On 22/05/2025 02:00, Arindam's bitches wrote:
The Israelis and Indians evidently know what to do about crude missile
attacks.
Short range missiles. You detect, you shoot.
The discussion so far has been on long range missiles. Not the same
thing.
On Thu, 22 May 2025 13:54:24 +0000, occam wrote:
On 22/05/2025 02:00, Arindam's bitches wrote:
The Israelis and Indians evidently know what to do about crude missile
attacks.
Short range missiles. You detect, you shoot.
The discussion so far has been on long range missiles. Not the same
thing.
Arindam's new design rail gun can launch missiles at supersonic speeds.
Once launched the rocket will fire at that supersonic speed and take it
to high hypersonic speeds. Very fast. Lot less propellant required here.
New revolutionary approaches change the game.
Woof woof-woof woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
On Thu, 22 May 2025 13:54:24 +0000, occam wrote:
On 22/05/2025 02:00, Arindam's bitches wrote:
The Israelis and Indians evidently know what to do about crude missile
attacks.
Short range missiles. You detect, you shoot.
The discussion so far has been on long range missiles. Not the same
thing.
Arindam's new design rail gun can launch missiles at supersonic speeds.
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2025 13:54:24 +0000, occam wrote:
On 22/05/2025 02:00, Arindam's bitches wrote:
The Israelis and Indians evidently know what to do about crude missile >>>> attacks.
Short range missiles. You detect, you shoot.
The discussion so far has been on long range missiles. Not the same
thing.
Arindam's new design rail gun can launch missiles at supersonic speeds.
You have reproduced something invented almost 200 years ago and your
version is capable of nothing more than rolling pipes at low speed,
crackpot.
On 23/05/2025 7:42 p.m., Bertitaylor wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2025 13:54:24 +0000, occam wrote:
On 22/05/2025 02:00, Arindam's bitches wrote:
The Israelis and Indians evidently know what to do about crude missile >>>> attacks.
Short range missiles. You detect, you shoot.
The discussion so far has been on long range missiles. Not the same
thing.
Arindam's new design rail gun can launch missiles at supersonic speeds.
Once launched the rocket will fire at that supersonic speed and take it
to high hypersonic speeds. Very fast. Lot less propellant required here.
New revolutionary approaches change the game.
Woof woof-woof woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
The Duchess of York has said she is "sure" the late Queen Elizabeth II
speaks to her through her corgis.
Sarah Ferguson and her ex-husband Prince Andrew inherited the Queen's
corgis, Muick and Sandy, after she died in 2022.
Now, Ferguson has said her former mother-in-law is communicating to her through her beloved pets.
Speaking at the Creative Women Platform Forum she said: "I have her
[Queen Elizabeth's] dogs, I have her corgis so every morning they come
in and go 'woof woof' and I'm sure its her talking to me."
https://www.itv.com/news/2025-05-16/sarah-ferguson-says-queen-elizabeth-talks-to-her-through-her-corgis
On Fri, 23 May 2025 13:24:06 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2025 13:54:24 +0000, occam wrote:
On 22/05/2025 02:00, Arindam's bitches wrote:
The Israelis and Indians evidently know what to do about crude missile >>>>> attacks.
Short range missiles. You detect, you shoot.
The discussion so far has been on long range missiles. Not the same
thing.
Arindam's new design rail gun can launch missiles at supersonic speeds.
You have reproduced something invented almost 200 years ago and your
version is capable of nothing more than rolling pipes at low speed,
crackpot.
No, not so, Pennino. Don't lie.
No one invented the low voltage heavy armature electromagnetic rail gun design before Arindam Banerjee, who did it in 2015
On Sat, 24 May 2025 13:25:40 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 13:24:06 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2025 13:54:24 +0000, occam wrote:You have reproduced something invented almost 200 years ago and your
On 22/05/2025 02:00, Arindam's bitches wrote:
The Israelis and Indians evidently know what to do about crude missile >>>>>>> attacks.
Short range missiles. You detect, you shoot.
The discussion so far has been on long range missiles. Not the same >>>>>> thing.
Arindam's new design rail gun can launch missiles at supersonic speeds. >>>>
version is capable of nothing more than rolling pipes at low speed,
crackpot.
No, not so, Pennino. Don't lie.
No one invented the low voltage heavy armature electromagnetic rail gun
design before Arindam Banerjee, who did it in 2015
The basic principal can be traced back to the work of Charles Wheatstone
in the 1840's, crackpot.
Using the principal to launch a projectile was demonstrated by André
Louis Octave Fauchon-Villeplée in 1917, crackpot.
<snip insane rant>
We are not talking old stuff here, dodgy liar. Totally irrelevant to Arindam's astounding work that is completely original. No one ever did
such an experiment that by outing inertia revised the foundations of dynamics.
