NASA / Musk will kill astronauts for a manned outpost on the Moon

On 2020-05-19 8:09 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says...

On 2020-05-18 1:25 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
That piece of paper I received from the Aerospace Engineering department
at Purdue and my current employer of 30 years both seem to belive
otherwise.

Love the Purdue campus. So spread out and green. Ton's of lawn to hang
out in on a summer day. So unlike the packed in campus at UIUC. At least
the engineering campus. It now has a 2nd quad to the north but it's
still pretty compact (UIUC).

I really loved going to Purdue. The main mall area was awesome in the
summer. If I had an hour between classes and the weather was nice, I'd
just pick a spot on the grass and read while I listened to music. That
was certainly one of my favorite things to do when I had some "down
time".

I've driven through UIUC, but never stopped. My oldest daughter just
graduated from Western Illinois University with a Masters of Fine Arts
in Scenic Design (theater). I think it was last year when I was driving
there to pick up her stuff, the U-Haul trailer I was towing had a
serious issue and needed to be swapped out. So, I stopped at the U-Haul
dealer near there and then drove through UIUC on my way back to the
highway. It looked quite a nice campus from what I could see.

Jeff


I don't mean to knock my alma mater. I wouldn't replace that experience
for anything in the world. Esp. getting to hang out with friends on a
Friday night and listen to the Level 4/5 Jazz band at Treno's do Maynard
Ferguson tunes like it was a walk in the park. When those grad students
weren't "downstate" working on a masters in music they were doing gigs
up in Chi-town.

I enjoyed the time I spent there, but it was a different campus layout.
In a way I preferred the compactness, esp. in the winter. One could
"walk the corridor" (north side of Green St) i.e. college dept. through
college dept. in separate buildings but only outside long enough to
cross the streets between them for like 4 city blocks. Nice break when
it was 15F outside.

It's more picturesque now. The old computer science building that was
there when I was there which used to look like a small bank branch, got
totally encased in a huge multistory building. The north end of the
campus is completely built up and has a second quad and a whole lab
devoted to making semiconductors. Didn't exist when I was there, (the
lab bldg. not semiconductors, I'm not *that* old... lol).

Dave

On 2020-05-19 5:46 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
Sure, if you prove it actually works in space. Again, extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence.

I have no interest in PNN so no comment there.

But Jeff your comment reminded me of a different "extraordinary"
reaction less drive, the EMDrive, which I got quite into several years ago.

Your "working in space" comment might also need some qualification. If
the EMDrive is mearly generating a magnetic field, and ignoring all of
Shawyer's microwave cavity "wave theory" which seems to violate
conservation of energy, it might *still* work in space as long as it
operates within an encompassing magnetic field. Like the Earth's
geomagnetic field. I posit that you'd have a far more efficient
"reaction less drive" using powerful bar electromagnets, powered by
solar cells and a battery and having it drive an orbiting satellite
within the Earth's geomagnetic field by switching magnetic polarity
depending upon the hemisphere it is orbiting above, so that it propulses
like the armature in an electric motor would. Nothing physics shattering
after all and it would work. Outside the Earth's magnetic field, it
would do nothing, but generate heat. Then it just becomes a question of
whether this is more or less costly than using an ion emitter or
propulsive gasses, which would work in any space environment.

So there's working in space vs working in space. Where in space makes a
huge difference.

Dave

On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 1:08:47 PM UTC-4, Doctor Who wrote:
On 5/19/20 6:27 PM, Dean Markley wrote:
On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 11:32:19 AM UTC-4, Doctor Who wrote:
On 5/19/20 4:39 PM, Dean Markley wrote:
On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 8:52:20 AM UTC-4, Doctor Who wrote:
On 5/19/20 2:03 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says...

On 5/18/20 10:53 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"Doctor Who"Â* wrote in message ...

the only response about this is that you don't know how physics
really
works. You only know what you have read in books, but you have never
done a physics experiment yourself.


Far from it, I've done quite a few.


prove it.



Greg is not claiming anything extraordinary. Lots of people have done
physics experiments. So there is no valid reason to question this.

You're the ones making the extraordinary claims (essentially having
discovered a reactionless drive that violates the currently known laws
of physics).

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far, you have a
website and some pictures of an experimental setup. The next logical
step is a peer reviewed paper. Let us know when that's been peer
reviewed and published in a respected physics journal.

Jeff



you are wrong on that. We dislike bureaucracy of "respected" journals.
The next logical step is a live public demonstration and the selling of
working prototypes.

many companies like NASA and SpaceX and Blue Origin can then start to
adapt PNN motors to space probes as a starting point.

