> I never said [the Lorrey Drive] violates conservation of momentum.
> My claim is that the input energy is expended in a single direction,
> it uses more energy than it produces in thrust, so there is no
> violation.
You can't have it both ways. You call it a "drive", and claim that
it does what a normal reaction-mass "drive" does, namely cause a
stationary mass to move in a fixed direction. If you claim that it
does this without the usual reaction mass being sent in the other
direction, then what you are claiming it does violates conservation
of momentum, regardless of your claim otherwise. The amount of
energy used is irrelevant, and you know that.
I suspect it may indeed do something useful, but it cannot do what
its plain (but vague) description intends us to believe it does.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:13:09 MDT