[extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
> At 02:28 PM 11/03/05 -0800, Hal Finney wrote:
> 
> >Personally I'm a big fan of conservation of momentum.
> 
> snip
> 
> Me too.  Also conservation of energy.
> 
> And unidirectional thrust, if it is not velocity dependent (and
> reference 
> frames are supposed to all be the same) can be shown to violate the 
> conservation of energy by a simple thought experiment.

No, it doesn't. It neither violates conservation of energy or momentum.
To violate conservation of energy, you would need to show that the
amount of energy expended was in excess of the amount of kinetic energy
gained by the work done. This is not the case. Nor would it violate
conservation of momentum if it does tweak inertia through the
asymmetric field geometry and power pulsing. I think the harder thing
to believe is that inertia is caused by the gravity of all the other
mass in the universe when gravity is a speed of light phenomenon.

> 
> Just suspend the gadget at the end of a long arm in a vacuum, let it 
> accelerate to some arbitrary velocity such that you can lower a wheel
> with 
> a generator (or tap the hub of the suspension system) and make more
> power than it takes to generate the thrust.

Your false assumption is in thinking that I or anyone else is claiming
it does more work than it uses in energy. It is not an overunity
device, nobody but you ever claimed it was, and given this
misunderstanding, your opinion is suspect.


Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/