You "dislike" the bureaucracy? That's a clear indicator that you have nothing. You are making excuses now.



we have to bypass the "peer review" criminals. While we wait for
judgement by a "respected" journal they copy pnn and republish it under
another name.

And you think using a pseudonym like "Dr Who" advances your case? You are a troll.




**** Off.

Case proved

In article , says...

On 5/19/20 11:46 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says...

you are wrong on that. We dislike bureaucracy of "respected"
journals.
The next logical step is a live public demonstration and the selling of
working prototypes.

Reading between the lines, I read that you think no respected journal
would publish your paper.

many companies like NASA and SpaceX and Blue Origin can then start to
adapt PNN motors to space probes as a starting point.

Sure, if you prove it actually works in space. Again, extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence.

you are a stalker.


You are posting to a public forum making extraordinary claims without
the extraordinary evidence to back them up. I'm merely publicly
replying to your posts pointing out this fact. I fail to see how that
is stalking. It's more like we're exchanging some admittedly harsh
words on the town square for all to see.

Furthermore, I'm trying my best not to resort to personal attacks. I'm
pointing out that random people claim to have invented reactionless
drives all the time. So far, none of them have been found to violate
the known laws of physics and therefore none of them actually work.
It's up to you to prove to the world that yours actually works.

I actually hope you succeed, but remain highly skeptical, as I am of all
similar claims.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

In article , says...

On 2020-05-19 8:09 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says...

On 2020-05-18 1:25 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
That piece of paper I received from the Aerospace Engineering department
at Purdue and my current employer of 30 years both seem to belive
otherwise.

Love the Purdue campus. So spread out and green. Ton's of lawn to hang
out in on a summer day. So unlike the packed in campus at UIUC. At least
the engineering campus. It now has a 2nd quad to the north but it's
still pretty compact (UIUC).

I really loved going to Purdue. The main mall area was awesome in the
summer. If I had an hour between classes and the weather was nice, I'd
just pick a spot on the grass and read while I listened to music. That
was certainly one of my favorite things to do when I had some "down
time".

I've driven through UIUC, but never stopped. My oldest daughter just
graduated from Western Illinois University with a Masters of Fine Arts
in Scenic Design (theater). I think it was last year when I was driving
there to pick up her stuff, the U-Haul trailer I was towing had a
serious issue and needed to be swapped out. So, I stopped at the U-Haul
dealer near there and then drove through UIUC on my way back to the
highway. It looked quite a nice campus from what I could see.

Jeff


I don't mean to knock my alma mater. I wouldn't replace that experience
for anything in the world. Esp. getting to hang out with friends on a
Friday night and listen to the Level 4/5 Jazz band at Treno's do Maynard
Ferguson tunes like it was a walk in the park. When those grad students
weren't "downstate" working on a masters in music they were doing gigs
up in Chi-town.

I enjoyed the time I spent there, but it was a different campus layout.
In a way I preferred the compactness, esp. in the winter. One could
"walk the corridor" (north side of Green St) i.e. college dept. through
college dept. in separate buildings but only outside long enough to
cross the streets between them for like 4 city blocks. Nice break when
it was 15F outside.

It's more picturesque now. The old computer science building that was
there when I was there which used to look like a small bank branch, got
totally encased in a huge multistory building. The north end of the
campus is completely built up and has a second quad and a whole lab
devoted to making semiconductors. Didn't exist when I was there, (the

Same for Purdue. Back then the Aerospace Engineering building was in
Grissom Hall. It was an older building and wasn't really suited for the
late 80s to early 90s as teaching was transitioning to more work on
computers.

Several years ago, Purdue built the Neil Armstrong building for the
Aerospace Engineering department. It's everything you'd want in a new
20th century building. It's absolutely huge, beautiful, and functional
all at the same time. Grissom Hall was also "reinvented" several years
ago, but I've not been in it to see how it was renovated.

The Neil Armstrong building replaced some "temporary" buildings that
were built after WW-II due to the large influx of students going to
Purdue using the GI Bill. Those "temporary" buildings stood for many
decades longer than they were ever intended. They were an eyesore for
sure.

And today there are many new buildings that weren't there when I was
there. Lots of campuses have really "built up" in the last three
decades or so.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

In article , says...

On 2020-05-19 5:46 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
Sure, if you prove it actually works in space. Again, extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence.

I have no interest in PNN so no comment there.

But Jeff your comment reminded me of a different "extraordinary"
reaction less drive, the EMDrive, which I got quite into several years ago.

