Launching a geostatic spacecraft using the Podkletnov effect

"john" wrote in message
...
On Sep 9, 7:28 am, "Cwatters"
wrote:

If they are only "like" stars and not the same as stars, how about making
a
list of the differences?

Do they collide in the same way?

The only difference is scale.

It's a FRACTAL

john

If they are so similar why do they behave in such different ways?

Can two electrons can orbit around each other while mass is stripped off one
and accumulated by the other?

On a sunny day (Thu, 9 Sep 2010 14:39:51 +0100) it happened "Cwatters"
wrote in
:

So lets say the rocket rises to a few miles, then you turn off the
antigravity beam and bingo the rocket gains a lot of "free" potential
energy. This can be recovered when it hits the ground. Repeat for free
energy? Obviously not so how does it work then?

The gravity less area is on while the spacecraft rises to 35786 km height.
It takes energy to keep that area going, Li says in her paper 1kW for a 1 foot
diameter beam.
Read the links you snipped.
To increase the spacecraft's height it uses a thruster.
To increase the spacecraft's forward motion so it stays above the same point on earth while climbing,
it also uses a thruster.
Once the geostationary height is reached, the spacecraft is in a stable orbit with the correct speed,
and nothing 'falls'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit
There is no conservation of energy violation anywhere.
Energy is needed to maintain the gravity less area, (neutralise earth gravity),
and to move the mass of the spacecraft up to the required hight,
and move it forward with the required speed.
This energy depends on the inertia, so is more for a heavier spacecraft then for a small one.

Thrusters and a laser guide beam are used for positioning within the gravity-less area while climbing.




, and it takes energy to

On a sunny day (Thu, 9 Sep 2010 06:52:42 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Matt
wrote in
:

and the Podkletnov effect cannot be duplicated by
those not already convinced of it.

I suggest you read about the experiment:
http://arxiv.org/ps/physics/0108005v2
I believe the experimenters before any theoretical drivel.
If it is classified and grabbed by DARPA or whoever,
and drivel is spread about it, too bad.

For some planes could not fly because these were heavier then air.

Epicycles explained the motion of the planets, and the earth was flat,
else you would fall of.
Beware of 21 century pseudo science.

How funny NASA all of the sudden did not have the money to repeat the experiment.
NASA, that agency with the worst mileage in the known universe,
since the moon landings stopped, it has spend trillions and got no man further then a few hundred miles from earth.
That is what politics does when it takes over from engineers.
The other experiments that were to repeat Podkletnov's were all stopped before
they replicated his (rather simple) setup.
Guess why.
One would think Li would now either has nothing, or a real effect,
if nothing, should come out into the open and pick up her old job,
but if a real effect ?
Same story.

"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message
...
On a sunny day (Thu, 9 Sep 2010 14:39:51 +0100) it happened "Cwatters"
wrote in
:

So lets say the rocket rises to a few miles, then you turn off the
antigravity beam and bingo the rocket gains a lot of "free" potential
energy. This can be recovered when it hits the ground. Repeat for free
energy? Obviously not so how does it work then?

The gravity less area is on while the spacecraft rises to 35786 km height.
It takes energy to keep that area going, Li says in her paper 1kW for a 1
foot
diameter beam.

Yes I follow your proposal and have also read papers by the ESA in the past.

It still appears to be a free energy machine.

Suppose the rocket (diameter 1 foot) has a mass of 1000Kg and it climbs at a
constant 0.2 m/S. If I've done my sums right it's gaining PE at a rate of
mgv = 1000 x 9.8 x 0.2 = approx 2kW.

Obviously some power is required to lift the rocket against air resistance
but that will be negligible at 0.2m/s.

So it appears possible to gain PE at a faster rate than the 1kW the beam
requires. The "heavier" the rocket the more this effect.

Obviously this is wrong but where?

On a sunny day (Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:03:26 +0100) it happened "Cwatters"
wrote in
:


"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message
...
On a sunny day (Thu, 9 Sep 2010 14:39:51 +0100) it happened "Cwatters"
wrote in
:

So lets say the rocket rises to a few miles, then you turn off the
antigravity beam and bingo the rocket gains a lot of "free" potential
energy. This can be recovered when it hits the ground. Repeat for free
energy? Obviously not so how does it work then?

The gravity less area is on while the spacecraft rises to 35786 km height.
It takes energy to keep that area going, Li says in her paper 1kW for a 1
foot
diameter beam.

Yes I follow your proposal and have also read papers by the ESA in the past.

It still appears to be a free energy machine.

Suppose the rocket (diameter 1 foot) has a mass of 1000Kg and it climbs at a
constant 0.2 m/S. If I've done my sums right it's gaining PE at a rate of
mgv = 1000 x 9.8 x 0.2 = approx 2kW.

Obviously some power is required to lift the rocket against air resistance
but that will be negligible at 0.2m/s.

So it appears possible to gain PE at a faster rate than the 1kW the beam
requires. The "heavier" the rocket the more this effect.

Obviously this is wrong but where?

If the 'rocket' is in zero gravity,
once set in motion, it will keep going up at the same speed.
When leaving out air resistance as you state.
You need to adjust forward speed (accellerate) to stay in the beam though.
That is assuming Ning Li's gravity shielding works.
Then it is like moving in free space.
Your potential energy (PE) is based on work done against gravity,
PE = m.g.h
In this setup 'gravity' is shielded, so:
g is not 9.8 m/s^2, but zero - PE = 0.

On Sep 9, 11:04*am, "Cwatters"
wrote:
"john" wrote in message

...
On Sep 9, 7:28 am, "Cwatters"

wrote:
If they are only "like" stars and not the same as stars, how about making
a
list of the differences?

Do they collide in the same way?

The only difference is scale.

It's a FRACTAL

john

If they are so similar why do they behave in such different ways?
What behaves differently? A galactic arm and an electron? They
both remain around the same center.

Can two electrons can orbit around each other while mass is stripped off one
and accumulated by the other?
Good question.
The idea is that all electrons are identically-sized bits of space
that
got 'real'ized when a proton was produced. They radiate
continuously while being continuously re-activated by
the proton to which they are attached.
So what happens to 'free' electrons? Are they
ever really free or do they just jump from
one proton watering hole to the next?
And what about Cooper Pairs? They share the
same orbit, but where do they refuel?

john