EM drive

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.

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.

-- Les Cargill

Care to find some numbers?

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.

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.

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

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.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

MgmyU snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com...

te

d

s.

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.

el.

r

1. Two photons of equal momentum emitted in opposite directions =3D zero net momentum on the system

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

1. Momentum on the reflecting wall 2M, momentum on the absorbing wall - M, net momentum 2M-M=3DM

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

1. Current system momentum M, reflected photon reaches opposite absorbing wall, momentum on the absorbing wall -M, net momentum M-M=3D0

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

1. Repeat from step 1.

Result: No resonant cavity, no net momentum.

o

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

UGMgmyU snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com...

.

!!

gate

ded

e f

t.

ics.

he

.

llel.

ler

=A0 =A0 =A0 |

=A0 =A0 =A0>|

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>|

to

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

-- Les Cargill

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

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

Charlie

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

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

A similar and simpler device is the 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.

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 resonator.

Mathew Orman

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

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

n

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.

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

Mathew Orman

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.

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

Mathew Orman

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?

"...the Q factor is 2=F0 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.

ike

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

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

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

Mark L. Fergerson