Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust

From: Damien Broderick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:53:26 -0600

At 11:06 AM 3/14/2005 -0800, Hal wrote:

>If the gadget starts going forward and there's nothing else that starts
>going backward, by definition that violates conservation of momentum,
>right?  If this thing starts out stationary in empty space, and you turn
>it on and after a while it is moving, then its momentum has changed.
>Unless there's something else moving in the opposite direction, as with
>a rocket, you are violating conservation of momentum.

Every time metal starts spinning when you switch an electromagnet on and 
off, you are making something move that was stationary. I assume the equal 
and opposite force goes into the magnet which is bolted to the floor and 
hence doesn't move because the entire earth takes up the impact. (I do 
realize this is physics 001 territory.) For the same reason, I assume 
nobody would wish to be cushioning a rail gun against his shoulder when he 
switches it on. Or am I missing something elementary here?

Damien Broderick [still not a physicist]

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

---

From: Dirk Bruere <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:02:13 +0000

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Dirk Bruere <[email-masked]> wrote:
>  
>
>>Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>--- Dirk Bruere <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>I guess most people here don't read as much crank physics as I do.
>>>>The so-called BB Effect has been a staple of amateur
>>>>        
>>>>
>>experimentation
>>    
>>
>>>>for  decades.
>>>>Also, last I heard was that a lifter *was* tested in vacuum and no
>>>>lift  detected.
>>>>
>>>>I don't hold out much hope for this being any kind of
>>>>        
>>>>
>>'breakthrough'.
>>    
>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>"Last I heard"? Is that some sort of statement of scientific
>>>      
>>>
>>accuracy?
>>    
>>
>>>I just posted replicatable papers showing the opposite.
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>I've spend quite a bit of time over the years tracking down these 
>>claims, even talking to Naudin before he hit the headlines.
>>I do not intend to run over the same old ground yet again for a new 
>>bunch of fans.
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld-Brown_effect
>>Like I said, this is all far from new.
>>    
>>
>
>The paper I cited clearly demonstrated that the electrohydrodynamic
>effects, the ion-wind, were quite significantly less than the actual
>observed thrust. I built a lifter myself in 1990 when I was in the
>USAF. I used to fly it around my barracks dorm room (leading to rumors
>in the unit that I'd stolen top secret Area 51 UFO technology). The
>amount of wind generated by the device was clearly far less than would
>have been needed to lift the entire mass of the lifter. Naudin has
>clearly shown, by putting, alternatively, each electrode in separate
>containers, yet still shown lift, so no hydrodynamic effects are
>possible, no ion-wind is possible to have generated such lift.
>
>  
>
Therefore no current flow.
Sounds like perpetual motion - thrust without energy expenditure.

>I would not doubt that in a perfect vacuum, the lack of gaseous
>dielectric material to help maintain the field effect would cause
>little or no thrust to be generated. Outer space, however, is not a
>perfect vacuum. It has a very significant plasma content. What has been
>shown is that thrust does not perfectly track with atmospheric
>pressure.
>  
>
I would not expect it to.
Nevertheless, I do think there are any new, or useful, physics involved.

>Nor, btw, do I consider Wikipedia to be any sort of authority. In my
>experience, wikipedia is a tool for promulgating consensus delusion and
>propaganda rather than actual truth.
>
>The ongoing discussion about truth on this list should demonstrate that
>wikipedia is not capable of determining the actual truth.
>
>
>  
>
You asked for references on the failure to lift in vaccum and they are 
listed in Wikipedia

-- 
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 11/03/2005

---

From: Dirk Bruere <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:46:41 +0000

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>The mass of an electron is incredibly small, no doubt, but the
>velocities we are talking about are very significant. This likely will
>not get us high fraction of 1 g accelerations by any stretch of the
>imagination but it will give us, IMHO, a way to dump a lot of energy
>into propulsion without wasting mass. (and no, Dirk, doing so is not
>over unity if the work done is less than the amount of energy put in,
>please go back and read your physics textbooks). Once stable long term
>  
>
It's you who should do more reading.
In space with no universal reference frame a constant energy input 
translating to constant acceleration can produce arbitrarily large 
amounts of energy.
It is only with respect to a fixed reference frame that energy is 
conserved - in which case SR and GTR are history.

