attenuation is less at the resonant frequency
which means higher amplitude compared to non-resonant frequencies, but it
does not mean it amplifies a signal where putting in a small signal leads to
a bigger signal out.

The microwaves definitely do not get amplified inside a higher Q resonator.
All that a high Q means is that frequencies outside of the resonance
of the cavity are diminished in strength more quickly than the
signals at the resonant frequency.

[admformeto]

"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message

news:iqSdnT8FePZ-Gk_T...@giganews.com...

Transmitter just feeds low intensity radiation into the resonator it get
amplified by hundred thousands of times.
Also one can just use the microwave transmitter as a thruster but the thrust
will be significantly smaller.

See the newscientist discussion:

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/fromthepublisher/2006/10/emdrive-on-trial.html

Mathew Orman

http://www.faster-than-light.us/

[Tim Wescott]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 07:48:05 -0600, Marvin the Martian wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:23:26 +0100, admformeto wrote:
>
>> http://emdrive.com/
>>
>> How does it work?
>>

>> Mathew Orman
>
> If you read the paper and have taken a lower division physics track
> introductory physics course, you know it doesn't provide thrust.
>
<< snip >>
> The way it "works" is that you get all excited and send these guys a
> butt load of money. Then they spend it.

You beat me to it. Apparently it works on the UK government, although
someone certainly should be asking just who they talked out of all the
money, and if they can get it back.

--
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?

Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software
http://www.wescottdesign.com

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:45:07 -0600, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 07:48:05 -0600, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:23:26 +0100, admformeto wrote:
>>
>>> http://emdrive.com/
>>>
>>> How does it work?
>>>
>>> Mathew Orman
>>
>> If you read the paper and have taken a lower division physics track
>> introductory physics course, you know it doesn't provide thrust.
>>
> << snip >>
>> The way it "works" is that you get all excited and send these guys a
>> butt load of money. Then they spend it.
>
>You beat me to it. Apparently it works on the UK government, although
>someone certainly should be asking just who they talked out of all the
>money, and if they can get it back.

The UK government certainly isn't unique. Think: Solyndra

[7]

Well if the thing turned a couple of full circles - then cheating is hardly
a proposition with 0.1N force even if you personally can't believe it.

Video of it working:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57q3_aRiUXs

You would have to accuse them of being fakes which frankly is
out of order.

[ehsjr]

admformeto wrote:
> http://emdrive.com/
>
> How does it work?
>

> Mathew Orman

Nothing new about it - it uses an old scientific principle: leverage.
It's a lever of BS that pivots on a fulcrum of gullibility, and is
intended to pry money loose.

Ed

[Marvin the Martian]

Pretty sad for science, huh? Find the guy (or in one case, gal) who
controls the distribution of tax payer money, and then kick back a
percentage.

The research doesn't even have to be real. In fact, it is better if you
work on some hypothesis that can't be falsified and is slathered in rich
juicy bullshit - that way the gravy train just never ends.

Meanwhile, the honest researcher doesn't get funded for his far less
exciting "real science".

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 21:55:58 +0000, 7 wrote:


> Well if the thing turned a couple of full circles - then cheating is
> hardly a proposition with 0.1N force even if you personally can't
> believe it.
>
> Video of it working:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57q3_aRiUXs

BFD. There are many way I can make a thing like that rotate: vibrators
and a clutch mechanism, magnetic interaction, blowers, all kinds of ways.

A YouTube Video is just weak. I'm sorry that you will settle for a
"YouTube" video.

> You would have to accuse them of being fakes which frankly is out of
> order.

Well, they're fakes. The only question is have they fooled themselves or
do they know they're fakes.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 21:35:46 -0600, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org>

wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:49:44 -0600, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:45:07 -0600, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 07:48:05 -0600, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:23:26 +0100, admformeto wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://emdrive.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> How does it work?
>>>>>
>>>>> Mathew Orman
>>>>
>>>> If you read the paper and have taken a lower division physics track
>>>> introductory physics course, you know it doesn't provide thrust.
>>>>
>>> << snip >>
>>>> The way it "works" is that you get all excited and send these guys a
>>>> butt load of money. Then they spend it.
>>>
>>>You beat me to it. Apparently it works on the UK government, although
>>>someone certainly should be asking just who they talked out of all the
>>>money, and if they can get it back.
>>
>> The UK government certainly isn't unique. Think: Solyndra
>
>Pretty sad for science, huh? Find the guy (or in one case, gal) who
>controls the distribution of tax payer money, and then kick back a
>percentage.