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 13:24:06 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2025 13:54:24 +0000, occam wrote:You have reproduced something invented almost 200 years ago and your
On 22/05/2025 02:00, Arindam's bitches wrote:
The Israelis and Indians evidently know what to do about crude missile >>>>>> attacks.
Short range missiles. You detect, you shoot.
The discussion so far has been on long range missiles. Not the same
thing.
Arindam's new design rail gun can launch missiles at supersonic speeds. >>>
version is capable of nothing more than rolling pipes at low speed,
crackpot.
No, not so, Pennino. Don't lie.
No one invented the low voltage heavy armature electromagnetic rail gun
design before Arindam Banerjee, who did it in 2015
The basic principal can be traced back to the work of Charles Wheatstone
in the 1840's, crackpot.
Using the principal to launch a projectile was demonstrated by André
Louis Octave Fauchon-Villeplée in 1917, crackpot.
<snip insane rant>
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 13:25:40 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 13:24:06 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2025 13:54:24 +0000, occam wrote:You have reproduced something invented almost 200 years ago and your >>>>> version is capable of nothing more than rolling pipes at low speed,
On 22/05/2025 02:00, Arindam's bitches wrote:
The Israelis and Indians evidently know what to do about crude missile >>>>>>>> attacks.
Short range missiles. You detect, you shoot.
The discussion so far has been on long range missiles. Not the same >>>>>>> thing.
Arindam's new design rail gun can launch missiles at supersonic speeds. >>>>>
crackpot.
No, not so, Pennino. Don't lie.
No one invented the low voltage heavy armature electromagnetic rail gun >>>> design before Arindam Banerjee, who did it in 2015
The basic principal can be traced back to the work of Charles Wheatstone >>> in the 1840's, crackpot.
Using the principal to launch a projectile was demonstrated by André
Louis Octave Fauchon-Villeplée in 1917, crackpot.
<snip insane rant>
We are not talking old stuff here, dodgy liar. Totally irrelevant to
Arindam's astounding work that is completely original. No one ever did
such an experiment that by outing inertia revised the foundations of
dynamics.
Making a device that is bigger, smaller or slightly different is not an invention, Arindam.
Your so called experiment is lacking any instrumentation and proves
nothing, Arindam.
<snip insane ranting>
On Sat, 24 May 2025 14:47:19 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 13:25:40 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 13:24:06 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2025 13:54:24 +0000, occam wrote:You have reproduced something invented almost 200 years ago and your >>>>>> version is capable of nothing more than rolling pipes at low speed, >>>>>> crackpot.
On 22/05/2025 02:00, Arindam's bitches wrote:
The Israelis and Indians evidently know what to do about crude missile
attacks.
Short range missiles. You detect, you shoot.
The discussion so far has been on long range missiles. Not the same >>>>>>>> thing.
Arindam's new design rail gun can launch missiles at supersonic speeds. >>>>>>
No, not so, Pennino. Don't lie.
No one invented the low voltage heavy armature electromagnetic rail gun >>>>> design before Arindam Banerjee, who did it in 2015
The basic principal can be traced back to the work of Charles Wheatstone >>>> in the 1840's, crackpot.
Using the principal to launch a projectile was demonstrated by André
Louis Octave Fauchon-Villeplée in 1917, crackpot.
<snip insane rant>
We are not talking old stuff here, dodgy liar. Totally irrelevant to
Arindam's astounding work that is completely original. No one ever did
such an experiment that by outing inertia revised the foundations of
dynamics.
Making a device that is bigger, smaller or slightly different is not an
invention, Arindam.
It is not slightly different, stupid lying penisnino. It is vastly
different,
Your so called experiment is lacking any instrumentation and proves
nothing, Arindam.
Nonsense and lies,
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 14:47:19 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 13:25:40 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 13:24:06 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2025 13:54:24 +0000, occam wrote:
On 22/05/2025 02:00, Arindam's bitches wrote:
The Israelis and Indians evidently know what to do about crude missile
attacks.
Short range missiles. You detect, you shoot.
The discussion so far has been on long range missiles. Not the same >>>>>>>>> thing.
Arindam's new design rail gun can launch missiles at supersonic speeds.
You have reproduced something invented almost 200 years ago and your >>>>>>> version is capable of nothing more than rolling pipes at low speed, >>>>>>> crackpot.
No, not so, Pennino. Don't lie.
No one invented the low voltage heavy armature electromagnetic rail gun >>>>>> design before Arindam Banerjee, who did it in 2015
The basic principal can be traced back to the work of Charles Wheatstone >>>>> in the 1840's, crackpot.
Using the principal to launch a projectile was demonstrated by André >>>>> Louis Octave Fauchon-Villeplée in 1917, crackpot.
<snip insane rant>
We are not talking old stuff here, dodgy liar. Totally irrelevant to
Arindam's astounding work that is completely original. No one ever did >>>> such an experiment that by outing inertia revised the foundations of
dynamics.
Making a device that is bigger, smaller or slightly different is not an
invention, Arindam.
It is not slightly different, stupid lying penisnino. It is vastly
different,
No, it is no different in principle than models built over a hundred
years ago, crackpot. Using modern, synthetic insulated wire instead of
cloth insulated wire doesn't make it different, crackpot.
<snip insane ranting>
Your so called experiment is lacking any instrumentation and proves
nothing, Arindam.
So list your instrumentation along with the range, resolution and
accuracy, crackpot.
<snip remaining insane ranting>
On Sat, 24 May 2025 22:13:10 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 14:47:19 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 13:25:40 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 13:24:06 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2025 13:54:24 +0000, occam wrote:
On 22/05/2025 02:00, Arindam's bitches wrote:
The Israelis and Indians evidently know what to do about crude missile
attacks.
Short range missiles. You detect, you shoot.
The discussion so far has been on long range missiles. Not the same >>>>>>>>>> thing.
Arindam's new design rail gun can launch missiles at supersonic speeds.
You have reproduced something invented almost 200 years ago and your >>>>>>>> version is capable of nothing more than rolling pipes at low speed, >>>>>>>> crackpot.
No, not so, Pennino. Don't lie.
No one invented the low voltage heavy armature electromagnetic rail gun >>>>>>> design before Arindam Banerjee, who did it in 2015
The basic principal can be traced back to the work of Charles Wheatstone >>>>>> in the 1840's, crackpot.
Using the principal to launch a projectile was demonstrated by André >>>>>> Louis Octave Fauchon-Villeplée in 1917, crackpot.
<snip insane rant>
We are not talking old stuff here, dodgy liar. Totally irrelevant to >>>>> Arindam's astounding work that is completely original. No one ever did >>>>> such an experiment that by outing inertia revised the foundations of >>>>> dynamics.
Making a device that is bigger, smaller or slightly different is not an >>>> invention, Arindam.
It is not slightly different, stupid lying penisnino. It is vastly
different,
No, it is no different in principle than models built over a hundred
years ago, crackpot. Using modern, synthetic insulated wire instead of
cloth insulated wire doesn't make it different, crackpot.
Arindam used super capacitors for his experiment which were not around a century ago, fool.
<snip insane ranting>
Your so called experiment is lacking any instrumentation and proves
nothing, Arindam.
So list your instrumentation along with the range, resolution and
accuracy, crackpot.
<snip remaining insane ranting>
--
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 14:47:19 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 13:25:40 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 13:24:06 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2025 13:54:24 +0000, occam wrote:
On 22/05/2025 02:00, Arindam's bitches wrote:
The Israelis and Indians evidently know what to do about crude missile
attacks.
Short range missiles. You detect, you shoot.
The discussion so far has been on long range missiles. Not the same >>>>>>>>> thing.
Arindam's new design rail gun can launch missiles at supersonic speeds.
You have reproduced something invented almost 200 years ago and your >>>>>>> version is capable of nothing more than rolling pipes at low speed, >>>>>>> crackpot.
No, not so, Pennino. Don't lie.
No one invented the low voltage heavy armature electromagnetic rail gun >>>>>> design before Arindam Banerjee, who did it in 2015
The basic principal can be traced back to the work of Charles Wheatstone >>>>> in the 1840's, crackpot.
Using the principal to launch a projectile was demonstrated by André >>>>> Louis Octave Fauchon-Villeplée in 1917, crackpot.
<snip insane rant>
We are not talking old stuff here, dodgy liar. Totally irrelevant to
Arindam's astounding work that is completely original. No one ever did >>>> such an experiment that by outing inertia revised the foundations of
dynamics.
Making a device that is bigger, smaller or slightly different is not an
invention, Arindam.
It is not slightly different, stupid lying penisnino. It is vastly
different,
No, it is no different in principle than models built over a hundred
years ago, crackpot. Using modern, synthetic insulated wire instead of
cloth insulated wire doesn't make it different, crackpot.
<snip insane ranting>
Your so called experiment is lacking any instrumentation and proves
nothing, Arindam.
Nonsense and lies,
So list your instrumentation along with the range, resolution and
accuracy, crackpot.
<snip remaining insane ranting>
On Sat, 24 May 2025 22:13:10 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 14:47:19 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 13:25:40 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 13:24:06 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2025 13:54:24 +0000, occam wrote:
On 22/05/2025 02:00, Arindam's bitches wrote:
The Israelis and Indians evidently know what to do about crude missile
attacks.
Short range missiles. You detect, you shoot.
The discussion so far has been on long range missiles. Not the same >>>>>>>>>> thing.
Arindam's new design rail gun can launch missiles at supersonic speeds.