-- 
Dirk

The Consensus:-

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005

---

From: Dirk Bruere <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:03:05 +0000

Christopher Healey wrote:

>Wouldn't the constant acceleration be damped sufficiently by losses due to Unruh radiation?  
>
>Didn't think this merited mention on-list, but I remember hearing this mentioned somewhere recently on some Hawking radiation thread I encountered.
>
>  
>
Only at truly vast accelerations.

-- 
Dirk

The Consensus:-

---

From: Mike Lorrey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:14:29 -0800 (PST)

--- Hal Finney <[email-masked]> wrote:.
> 
> What about the disagreement?  I cast my lot with science, but what
> about the fact that Mike continues to advocate unconventional
> physics?

The disagreement is not what you think it is, is the problem. I don't
believe in 'unconventional physics', I believe this thruster technology
completely and totally obeys Mach's Principle and the work of Lorentz
and Maxwell. I do not claim, nor do I believe, that this technology
violates conservation of momentum or energy. It is not an over-unity
device. It consumes energy, and at some percent of efficiency south of
100%, it does work with that energy via a field effect upon the mass of
the universe with no violation of conservation of momentum. It pushes
or pulls one way, the universe goes the other.

I believe that those who think that I think otherwise are the ones who
are crazy, because their believes clearly contradict my real beliefs as
well as my own statements.

I also believe that most people who are trained in newtonian mechanics,
then relativity, generally only learn this physics of material objects
and don't really GET physics of fields. I mean, a field is.... a
field.... it isn't matter, or photons, or whatever, its just.... there.
It isn't electromagnetic energy, it is electrostatic energy. People
confuse the two and think they are the same when they are not. If you
look at the MKS equations for the permittivity and permeability of free
space, you'll see there are newtons in there to be gotten... 
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/LorentzInvariant.html

In the charge equation, you have p, the charge density. This is where
it gets interesting, because we are talking about asymmetrically shaped
capacitors, ergo they have different charge densities on opposite sides
of the capacitor. The Lorentz invariant assumes that the charge density
remains the same in all dimensions, such as a symmetrical capacitor.
This isn't the case with the sort of device we are discussing.

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!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

---

From: [email-masked] ("Hal Finney")
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:18:08 -0800 (PST)

Mike Lorrey writes:
> I don't suppose I have to explain to everyone else how wrong you are. A
> Joule being equal to 1 kg m2 s-2, or 1/4.184 of a calorie, is a unit
> that involves a time term, ergo 100 kJ for 10 seconds is 1 MJ. No over
> unity, Dirk, just bad math and a misunderstanding by you of energy and
> work.

I thought Dirk was wrong at first, in fact I had a message all typed up,
but then I thought... what if I'm wrong?  And then I decided that I *was*
wrong!  I think Dirk's analysis is correct.  Let me make it more concrete.

Let's suppose a lifter will work in outer space.  We'll use a photovoltaic
panel and some kind of DC-to-DC pulsed transformer to get the 30 kV
we need.

Looking at the first chart on the lifter page at
<http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/data/index.htm>, he can lift about
35 grams with Lifter v4.0, for 132.9 Watts.  That's a force of
.035 kg times 9.8 m/s/s or about .3 Newtons.  A random solar panel,
<http://www.wholesalesolar.com/products.folder/module-folder/kyocera/KC167.html>,
can generate 167 Watts and weighs 16 kg.  We'll add 4 kg for the
transformer (this is all hand-wavey) and get a 20 kg device that we can
shoot into space and it will start accelerating all by itself.

.3 Newtons over 20 kg is about .015 m/s/s acceleration that our device
will deliver.  It's small, but it builds up.  After 1 day, it's going over
a kilometer per second!  And velocity increases by a km/s every day.
Meanwhile we are putting in 132.9 Watts the whole time, which is 132.9
J/s times 86400 s/day or 11.5 MJ per day.  Well, after two days we are
at 2 km/s so our kinetic energy is m*v*v/2 or 40 MJ.  But we've only
used 2 * 11.5 MJ or 23 MJ.  So Dirk is right, we are over unity already,
even with a primitive lifter like Naudin has designed.  And it gets
worse every day.

It's interesting to compare this with a rocket.  The difference is that
with a rocket, most of the energy goes into the exhaust, which constantly
decreases the mass of the rocket.  The result is that there's a limit
to how much delta V you can get, depending on your exhaust velocity
and the mass ratio of fuel to payload.  But these lifters, or any such
"space drive", don't have exhaust shooting out, so they can go on forever,
constantly increasing their kinetic energy as the square of the velocity.
As Dirk says, eventually they will go over unity, and as this example
shows, it could happen suprisingly quickly.