It's even sadder that science isn't unique. Think: unions.

>The research doesn't even have to be real. In fact, it is better if you
>work on some hypothesis that can't be falsified and is slathered in rich
>juicy bullshit - that way the gravy train just never ends.

Why does AGW come to mind?

>Meanwhile, the honest researcher doesn't get funded for his far less
>exciting "real science".

...and the taxpayer gets ripped off seven ways from Sunday.

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 28, 5:12 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 21:35:46 -0600, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:49:44 -0600, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:45:07 -0600, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 07:48:05 -0600, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
> >>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:23:26 +0100, admformeto wrote:
>
> >>>>>http://emdrive.com/
>
> >>>>> How does it work?
>
> >>>>> Mathew Orman
>
> >>>> If you read the paper and have taken a lower division physics track
> >>>> introductory physics course, you know it doesn't provide thrust.
>
> >>> << snip >>
> >>>> The way it "works" is that you get all excited and send these guys a
> >>>> butt load of money. Then they spend it.
>
> >>>You beat me to it.  Apparently it works on the UK government, although
> >>>someone certainly should be asking just who they talked out of all the
> >>>money, and if they can get it back.
>
> >> The UK government certainly isn't unique.  Think: Solyndra
>
> >Pretty sad for science, huh? Find the guy (or in one case, gal) who
> >controls the distribution of tax payer money, and then kick back a
> >percentage.
>
> It's even sadder that science isn't unique.  Think: unions.

That is the way that US employers approach industrial relations - they
seem to feel the need to corrupt union officials while intimidating
the incorruptible, and then go on to complain that the unions are run
by the criminals that they taken pains to select.

> >The research doesn't even have to be real. In fact, it is better if you
> >work on some hypothesis that can't be falsified and is slathered in rich
> >juicy bullshit - that way the gravy train just never ends.
>
> Why does AGW come to mind?

Because you have been reading denialist propaganda, and lack the
education (not to mention the critical skills) to recongise it as
misleading lies.

> >Meanwhile, the honest researcher doesn't get funded for his far less
> >exciting "real science".
>
> ...and the taxpayer gets ripped off seven ways from Sunday.

The people funding the denialist propaganda - Exxon-Mobil amongst
others - enjoy a variety of tax loop holes that rip off a lot more
money from the US taxpayer than has even been spent on academic
research.

If you want a truly spectacular rip-off, look at the difference
between what you spend on "defence" - some $698 billion - and what you
ought to be spending on defence, which is the sum of what ypour two
closest competitors - China and France - are spending ($114.3 and
$61.3 billion respectively). The difference - some $500 billion -
seems to be corporate welfare for the military industrial complex,
most of which seems to get spent on BS development projects that get
canned before the system involved get put into production.

Of course, some of that does pay your wages, which makes you one of
the confidence tricksters.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[Les Cargill]

Bill Sloman wrote:
<snip>

>
> The people funding the denialist propaganda - Exxon-Mobil amongst
> others - enjoy a variety of tax loop holes that rip off a lot more
> money from the US taxpayer than has even been spent on academic
> research.
>

False. Quite false. There are no loopholes unique to oil
operations. They just happen to be both a mining and industrial
operation, so there's a richer set of available tax options.

Oil companies run leaner and create more consumer surplus per unit
profit than just about any other kind of corporation.

And academic research never was particularly spent-on.

> If you want a truly spectacular rip-off, look at the difference
> between what you spend on "defence" - some $698 billion - and what you
> ought to be spending on defence, which is the sum of what ypour two
> closest competitors - China and France - are spending ($114.3 and
> $61.3 billion respectively). The difference - some $500 billion -
> seems to be corporate welfare for the military industrial complex,

No, it is mainly local boondoggles. Pork. It also has a pretty high rate
of return to the general economy.

Some years back? Yes. Now? No.

> most of which seems to get spent on BS development projects that get
> canned before the system involved get put into production.
>
> Of course, some of that does pay your wages, which makes you one of
> the confidence tricksters.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
>

--
Les Cargill

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 28, 12:18 pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
> Bill Sloman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > The people funding the denialist propaganda - Exxon-Mobil amongst
> > others - enjoy a variety of tax loop holes that rip off a lot more
> > money from the US taxpayer than has even been spent on academic
> > research.
>
> False. Quite false.