Your "working in space" comment might also need some qualification. If
the EMDrive is mearly generating a magnetic field, and ignoring all of
Shawyer's microwave cavity "wave theory" which seems to violate
conservation of energy, it might *still* work in space as long as it
operates within an encompassing magnetic field. Like the Earth's
geomagnetic field. I posit that you'd have a far more efficient
"reaction less drive" using powerful bar electromagnets, powered by
solar cells and a battery and having it drive an orbiting satellite
within the Earth's geomagnetic field by switching magnetic polarity
depending upon the hemisphere it is orbiting above, so that it propulses
like the armature in an electric motor would. Nothing physics shattering
after all and it would work. Outside the Earth's magnetic field, it
would do nothing, but generate heat. Then it just becomes a question of
whether this is more or less costly than using an ion emitter or
propulsive gasses, which would work in any space environment.

So there's working in space vs working in space. Where in space makes a
huge difference.

Agreed. If the EMDrive only works in a magnetic field, it's useless for
"deep space" but would be quite useful in earth orbit. An example of
this is magenetorqurers used on satellites in earth orbit. Quite
useful, as they expend no fuel. But completely useless beyond earth's
magnetic field.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetorquer

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

On 5/20/20 1:38 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says...

On 5/19/20 11:46 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says...

you are wrong on that. We dislike bureaucracy of "respected"
journals.
The next logical step is a live public demonstration and the selling of
working prototypes.

Reading between the lines, I read that you think no respected journal
would publish your paper.

many companies like NASA and SpaceX and Blue Origin can then start to
adapt PNN motors to space probes as a starting point.

Sure, if you prove it actually works in space. Again, extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence.

you are a stalker.


You are posting to a public forum making extraordinary claims without
the extraordinary evidence to back them up. I'm merely publicly
replying to your posts pointing out this fact. I fail to see how that
is stalking. It's more like we're exchanging some admittedly harsh
words on the town square for all to see.

Furthermore, I'm trying my best not to resort to personal attacks. I'm
pointing out that random people claim to have invented reactionless
drives all the time. So far, none of them have been found to violate
the known laws of physics and therefore none of them actually work.
It's up to you to prove to the world that yours actually works.

I actually hope you succeed, but remain highly skeptical, as I am of all
similar claims.

Jeff



don't get so mad about it. I do what I want. full stop.

On 5/20/20 1:48 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says...

On 2020-05-19 5:46 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
Sure, if you prove it actually works in space. Again, extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence.

I have no interest in PNN so no comment there.

But Jeff your comment reminded me of a different "extraordinary"
reaction less drive, the EMDrive, which I got quite into several years ago.

Your "working in space" comment might also need some qualification. If
the EMDrive is mearly generating a magnetic field, and ignoring all of
Shawyer's microwave cavity "wave theory" which seems to violate
conservation of energy, it might *still* work in space as long as it
operates within an encompassing magnetic field. Like the Earth's
geomagnetic field. I posit that you'd have a far more efficient
"reaction less drive" using powerful bar electromagnets, powered by
solar cells and a battery and having it drive an orbiting satellite
within the Earth's geomagnetic field by switching magnetic polarity
depending upon the hemisphere it is orbiting above, so that it propulses
like the armature in an electric motor would. Nothing physics shattering
after all and it would work. Outside the Earth's magnetic field, it
would do nothing, but generate heat. Then it just becomes a question of
whether this is more or less costly than using an ion emitter or
propulsive gasses, which would work in any space environment.

So there's working in space vs working in space. Where in space makes a
huge difference.

Agreed. If the EMDrive only works in a magnetic field, it's useless for
"deep space" but would be quite useful in earth orbit. An example of
this is magenetorqurers used on satellites in earth orbit. Quite
useful, as they expend no fuel. But completely useless beyond earth's
magnetic field.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetorquer

Jeff



except if it generates its own magnetic field.

On 2020-05-20 7:48 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

Agreed. If the EMDrive only works in a magnetic field, it's useless for
"deep space" but would be quite useful in earth orbit. An example of
this is magenetorqurers used on satellites in earth orbit. Quite
useful, as they expend no fuel. But completely useless beyond earth's
magnetic field.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetorquer

Jeff


Thanks for the magnetorquer link! Very interesting.

Another place in space for a magnetic drive might be in orbit around
Jupiter which has the strongest planetary magnetic field in the solar
system.

Dave

On 2020-05-19 11:05 PM, David Spain wrote:
Outside the Earth's magnetic field, it
would do nothing, but generate heat.

Well *and* a magnetic field....

Dave