Hal

---

From: [email-masked] ("Hal Finney")
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:26:58 -0800 (PST)

Mike Lorrey writes:
> The error you start off with is that you are using the thrust it
> demonstrates at atmospheric pressure, using atmosphere as the
> dielectric medium. Try first adjusting the thrust to that predicted by
> the dielectric value for vacuum. Fix that error and you wind up well
> within the realm of mundane sub-unity efficiency.... lets try again.

Fine, but it's not going to matter.  Suppose constant power leads to
constant thrust, as the principle of relativity would imply.  Constant
power implies that total energy used will be proportional to time;
but constant acceleration makes velocity proportional to time, and
kinetic energy is proportional to v^2, which means it is proportional
to time squared.  Any time you have input energy proportional to time
while output energy is proportional to time squared, it should be clear
that you will go over unity after enough time.

But if you want some specific figures, I need to know
what value to use for the vacuum thrust.  I looked at
<http://www-personal.umich.edu/~reginald/liftvac.html> and
<http://www.t-spark.de/t-spark/t-sparke/liftere.htm>, both of which
described lifter experiments in vacuum (it didn't lift) but couldn't get
any thrust values there.

Or if you want, I could use that document you pointed to,
<http://www.geocities.com/ekpworld/doc/EKP_satellite_maneuvering.doc>.
He reported a thrust of 2.38 mN in atmosphere and 0.31 mN in vacuum,
with his setup (much smaller than the one used by Naudin).  That would
imply that vacuum thrust is 1/8 that in atmosphere.

Do you want me to do it that way?  Use 1/8 the thrust I did before?
Instead of 0.3 N, about 0.038 N?  It will still go over unity, but it
will take more time.

Just give me the vacuum thrust figure, I'll work it out for you.

I assume you are interested in learning whether this device will violate
conservation of energy?  How will that affect your opinions about it?

Hal

---

From: Mike Lorrey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:14:03 -0800 (PST)

--- Dirk Bruere <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >>No, because the energy comes from the inflow and burning of
> hydrogen
> >>and the inflow is limited by the speed of light.
> >>There are no such limits on the kind of lifter you envisage.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Well, then I know you are smoking something. For instance, if, for
> >instance, our device is relying on solar power, it naturally loses
> >power as it recedes from the sun, however even if we were to assume
> >some panels that could convert power from starlight, there would be
> a
> >reduction in power given redshift as the incoming light redshifted
> >outside the range of the receiver panels sensitivity.
> >
> >  
> >
> We are only talking about a couple of day's flight from NEO at a few
> km/s
> Redshift doesn't come into it yet we are still MJ in the plus.
> 

Only because you are assuming absurdly high thrust based on atmospheric
pressure of the dielectric, as I've already noted. Furthermore, you
still have the EXACT same problem with any Bussard Ramjet, which you
have not explained.

Mike Lorrey

__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ 
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

---

From: [email-masked] ("Hal Finney")
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:01:36 -0800 (PST)

Now I will analyze this thrusting device using relativistic rather than
Newtonian physics.  A quick review.

With uniformly accelerated motion, let the proper time as measured by
the accelerating observer be t' ("t prime").  Let the acceleration by
"a", and for convenience let us use geometric units where c is 1.
Then velocities are dimensionless values which are interpreted as
fractions of the speed of light, and accelerations have units of 1/time.

The standard formulas are:

x = 1/a * (cosh(a*t') - 1)
t = 1/a * sinh(a*t')
v = tanh(a*t')
E = m * cosh(a*t')

cosh, sinh and tanh are the standard hyperbolic functions.  x, t, v, and
E are position, time, velocity and energy as measured in the rest frame.
The E term is in geometric units where c=1.  It includes the rest energy
of E=m (commonly written as E=mc^2 when using non-geometric units), so to
get the kinetic energy we would subtract that:

KE = m * (cosh(a*t') - 1)

It remains to estimate the acceleration "a".  Mike several times has
pointed to a document,
<http://www.geocities.com/ekpworld/doc/EKP_satellite_maneuvering.doc>,
which is the only one I have found which actually claimed to have measured
lifter thrust in air and in vacuum.  The author reported a thrust of 2.38
mN in atmosphere and 0.31 mN in vacuum, with his setup (much smaller than
the one used by Naudin).  That would imply that lifter vacuum thrust is
0.13 times that in atmosphere.

So, instead of my previous analysis using Naudin's lifter which gave
0.3 Newtons of force, I will scale that down by this factor of 0.13
and take the force in vacuum as 0.039 N.  With a 20 kg device that is
an acceleration of .00195 m/s/s.  To go to geometric units, we divide
that acceleration by c and get an acceleration of 6.5E-12/sec.

Let's see how things are cooking after 60 days of acceleration.  This is
5.184 million seconds.  Our device has been drawing 132.9 Watts, times
5.184 million seconds is about 690 MJ.  That's how much power we've used.

Meanwhile our velocity, from the formula above with a = 6.5E-12 and
t' = 5.184 million, is 3.37E-5 in geometric units, meaning it is that
fraction of the speed of light.  Multiply by c to get the speed in regular
units and it is 10.1 km/sec, a very modest speed, not even Earth escape
velocity.  And the distance travelled, x, is 87.34 from the formula,
which in these geometric units is light-seconds.  Multiply by c and get
26 million km, so you could stay near the sun and keep the power for
your solar panels.  In fact you could safely head towards the sun the
whole time, it's 150 million km away.

What we really want is the kinetic energy.  From the KE formula above,
it is 1.14E-8 kilograms, which we have to multiply by c^2 to return to
regular units: 1.02 GJ, just over a gigajoule.

So there you go.  Energy in is 690 MJ, energy out is 1.02 GJ, after 60
days of acceleration.  Over unity.  You get out more energy than you
put in.  You're only going 10.1 km/sec at the end, having travelled 26
million km.  Calculation done with relativistic, Lorentzian formulas.
Using a figure from a document Mike pointed to as authoritative, for
the power output from a lifter in a vacuum.  Okay?

Hal

---

From: Mike Lorrey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:06:38 -0800 (PST)

--- BillK <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:20:15 +0000, Dirk Bruere wrote:
> > Ah... the ad hominem.
> > I think that signals the close of the discussion.
> > 
> 
> I thought this subject closed in 2002 when NASA ceased funding this
> research after no useful results were obtained.

NASA has a habit of closing and cancelling programs claiming they are
dead ends, which is why it is the No Americans in Space Anymore.

Mike Lorrey

---

From: Mike Lorrey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:25:55 -0800 (PST)

Fine, now use the same equations to show how a Bussard Ramjet is also
over unity by your definition.

--- Hal Finney <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Now I will analyze this thrusting device using relativistic rather
> than Newtonian physics.  A quick review.
> 
> Let's see how things are cooking after 60 days of acceleration.  This
> is 5.184 million seconds.  Our device has been drawing 132.9 Watts,
> times 5.184 million seconds is about 690 MJ.  That's how much power
> we've used.

Other errors: you are applying fixed DC when you need to convert that
to pulsed DC and correct for phase angle of the capacitor on the power
factor.

Try these equations:
F= 3.55x10^-8 V^0.722
where F is newtons and V is kilovolts
figure on a thrust to power ratio of 0.00025 newton per applied watt
(not the same as solar panel watt, as turning 12 vdc into 10kv 70 hz
pulsed dc or higher is not quite so easy, plus you need to deal with
the phase angle).

Mike Lorrey

---

From: Mike Lorrey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:26:07 -0800 (PST)

--- Dirk Bruere <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> >Yes it would. He is also using bogus high thrust numbers and several
> >other errors that come from the fact he is hopelessly stuck in a
> >Newtonian mind frame (along with his fascist politics).
> >
> Ah... the ad hominem.

Oh Waaah. You've hardly been a font of civility.

Here's some more for you:
"The mazimum rate of conversion will occur for real a(sub o) when v=0.
At zero velocity the conversion rate is Ymax = a(0)C and no conversion
is possible at v - c. This means that no charge particles can be
created that have velocities v -c. The result is that infinities
arising in self-energy calculations, corresponding to infinite kinetic
energy sof r virtual particles are avoided."

As for the Dean Drive, imagine this astronomical anamoly:

"An interesting effect that may find use in propulsion is that theories
with (a(3) +Epsilon(2)) |=| 0 predict that the center of mass of a
binary system may self accelerate in the direction of the system's
periastron. This acceleration has been given by Will(20) as:

a = (pi*m1*m2(m1-m2)e/(Pm^3.2*a^3/2*(1-e)^3/2))(x3-Epsilon2)n

where n is a unit vector directed from the center of mass to the point
of periastron of m(most distant part of orbit). Current experiments
place an upper limit on x3 as <2*10^-5 and a weak limit of Epsilon2 as
<100. There is no fully developed theory with Epsilon2 |=|0."

The paper proposes testing this with observations of binary pulsar PSR
1913+16, looking at the period and Doppler shift of the pulsar binary
or other suitable pair for an extended time of a few decades.

It could also be possible to test this by observing thermoelectric
potentials in gravity fields (such as the Earth-Moon pair), that could
explain the Earth's electromagnetic field accurately as an artifact of
tidal drag.

"The goal of an advanced propulsion unit is to achieve the maximum
integrated thrust over the life of the mission. Since chemical and
nuclear systems are rapidly reaching their theoretical mamimum
performance values any advanced system must perform in ways that exceed
such assumed theoretical limits to performance. Just as engineers must
continually "push the envelope" in development we must push the
theoretical envelop in the hope of locating where advances may be made.

The limits to most propulsion systems can be traced to our present
understanding of the physical conservation laws. These laws are the
foundations of modern physics and cannot belightly discarded. Instead
we must come to an understanding as to their theoretical origins before
we can hope to find ways around them. They are normally never
questioned but instead assumed 'a priori'. The only successful attempts
to derive the conservation have been by symmetry studies and it is
there that we must turn for our investigation. We later see that if the
symmetry of a system can be broken there may be a theoretical rationale
to consider departures from the familiar conservation laws."

With respect to conservation of momentum:
"The conservation of momentum for an isolated system depends on the
homogeneity of space. Consider a region in space removed from other
objects. Now enclose the region with a box and conduct a virtual
displacement of the box (transform space coordinates with delta t = 0).
There is no experiment confined to the box that can reveal its new
location without making references outside the box."

This explains why a propulsion device that reacts agains the entire
universe cannot be said to violate traditional conservation of momentum
equations, because it is impossible to reveal conservation references
between original and new locations of 'the box' and the experiment
inside without making reference to a point outside the universe. This
was demonstrated by Emmy Noether wrt points in space and the principle
is extended to momentum.

"Conservation of momentum is seen to be intimately related to the
symmetry of space. This will be valid as long as space is homogenous or
the system is totally isolated. if the system is near an external
object then homogeneity islost and momentum can be 'relayed' ebtween
the objects (for example, gravity assisted spacecraft trajectory
techniques). Also if material or radiation are absorbed or emitted by
the region, momentum can be altered (for example, photon, EM systems)."

Note, that in the gedankenexperiment of a hypotehtical solar powered
electric spacecraft being discussed previously, momentum is altered
specifically by the absorption of photon radiation, just as with a
Bussard Ramjet, momentum is altered by the absorption of cosmic
hydrogen, its fusion and emission. Thus the ramjet suffers from the
same issues of claimed over-unity performance as Dirk claims about my
proposals. Both spacecraft are limited by relativity.

Furthermore, Cravens notes that the assumed isotropy of space is wrong,
thus calling conservation of angular momentum into question. Microwave
studies show a small anisotopy in the radiation background of about 1%
departure. Being in our local galaxy also shows that our local space is
not isotropic, with a net angular momentum in reference to the
observable distant galaxies. This is thus a distinguishable axis.

He shows that given this, by least action, m(r*r1)=r*mv=L, so the total
angular momentum is a constant. only if the center of mass is at rest
with respect ot the origin that angular momentum will be independent of
the point of reference.

While it is very difficult to determine absolute time, position, or
velocity, absolute rotation is quickly determined, ergo departing from
conservation of angular momentum is possible, and space symmetry is
easily broken.

Nor is conservation of parity valid, as Feynman helped prove, and the
Co-60 beta decay experiment demonstrated that emission is biased to the
spin axis of the nucleus but not in both directions. He shows that em
energy terms like H^2 and E^2 are scalars by E*H are pseudovectors and
conservation doesn't apply in all cases.

Cravens clearly states conditions for circumventing conservation
theorems, where such attempts should involve two or more fundamental
forces, posess broken symmetry (odd parity), involve the use of
pseudovectors, or aling the axis of broken symmetry with inversion
characteristics of the pseudovector.

