>-----Original Message----- >From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu [mailto:piclist-bounces@mit.edu] >Sent: 20 September 2006 21:03 >To: piclist@mit.edu >Subject: Re: [EE]: Reactionless Drive > > >Something not right here, I just cannot put a handle to it. >You still have to >counter the force of gravity (I assume all this happens around >earth). Let's >make an imaginary experiment: I pick a stone from ground and >lift it up to the >height of 1m. The stone is stationary, so there is no need to >spend energy to >maintain it at that height, right? But practical experience >tells me that the >stone will fall down. Only if you let go the stone, whereupon it's potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. If you put the stone on a shelf it would stay there, and you don't have to provide power to a shelf do you? > >I also think that the engine will have to radiate alot of >energy, unless, of >course the 3rd Newton's law is not working anymore. The whole point of this drive is that as little energy as possible is lost from the cavity. The energy which is lost as radiation does not contribute to the thrust produced. I really hope this is real, but it just seems to be too good to be true. Regards Mike ======================================================================= This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use, forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or services. ======================================================================= -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist