typodupeerror

## Comment Re: Looking more and more likely all the time... (Score 1)502502

What do you think is more likely.
What is more likely to be right in the end:
a) half a dozen research institutes run by real scientists claiming: there might/is something about the drive
b) a few hundred /. posters who dismiss it as "can't work" based on mediocre (mainly american) physics education
???

My bet is on the Scientists.

## Comment Re: Looking more and more likely all the time... (Score 1)502502

This "article" does not claim that a (general) "reaction less drive" automatically is a violation of the law "of conversation of impulse".

It only claims that the drive in question is, which is wrong, as the authors don't grasp that law ;D

Pretty simple speaking: the law of conversation of impulse simply says nothing about reaction less drives. Hence why I'm nitpicking on everyone claiming this bullshit.

The law of conservation of momentum only affects situations/stuff where momentum is exchanged. Basic example is the "boy throwing out rocks at the end of the boat".

It says nothing about a boat getting momentum by "other means" ... plain and simple.

## Comment Re: Looking more and more likely all the time... (Score 1)502502

Impulse is a mathematical construct. Nothing else.

Imagine two identical cars colliding with exactly the same speed straight ahead.

After the impact they both sit exactly on the same spot damaged with the front crushed and their impulse is ZERO.

Now we wonder how that can be as both cars, depending on speed, had quite a high impulse/momentum before the crash.

However if you understand math you figure that "impulse" is not only m * v but a vector; and on top of that we understand the total impulse (sum of the impuls/momentums) was ZERO already before the crash.

So ... in case of this particular EM drive we only need to figure what the other "thing" is that gains momentum or accept that there are ways to gain momentum that do not violate the "law of conversation of momentum".

(Because that law does not even touch other ways, it only makes clear under which circumstances it considers not to be violated, and the EM drive is IMHO not such a circumstance)

## Comment Re:Physics time! (Score 1)502502

Oh, that is simple.

I don't insult other people for no reason :D for a start.

And I eat and drink in most pubs (which I frequent, not those, where I'm only once a month, obviously) in my town for free. Actually I guess if I would ask the waitresses would even feed me :D but I guess in public that would be more embarrassing than fun.

How do you feed? I hope you switched your diet away from little children. I can understand they are tasty when freshly roasted and not to old, but keep in mind: humans have very bad eating habits. They are full with heavy metals and other poisons. Most humans (I mean their meat) would not pass the tests in a german butchery.

## Comment Re: Looking more and more likely all the time... (Score 1)502502

"Forward theory" means:
o Someone has a theory
o Afterwards they try to build a device following that theory

Like with the A-Bomb.

With that drive it is just the same. The inventor published his ideas years ago, and now scientists around the globe try to build a device according to his theories.

The original theory presented has been torn to pieces
Any links to that?

## Comment Re: Looking more and more likely all the time... (Score 1)502502

Then explain why it does it.
For me it does not.

The law of conservation of momentum is pretty simple.

You have a boat, throw out a stone to the back. The sum of the boats momentum plus the stones momentum before the action and after the action is the same.

Now, why do you believe there is no other way that the boat can gain momentum? The "law" certainly does not even cover this question and this engine ;D

And if you would kindly read up the theories about it you would figure that virtual particles take the "other part" of the momentum ;D So it is even covered by the most basic variant of that law.

However, it would be cool if the english speaking world would follow the rest of the world and would stop calling basic laws like the law of conversation of energy and momentum "laws". They are no laws of physics, they are axioms. Perhaps that would make teaching them in school more easy.

E.g, all "laws of thermodynamics" are in german simply "axioms" and not laws. However there are plenty of proven laws of physics and it is important IMHO to distinguish between laws and axioms.

## Comment Re:3%? Where did you get that from? (Score 1)483483

Sorry,

all wrong especially: "(depending on reactor type this can be anything from natural levels to various stages of enrichment)". No idea why it is so difficult for you to read up basic stuff on wikipedia.

And I lost desire to educate you.

Have a nice life.

## Comment Re:In other news... (Score 1)483483

Please, consult a doctor.

Your post makes no sense.

If you have trouble to grasp how power production and distribution works, either read it up or ask questions. I have no problem in educating you.

However insulting me constantly makes no real sense .... and you don't need to believe in karma to be bitten by it.

Have a good day.

## Comment Re: Looking more and more likely all the time... (Score 1)502502

"Conservation of linear momentum is mathematically equivalent to the laws of physics not varying by translation."

Yes, you claimed that, but is that so? I would say: there is no proof :D At least you gave none, hence my post.

## Comment Re: Looking more and more likely all the time... (Score 1)502502

Rofl, any rage or drug problems?

The theory how it might work is even on wikipedia for lay men clearly understandable posted.

No need to read the relevant papers ... in fact I have and you obviously don't have.

## Comment Re: Looking more and more likely all the time... (Score 1)502502

Go learn some basic physics dude.
I have a degree in physics.

No there is nothing in anything even remotely close to "we have ideas how this works"
Yes, indeed we have.
The device is build around the globe and tested after the "inventor" published his ideas how such a drive could work about ~10 years ago,

Star trek level technospeak doesn't count as a theory. It may work for a new scientist article, but that is all.
Yes, it does not ... and no one talks about "Star trek level technospeak" except you.

## Comment Re:Physics time! You misunderstand ion drives (Score 1)502502

First of all, a horse cannot continuously accelerate given a constant amount of electricity (or even hay). Horses need to push against something (the ground) and can only do that so fast; there is a cap on their maximum velocity. In practice, for any given real-world flywheel and generator, there would be a max speed for an EM Drive-driven rotor too - due to centrifugal force, if nothing else - but there's no theoretical maximum that I'm aware of.

And all that has nothing to do with your claim that the EM Drive would allow a generator to be turned into an "perpetuum mobile" ;D

Next try? (The rest of your post is just complete nonsense, so I don't dig into it)

At these prices, I lose money -- but I make it up in volume. -- Peter G. Alaquon

Working...