"The conservation of angular momentum is a deep-seated physical
principle of great use. It can be shown that, although energy and
linear momentum are true tensors, both parity and angular momentum are
pseudotensors. Angular momentum is thus not required to be conserved
under inversions and in non-inertial reference frames. Careful high
accuracy experiments are needed to be undertaken to check the validity
of angular momentum conservation since it apparently stands as a
separate postulate.

The conservation theorems are at the very heart of modern physical
theories. The conservation of charge, energy, linear momentum, angular
momentum, isospin, etc are oftent the tools to show reason and utility
among competing theories. Often they are treated as unassailable but
occasionally a return to the foundations leads to unexpected revision
of theories."

Cravens seems to have learned the same lesson I did from Feynman: go
back to first principles and question the validity or accuracy of them
based on new evidence. Cravens questions whether angular momentum
should be treated any different from parity. Because angular momentum
is a pseudotensor and not a real tensor, then relativity  may not apply
to it.

"In fact the cross product of any two true vectors is a pseudovector.
The difference between the two kinds of vectors can be seen in improper
rotation or in pure inversions of cooordinate systems. Consider:

C = A * B

where 

Ci = Aj*Bk-Ak*Bi

Upon an inversion of the coordinate system, both A and B change sign
which means C does not change sign. The entire cross product changes
sign as we go from a right hand to a left hand coordinate system. The
angular momentum of a particle is usually expressed as the cross
product of the particle's momentum p with the radius vector r from the
origin:

L = p*r

and by convention we use a right hand rule to determine the sign of the
pseudovector. In fact, a series of infinitesimal rotations can be
expressed only by pseudovectors, but finate rotations cannot be
expressed in that form. Thus, angular momentum can be expressed only as
a pseudovector. Often complex systems cannot be expressed as
pseudovectors owing to the noncommunitivity of finite rotations....

... For example, if a force is velocity dependent both space (real) and
time (imaginary) components can enter the transformation leading to
inversion-like effects....."

CONDITIONS FOR NONCONSERVATION

Emmy Noether said conservation of energy could be recovered  verifying
that the action integral was dependent only on relative time
differences and not absolute time. Ergo, you must have symmetry of time
to get conservation of energy. Conservation of linear momentum depends
on homogeneity of space and angular momentum on isotropy of space.

Conservation of energy depends on homogeneity of time.

STRING THEORY:

Ten dimensional string theories readily compactify into 5-D space,
while they are hard to get into 4 dimensions.

MACHS PRINCIPLE

Here Cravens agrees with me: " [according to Newton] Essentially, the
inertial forces on a particle arise from an interaction of the particle
with the rest of the matter in the Universe....

There is much controversy over the precise formulation of the Mach
principle within general relativity. It is even questionable whether or
not general relativity is compatible with the concept. Sometime the
principle is used to set boundary conditions. Somtimes for entirely new
formulation of relativity. This has led to confusion." He goes on to
provide some bi-metric formulations to describe Einstein's predictions.

EXPERIMENTS:
"Veritay Technology, Inc. has been conducting research under the SBIR
program for the USAF (AF87-192). The goal is to verify an to quantify
the conversion of electrostatic energy directly ito propulsive force in
vacuum experiments. They ahve approached the problem by using charged
capacitors as did Brown in hsi original work. They ahve tried to
isolate the effect from ion winds by placing an asymmetric capacitor
within a vacuum. Further they have studied the effect as a function of
pressur within their vacuum chambvers. They worked over a range of
pressure from 10 torr to 10^-1 torr and voltages up to 1.5 kilovolts.
Below 1 torr the forces were seen to be independent of the pressures.
The force upon the capacitor was found to be F= 3.55x10^-8 V^0.722,
where F is the force expressed in newtons and V is the voltage in
kilovolts. The input power of 0.4 milliwatt generated a thrust of 10^-7
newton for a thrust to power ratio of 2.5 x 10^-4 newton/watt (56
micropound per watt)."

Within the Dynamic Theory, a divergence in charge current flow is
required to produce a flow in mass. This thus requires a current flow
to produce a propulsive force, i.e. a torsion bar experiment on a
vertical axis needs pulsed power, not static DC to produce thrust via
the 5-D theory. The weakness of this test is that it is capable of
seeing impulses but not changes in inertial mass, which requires a
horizontal axis.

Mike Lorrey