Care to find some numbers?

> There are no loopholes unique to oil
> operations.

Are you sure? In any event my argument didn't depend on oil companies
getting their own specific tax loop holes - the US has one of the
highest maximum rates of corporation tax in the world, and one of the
lower collection rates of corporation taxes, entirely because of the
"rich set of tax options", more accurately described as tax loop-holes
and the oil- and coal-mining- industries are just some of the
industries riding the gravy train.

> They just happen to be both a mining and industrial
> operation, so there's a richer set of available tax options.

The famous depletion allowances, which most objective commentators see
as ripping off the US taxpayer.
Since 1979, the richest 1% of the US population has seen its income
rise by 275% while the poorest 80% has seen their income decline. Tax
loopholes for the rich have contributed generously to this skewing of
the income distribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

> Oil companies run leaner and create more consumer surplus per unit
> profit than just about any other kind of corporation.

Until you start counting the defence department expenditures to
protect their oil wells and supply routes.

> And academic research never was particularly spent-on.
>
> > If you want a truly spectacular rip-off, look at the difference
> > between what you spend on "defence" - some $698 billion - and what you
> > ought to be spending on defence, which is the sum of what ypour two
> > closest competitors - China and France - are spending ($114.3 and
> > $61.3 billion respectively). The difference - some $500 billion -
> > seems to be corporate welfare for the military industrial complex,
>
> No, it is mainly local boondoggles. Pork. It also has a pretty high rate
> of return to the general economy.
>
> Some years back? Yes. Now? No.

Those are 2010 numbers. The fact that pork benefits the fat cats in
the local economies doesn't make it any less of a rip-off for the tax-
payers funding the 1% of the population that includes those fat cats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[Tony M]

On Nov 27, 11:19 am, "admformeto" <admform...@onet.eu> wrote:
> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in messagenews:dO2dnQPUGMgmyU_T...@giganews.com...

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 15:04:59 +0000, 7 wrote:
>

> >> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
> >>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:42:25 +0000, 7 wrote:
>

> >>>> admformeto wrote:
>
> >>>>>http://emdrive.com/
>
> >>>>> How does it work?
>

> >>>> Video of it working:
> >>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57q3_aRiUXs
>

> >>>> Generating 0.1N of thrust and slowly spinning the entire apparatus.
>
> >>>> Gulp! The pillars of 'known' science is falling apart at the seams!!
>
> >>>> If thats working, its probable this also will work:
>
> >>>>http://www.enemygadgets.com/stellar.html
>
> >>> OMG!! They have a Video on YOUTUBE!! It MUST be new!!
>
> >>> LOL!
>
> >> Seriously the guy had a government funding in UK,
>
> > LOL! Well, if it is the UK, which gave us the funding of the climate gate
> > frauds... by all means.
>
> > Seriously, I've debunked similar crap science that was published and
> > funded by the government for my graduate thesis. That a idea gets funded
> > is proof of it's veracity is not only a stupid argument, but it is the
> > very basis of FRAUD.
>
> >> the final installment
> >> of which was only paid after demonstrations and has now signed deals
> >> with US aerospace company.
>
> >> Its not possible to fake a large 0.1N thrust.
>
> > T.T. Brown did. He showed all his professors and they were completely
> > unimpressed. Turns out that his propulsion device was a combination of
> > interaction with the earth's magnetic field, and an ionic drive effect.
>
> > Same story with the Naudin lifter... all well known conventional physics.
>
> > A good scientist learns not to full himself.
>
> Well, there is an effect called radiation pressure and it claims that the
> momentum is twice of when total reflection compared to total absorption.
>

You managed to fool yourself by taking this out of some context. The
above applies to light-sails which are powered remotely by a laser.
The key word here is "remotely", the laser doesn't travel with the
light-sail. In this case yes, the thrust is double if the light is
fully reflected backwards vs being fully absorbed. Now I will let you
analyse the case where the laser travels with the light-sail,
reflection vs absorbtion vs pointing the laser the other way.

> I would simply make a cylinder shape resonator and make one of the flat
> sides significantly less absorptive.
> Thus there should be a net force present as the two flat sides are parallel.
> Such device have one disadvantage and that is acceleration makes a Doppler
> effect which in turn reduces the thrust. Overall looks like the is no
> contradiction to the established physics.

