Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 09:16:41 +0000 Organization: novaBBS Message-ID: References: <1de794cabbe5bd82e10b0c6099b17a40@www.novabbs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1997424"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="4CIDjmRjWbqC4EEN5EcU+HA+pIaOwwy51Z63DnRPIoA"; User-Agent: Rocksolid Light X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$L3nXCNOChCZi24xEsaq9w.if9cvs8oaSP5LGH88r4Uaf6c2dQmhAe X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 X-Rslight-Posting-User: d1111375bdddd1d0b42e6fbe96c9934b24d8a010 Bytes: 4960 Lines: 89 On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 3:43:44 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: > Bertietaylor wrote: >> On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 19:03:20 +0000, David Canzi wrote: >> >>> On 12/6/24 19:12, Bertietaylor wrote: >>>> Lousy research skills by Einsteinians on display! >>> >>> For some reason, you edited out everything I said, so it is not on >>> display. Maybe you don't really want it to be on display, hmm? >> >> It is not necessary to repost what has already been posted. Anyone can >> follow a thread to see what was written earlier. >>> >>>> True that Arindam's 2013 conference paper was rejected by Europeans but >>>> was accepted by the Chinese, Koreans and the Japanese reviewers. In 2016 >>>> Arindam did realise the experiment he had described in the 2013 paper. >>>> However the faculty at RMIT stabbed him in the back. They denied that >>>> Arindam had made a working model of a new design rail gun, and failed >>>> Arindam at his final PhD viva. Arindam then continued entirely on his >>>> own and in 2017 posted online a full set of YouTube videos with complete >>>> details. In later years he made more powerful guns and developed the new >>>> theory, got more powerful capacitors to show inertia violation very >>>> clearly. This proving his new physics started back in 1998. >>> >>> I was responding to the claim that rail guns don't recoil. >> >> That is not entirely correct. The claim is that the electromagnetic >> force accelerating the armature - under certain conditions - does NOT >> have an equal and opposite reaction. Now mechanical force is needed to >> launch the projectile upon the rails. That force has a reaction of >> course. The recoil seen on videos is the reaction from the mechanical >> component. > > There is no mechanical force in a railgun, all the force is > electromagnetic, crackpot. Not so, penisnono Penisnino. If you just put 1000000 amps through a static bullet it will just weld, melt. You have to give it an initial velocity through mechanical or chemical or magnetic means, and all those have the smallish recoil one can see in practical rail guns, including Arindam's. > > >> But the fun starts after that. The em force accelerates the armature and >> to begin with the rolling friction on the rails keep on pushing the gun >> back. Had it been sliding this would not happen. > > Friction would pull the "gun" forward with the projectile, cracpot. Not so, penisnono Penisnino. Rolling friction on the rails provide the treadmill action on it to push it backwards, which is what happens in Arindam's railgun. As said earlier, if the bullet was sliding instead of rolling, then there would not be the treadmill action, no recoil that way - and indeed you are right for once, albeit by fluke, for wonders will never cease, the gun would move forward. But, penisnono, do check that the armature is rolling on the gun, and rolling friction pushes the gun backwards till the speed of the armature is such, it shoots forward with the em force with little friction, gaining momentum, more than the backward momentum. The momentum imbalance causes the whole system to go forward with a given velocity. Arindam has worked it all out on a frame by frame basis and showed the actual values involved, like how much net velocity from the inertia violation. So the question remains - WILL TRUMP HAVE THE BALLS TO ASK HIS SCIENTISTS TO REPEAT ARINDAM'S FANTASTIC FABULOUS BRILLIANT MOST ORIGINAL GREATEST GENIUS EXPERIMENT, or will he keep on listening to the Einsteinian penisnonos? Note penisnono = (c*t) > > Typical penisnono attitude from Penisnino. Woof woof woof woof woof woof What fools these apes be! Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)