1. Two photons of equal momentum emitted in opposite directions = zero
net momentum on the system

reflecting source absorbing
|----------------------------------------|
| < * > |
|----------------------------------------|

2. Momentum on the reflecting wall 2M, momentum on the absorbing wall -
M, net momentum 2M-M=M

reflecting source absorbing
|----------------------------------------|
|> * >|
|----------------------------------------|

3. Current system momentum M, reflected photon reaches opposite
absorbing wall, momentum on the absorbing wall -M, net momentum M-M=0

reflecting source absorbing
|----------------------------------------|
| * >|
|----------------------------------------|

4. Repeat from step 1.

Result:
No resonant cavity, no net momentum.

> Yet the best is to build a demo sample and observe the real performance to
> evaluate the correctness of physical theory behind it.
>
> Mathew Orman
>

> http://www.faster-than-light.us/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[mathe...@rocketmail.com]

On 27 Lis, 20:25, 7
<email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> admformeto wrote:
>
> > "7" <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_...@enemygadgets.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:64vAq.89042$uS.5...@newsfe19.ams2...
> >> admformeto wrote:
>
> >>> "7" <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_...@enemygadgets.com> wrote in
> >>> messagenews:XEtAq.53103$Rz.4...@newsfe29.ams2...

I guess you cannot comprehend a process of integration.
Resonant cavity is a energy storage which stores several hundred of
thousand
of waves when in resonance.

Mathew Orman

http://www.faster-than-light.us/

[mathe...@rocketmail.com]

> >http://www.faster-than-light.us/-Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -

Yes, you are correct in your analogy.
But this is a resonant cavity in microwave region in which
constructive and or destructive interference changes the intensity at
wall intersection.
If you consider the same wave bouncing back and forth you will notice
that there is a net force on absorbing wall.

Mathew Orman

http://www.faster-than-light.us/

[PD]

On 11/27/2011 7:23 AM, admformeto wrote:
> http://emdrive.com/
>
> How does it work?
>

> Mathew Orman

Why are you fussing over this when your promised deliverable is now
weeks late?

[Les Cargill]

Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Nov 28, 12:18 pm, Les Cargill<lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
>> Bill Sloman wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> The people funding the denialist propaganda - Exxon-Mobil amongst
>>> others - enjoy a variety of tax loop holes that rip off a lot more
>>> money from the US taxpayer than has even been spent on academic
>>> research.
>>
>> False. Quite false.
>
> Care to find some numbers?
>

It is not a "numbers" thing. It is a narrative and facts thing.

>> There are no loopholes unique to oil
>> operations.
>
> Are you sure?

yes. I got hammered saying the exact same thing you are, and
found I was wrong.

> In any event my argument didn't depend on oil companies
> getting their own specific tax loop holes

Yes, yes it does. It is logically equivalent to what you said.

> - the US has one of the
> highest maximum rates of corporation tax in the world, and one of the
> lower collection rates of corporation taxes, entirely because of the
> "rich set of tax options", more accurately described as tax loop-holes
> and the oil- and coal-mining- industries are just some of the
> industries riding the gravy train.
>

I honestly don't know what to make of this mess. I can't really
read it, goalpost shifting to the side.

SFAIK, corporations pay exactly what they are legally obligated to
pay. I can't think of an improvement on that as a standard.

Corporations can certainly be big and dumb, but I get weary
of them being the perfect whipping boy for all our evils.

>> They just happen to be both a mining and industrial
>> operation, so there's a richer set of available tax options.
>
> The famous depletion allowances, which most objective commentators see
> as ripping off the US taxpayer.

I will never, ever buy that, because the probability that a taxpayer is
not also a customer is very close to zero. You'd be moving money around
in a useless cycle.

> Since 1979, the richest 1% of the US population has seen its income
> rise by 275% while the poorest 80% has seen their income decline.

Yes - although it's quite difficult to say these changes are as you
seem to think they are. We literally have families who struggle to make
ends meet on $250k, and it is not as ridiculous as it might seem.
Meanwhile, the poor have relatively comfortable lives. So it's messy.

> Tax
> loopholes for the rich have contributed generously to this skewing of
> the income distribution.
>

No, I do not believe that this is true. The richest 1% does not
include corporations. it includes people who are paid by corporations.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States
>
>> Oil companies run leaner and create more consumer surplus per unit
>> profit than just about any other kind of corporation.
>
> Until you start counting the defence department expenditures to
> protect their oil wells and supply routes.
>

That is a particularly ahistoric view of things. Who founded,
for example, ARAMCO?

>> And academic research never was particularly spent-on.
>>
>>> If you want a truly spectacular rip-off, look at the difference
>>> between what you spend on "defence" - some $698 billion - and what you
>>> ought to be spending on defence, which is the sum of what ypour two
>>> closest competitors - China and France - are spending ($114.3 and
>>> $61.3 billion respectively). The difference - some $500 billion -
>>> seems to be corporate welfare for the military industrial complex,
>>
>> No, it is mainly local boondoggles. Pork. It also has a pretty high rate
>> of return to the general economy.
>>
>> Some years back? Yes. Now? No.
>
> Those are 2010 numbers.

Right. That is what I mean. Ironically, $500B isn't all that much in
the larger scheme of things.

> The fact that pork benefits the fat cats in
> the local economies doesn't make it any less of a rip-off for the tax-
> payers funding the 1% of the population that includes those fat cats.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
>

I just don't know where to start with this mess.

1) The US was staunchly isolationist in 1940. By 1945 that had been
overcome by a *MASSIVE* propaganda effort ( the OSS repopulated Madison
Avenue with executives after they demobbed post-War ).

2) Herbert Hoover thought we should stay out of the War and let
germany and the Soviets go to Hades in their own way.

If we mobbed up the military, it is because Europe was on fire.
Once established, as Eisenhower said in his final speech, it's
very difficult to unload all that. One can clearly see that
Vietnam and Iraq were at least partly the public choice
inevitability of this.

There is a Pax Americana, that followed the failed Pax Bismarck,
and you're soaking in it. Sure, there's a Public Choice bonanza in
defense, but I can tell you from direct observation
that it's not exactly a scam.

> <snip>
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

--
Les Cargill

[Charlie E.]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 20:40:00 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
wrote:

>
>Transmitter just feeds low intensity radiation into the resonator it get
>amplified by hundred thousands of times.
>Also one can just use the microwave transmitter as a thruster but the thrust
>will be significantly smaller.
>
>See the newscientist discussion:
>
>http://www.newscientist.com/blog/fromthepublisher/2006/10/emdrive-on-trial.html
>
>Mathew Orman
>
>http://www.faster-than-light.us/
>
>

Hi Mush for Brains,
Sorry, but a resonator does not 'amplify' a signal thousands of times.
Instead, it STORES the energy that is fed in to it, building it up
into a specific resonant (or multiple resonant) frequency. No magic
energy is added, it is just filtered and stored. If you let energy
out, it is gone forever until you build it back up again. If you
don't know even this level of physics, I sure wouldn't trust you to
know anything more complicated!

Charlie

[Charlie E.]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 19:39:28 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
wrote:

>
>Chek the quote from Wiki:
>
>"Sinusoidally driven resonators having higher Q factors resonate with
>greater amplitudes (at the resonant frequency) but have ...".
>The "but have..." is irrelevant as the design of the resonator allows for
>fine tuning.
>
>Mathew Orman
>
>http://www.faster-than-light.us/
>

Yes, they resonate at greater amplitudes, but they get their energy
from the input power. Power is still less than power out!

Charlie

[Charlie E.]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 06:55:09 -0800 (PST), mathe...@rocketmail.com
wrote:

>
>Yes, you are correct in your analogy.
>But this is a resonant cavity in microwave region in which
>constructive and or destructive interference changes the intensity at
>wall intersection.
>If you consider the same wave bouncing back and forth you will notice
>that there is a net force on absorbing wall.
>
>Mathew Orman
>
>http://www.faster-than-light.us/

Sa Wha???

Wave bounces back and forth in resonator. One wall is covered with a
slight absorber (carbon black?). First, you just made your Hi-Q have
lower Q. Second, assuming a rigid resonator (has to be rigid, or it
wouldn't resonate!) any possible force is transmitted through the
structure and would only cause a slight dimensional change in the
resonator (which would also change resonance!) All in all, the pot
has a large crack in the bottom... ;-)

Charlie

[7]

If you are claiming the video is a fake, then there is nothing
further to discuss.

[Wanderer]

On Nov 27, 8:23 am, "admformeto" <admform...@onet.eu> wrote:
> http://emdrive.com/
>
> How does it work?
>
> Mathew Orman

A similar and simpler device is the Dean Drive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_drive

You can make a simple version of one with a 1/4 full one gallon milk
jug. Slide the jug across a table. If the friction of the table is
right, the milk will slosh up the side of the jug and stop the jug.
The milk then sloshes to the other side and starts the milk jug moving
again. It may seem like the milk is storing and supplying momentum but
it is really just storing and supplying energy and reacting with the
table to transfer momentum to and from the earth.

[admformeto]

"Charlie E." <edmo...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:csn7d7lan2klrir0t...@4ax.com...

Who says it does?
It is only the intensity at the intersection point.
If you make another output in resonator the intensity on the output will be
less than at the input
because of some losses in resonator.
The only difference will be when you turn off input the output will continue
in form decaying waveforms with decay time dependent on Q factor of the

[admformeto]

"Charlie E." <edmo...@ieee.org> wrote in message

news:veo7d7dgopcfju3e8...@4ax.com...

To create partially reflective conductive plate pattern embossing is used
not black oxidizing.
It is not an Ethalon and it is microwave (centimeter waves) not microns like
in photon case.
Also photon cannot be partially absorbed like EM wave does.

Mathew Orman

http://www.faster-than-light.us/

[admformeto]

"Wanderer" <wand...@dialup4less.com> wrote in message
news:8c25c30d-da8d-4a1f...@f3g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

That invention does not work.
There is no such property as reaction less force.
If there is no reaction then there is no force generated as per definition
of force.
It is like saying "Nothing can push or pull".

Mathew Orman

http://www.faster-than-light.us/

[Wanderer]

On Nov 28, 4:00 pm, "admformeto" <admform...@onet.eu> wrote:
> "Wanderer" <wande...@dialup4less.com> wrote in message

Yes the reactionless drive doesn't work. But try the milk jug trick.
It gives the illusion of a reactionless drive. In reality the friction
of the table and the mass of the earth are what make it look like it
works. It's a trick.

[admformeto]

"Wanderer" <wand...@dialup4less.com> wrote in message

news:8ec148a1-869b-4fb2...@d12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

Yes, there are many alike and some are still clamed as real.

Mathew Orman

http://www.faster-than-light.us/

[7]

A couple of waves yes, several hundred thousand NO.
Each reflection looses 5%. By about 20 reflections you got nothing.
So max energy stored is some 20 times max the input energy in each
wave if the resonant cavity has low loss.

[admformeto]

"7" <email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote in message

news:u3VAq.97574$WC5....@newsfe09.ams2...

Yes, but this resonator uses superconducting materials and the Q value claim
was for such configuration.

Mathew Orman

http://www.faster-than-light.us/

[Marvin the Martian]

Since you don't know physics, and if you see a video of a thing slowly
turning you're willing to believe any absurd explanation and get all bent
out of shape when it is pointed out you're being ignorant, yeah.

[Marvin the Martian]

If that doesn't work, then the EM drive doesn't work. Same problem.
Reactionless force.

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Nov 28, 12:55 pm, "admformeto" <admform...@onet.eu> wrote:
> "Charlie E." <edmond...@ieee.org> wrote in message
>
> news:veo7d7dgopcfju3e8...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 06:55:09 -0800 (PST), mathewor...@rocketmail.com

> > wrote:
>
> >>Yes, you are correct in your analogy.
> >>But this is a resonant cavity in microwave region in which
> >>constructive and or destructive interference changes the intensity at
> >>wall intersection.
> >>If you consider the same wave bouncing back and forth you will notice
> >>that there is a net force on absorbing wall.
>
> >>Mathew Orman
>
> >>http://www.faster-than-light.us/
>
> > Sa Wha???
>
> > Wave bounces back and forth in resonator.  One wall is covered with a
> > slight absorber (carbon black?).  First, you just made your Hi-Q have
> > lower Q.  Second, assuming a rigid resonator (has to be rigid, or it
> > wouldn't resonate!) any possible force is transmitted through the
> > structure and would only cause a slight dimensional change in the
> > resonator (which would also change resonance!)  All in all, the pot
> > has a large crack in the bottom... ;-)
>
> > Charlie
>
> To create partially reflective conductive plate pattern embossing is used
> not black oxidizing.

Bafflegab. The object of the reflecting walls at the ends of a
resonator (oversimplified but those who know resonators will get it)
is to contain a quantity of energy at a specific frequency as a
pattern of fields within the resonator. If one end "partially
reflects" the total microwave energy impacting it back into the
resonator, it therefore "partially doesn't reflect" some of that
energy back into the resonator.

Where, then, does the not-reflected portion of the energy go?

If any of the energy does not get reflected back to the other wall,
the Q lowers. How did you think Q is defined?

http://www.rp-photonics.com/q_factor.html

"...the Q factor is 2π times the ratio of the stored energy to the
energy dissipated per oscillation cycle, or equivalently the ratio of
the stored energy to the energy dissipated per radian of the
oscillation. For a microwave or optical resonator, one oscillation
cycle is understood as corresponding to the field oscillation period,
not the round-trip period."

The more energy not-partially-reflected back into the resonator, the
lower the Q. By definition.

> It is not an Ethalon and it is microwave (centimeter waves) not microns like
> in photon case.

Doesn't matter, could be ten-meter "short waves" or many-kilometer
ELF.

> Also photon cannot be partially absorbed like EM wave does.

Oh, here we go again. Photons *are* EM waves.

> http://www.faster-than-light.us/

Oh, look! It's going to launch three days ago!


Mark L. Fergerson

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 28, 8:14 pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
> BillSlomanwrote:
> > On Nov 28, 12:18 pm, Les Cargill<lcargil...@comcast.com>  wrote:
> >>BillSlomanwrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>> The people funding the denialist propaganda - Exxon-Mobil amongst
> >>> others - enjoy a variety of tax loop holes that rip off a lot more
> >>> money from the US taxpayer than has even been spent on academic
> >>> research.
>
> >> False. Quite false.
>
> > Care to find some numbers?
>
> It is not a "numbers" thing. It is a narrative and facts thing.

The fact is that nobody spends a lot of money on academic research,
and the tax loop holes involve serious money. If you want to argue
with that, it would be nice if you found some numbers to support your
implausible position.

Here's the 2011 National Science foundation budget totalling $6,859.87
million.

http://www.nsf.gov/about/congress/112/highlights/cu11_0523.jsp

Here's a discussion of corporate tax loop holes

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_welfare/real_tax_rates_plummet.php

where individual companies seem to be skimming more than the NSF has
to spend.

> >> There are no loopholes unique to oil
> >> operations.
>
> > Are you sure?
>
> yes. I got hammered saying the exact same thing you are, and
> found I was wrong.
>
> > In any event my argument didn't depend on oil companies
> > getting their own specific tax loop holes
>
> Yes, yes it does. It is logically equivalent to what you said.

No. What I said was "The people funding the denialist propaganda -

Exxon-Mobil amongst
others - enjoy a variety of tax loop holes that rip off a lot more
money from the US taxpayer than has even been spent on academic
research."

This isn't saying that they enjoy tax loop holes specific to their
industry, merely that they - like may other US corporations - exploit
loop-holes that reduce their corporate taxes

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/05/tax_man.html

> > - the US has one of the
> > highest maximum rates of corporation tax in the world, and one of the
> > lower collection rates of corporation taxes, entirely because of the
> > "rich set of tax options", more accurately described as tax loop-holes
> > and the oil- and coal-mining- industries are just some of the
> > industries riding the gravy train.
>
> I honestly don't know what to make of this mess. I can't really
> read it, goalpost shifting to the side.

The goal posts haven't shifted at all. You just didn't read my post
very carefully.

> SFAIK, corporations pay exactly what they are legally obligated to
> pay. I can't think of an improvement on that as a standard.

The corporations get the tax loop holes written into law, so it is all
perfectly legal - tax avoidance rather than tax evasion - totally
immoral, and depressingly stupid.

> Corporations can certainly be big and dumb, but I get weary
> of them being the perfect whipping boy for all our evils.

Unfortunately they aren't dumb. They spend big momey on getting
lobbyists to speakt to legislators on their behalf to get their tax
loopholes written into law, and Exxon-Mobil has famously spent some
$20 million on funding denialist propaganda via front organisations

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Exxon_Mobil

> >> They just happen to be both a mining and industrial
> >> operation, so there's a richer set of available tax options.
>
> > The famous depletion allowances, which most objective commentators see
> > as ripping off the US taxpayer.
>
> I will never, ever buy that, because the probability that a taxpayer is
> not also a customer is very close to zero. You'd be moving money around
> in a useless cycle.

It's the share-holder who get the benefit, rather than the customers.

> > Since 1979, the richest 1% of the US population has seen its income
> > rise by 275% while the poorest 80% has seen their income decline.
>
> Yes - although it's quite difficult to say these changes are as you
> seem to think they are. We literally have families who struggle to make
> ends meet on $250k, and it is not as ridiculous as it might seem.
> Meanwhile, the poor have relatively comfortable lives. So it's messy.

The top 1% in the US has done a lot better than top 1% in most other
countries - the US has an unusually high GINI index for an advanced
industrial country, and it seems to be gettin gmore unequal, which is
also unusual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

> > Tax
> > loopholes for the rich have contributed generously to this skewing of
> > the income distribution.
>
> No, I do not believe that this is true. The richest 1% does not

> include corporations. It includes people who are paid by corporations.

Correct, corporations aren't individuals in this context. The richest
1% are individuals who have a lot of shares in corporations, sometimes
a controlling interest.

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States
>
> >> Oil companies run leaner and create more consumer surplus per unit
> >> profit than just about any other kind of corporation.
>
> > Until you start counting the defence department expenditures to
> > protect their oil wells and supply routes.
>
> That is a particularly ahistoric view of things. Who founded,
> for example, ARAMCO?

What has that got to do with anything? The US-orchestrated recovery of
Kuwait from Saddam Hussein after he'd invaded the place was paid for
by the Defence Department, not the oil companies.

> >> And academic research never was particularly spent-on.
>
> >>> If you want a truly spectacular rip-off, look at the difference
> >>> between what you spend on "defence" - some $698 billion - and what you
> >>> ought to be spending on defence, which is the sum of what ypour two
> >>> closest competitors - China and France - are spending ($114.3 and
> >>> $61.3 billion respectively). The difference - some $500 billion -
> >>> seems to be corporate welfare for the military industrial complex,
>
> >> No, it is mainly local boondoggles. Pork. It also has a pretty high rate
> >> of return to the general economy.
>
> >> Some years back? Yes. Now? No.
>
> > Those are 2010 numbers.
>
> Right. That is what I mean. Ironically, $500B isn't all that much in
> the larger scheme of things.

It's close to half the deficit - not insignificant.

> > The fact that pork benefits the fat cats in
> > the local economies doesn't make it any less of a rip-off for the tax-
> > payers funding the 1% of the population that includes those fat cats.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
>
> I just don't know where to start with this mess.
>
> 1) The US was staunchly isolationist in 1940. By 1945 that had been
> overcome by a *MASSIVE* propaganda effort ( the OSS repopulated Madison
> Avenue with executives after they demobbed post-War ).
>
> 2) Herbert Hoover thought we should stay out of the War and let
> germany and the Soviets go to Hades in their own way.
>
> If we mobbed up the military, it is because Europe was on fire.
> Once established, as Eisenhower said in his final speech, it's
> very difficult to unload all that. One can clearly see that
> Vietnam and Iraq were at least partly the public choice
> inevitability of this.

You started way too early. WW2 ended in 1945. The question only gets
interesting after 1991

http://milexdata.sipri.org/result.php4

only goes back to 1988, when the US was spending $532 billion against
the Russian's $296 billion and France's $67.4 billion - $169 billion
more than it's two closest rivals, an extravagance that had the useful
effect of persuading the Russian's to spend more on defence than they
could afford, which lead to the disintegration of the USSR in 1991.

You'd won at the point, but rather than turning off the extravagant
spending, you kept at it ...

<snipped the irrelevant comments about Pax Americana - which ought now
to be costing you about $180 billion per year, not the $698 billion
you are spending>

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[Robert Baer]

admformeto wrote:
> http://emdrive.com/
>
> How does it work?
>
> Mathew Orman

"NEW"???
Yawn!
Been around for over a decade - one aspect is the light sail that
needs NO internal power...
Another aspect is the lazer beam..

[Saint Isadore Patron Saint of the Internet]

On Nov 27, 5:23 am, "admformeto" <admform...@onet.eu> wrote:
> http://emdrive.com/
>
> How does it work?
>
> Mathew Orman

Very well it seems. With more R & D this could replace all energy
needs
for planet Earth.