You have reproduced something invented almost 200 years ago and your >>>>>>>> version is capable of nothing more than rolling pipes at low speed, >>>>>>>> crackpot.
No, not so, Pennino. Don't lie.
No one invented the low voltage heavy armature electromagnetic rail gun >>>>>>> design before Arindam Banerjee, who did it in 2015
The basic principal can be traced back to the work of Charles Wheatstone >>>>>> in the 1840's, crackpot.
Using the principal to launch a projectile was demonstrated by André >>>>>> Louis Octave Fauchon-Villeplée in 1917, crackpot.
<snip insane rant>
We are not talking old stuff here, dodgy liar. Totally irrelevant to >>>>> Arindam's astounding work that is completely original. No one ever did >>>>> such an experiment that by outing inertia revised the foundations of >>>>> dynamics.
Making a device that is bigger, smaller or slightly different is not an >>>> invention, Arindam.
It is not slightly different, stupid lying penisnino. It is vastly
different,
No, it is no different in principle than models built over a hundred
years ago, crackpot. Using modern, synthetic insulated wire instead of
cloth insulated wire doesn't make it different, crackpot.
<snip insane ranting>
Your so called experiment is lacking any instrumentation and proves
nothing, Arindam.
Nonsense and lies,
So list your instrumentation along with the range, resolution and
accuracy, crackpot.
Why bother to inform witless liars! Why bother about them anyway!
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 22:13:10 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 14:47:19 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 13:25:40 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 13:24:06 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 22 May 2025 13:54:24 +0000, occam wrote:
On 22/05/2025 02:00, Arindam's bitches wrote:
The Israelis and Indians evidently know what to do about crude missile
attacks.
Short range missiles. You detect, you shoot.
The discussion so far has been on long range missiles. Not the same >>>>>>>>>>> thing.
Arindam's new design rail gun can launch missiles at supersonic speeds.
You have reproduced something invented almost 200 years ago and your >>>>>>>>> version is capable of nothing more than rolling pipes at low speed, >>>>>>>>> crackpot.
No, not so, Pennino. Don't lie.
No one invented the low voltage heavy armature electromagnetic rail gun
design before Arindam Banerjee, who did it in 2015
The basic principal can be traced back to the work of Charles Wheatstone
in the 1840's, crackpot.
Using the principal to launch a projectile was demonstrated by André >>>>>>> Louis Octave Fauchon-Villeplée in 1917, crackpot.
<snip insane rant>
We are not talking old stuff here, dodgy liar. Totally irrelevant to >>>>>> Arindam's astounding work that is completely original. No one ever did >>>>>> such an experiment that by outing inertia revised the foundations of >>>>>> dynamics.
Making a device that is bigger, smaller or slightly different is not an >>>>> invention, Arindam.
It is not slightly different, stupid lying penisnino. It is vastly
different,
No, it is no different in principle than models built over a hundred
years ago, crackpot. Using modern, synthetic insulated wire instead of
cloth insulated wire doesn't make it different, crackpot.
Arindam used super capacitors for his experiment which were not around a
century ago, fool.
The only difference between super capacitors and what was available 100
years ago is the size of the capacitors for a given capacitance,
crackpot.
All of which is irrelevant as electricity is electricity no matter the source, crackpot.
By the way, crackpot, Fauchon-Villeplée patented his device (US1421435A)
in 1919.
<snip insane rant>
<snip insane ranting>
Your so called experiment is lacking any instrumentation and proves
nothing, Arindam.
So list your instrumentation along with the range, resolution and
accuracy, crackpot.
<snip remaining insane ranting>
--
On Sat, 24 May 2025 22:43:37 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 22:13:10 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 14:47:19 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 13:25:40 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 13:24:06 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 22 May 2025 13:54:24 +0000, occam wrote:
On 22/05/2025 02:00, Arindam's bitches wrote:
The Israelis and Indians evidently know what to do about crude missile
attacks.
Short range missiles. You detect, you shoot.
The discussion so far has been on long range missiles. Not the same
thing.
Arindam's new design rail gun can launch missiles at supersonic speeds.
You have reproduced something invented almost 200 years ago and your >>>>>>>>>> version is capable of nothing more than rolling pipes at low speed, >>>>>>>>>> crackpot.
No, not so, Pennino. Don't lie.
No one invented the low voltage heavy armature electromagnetic rail gun
design before Arindam Banerjee, who did it in 2015
The basic principal can be traced back to the work of Charles Wheatstone
in the 1840's, crackpot.
Using the principal to launch a projectile was demonstrated by André >>>>>>>> Louis Octave Fauchon-Villeplée in 1917, crackpot.
<snip insane rant>
We are not talking old stuff here, dodgy liar. Totally irrelevant to >>>>>>> Arindam's astounding work that is completely original. No one ever did >>>>>>> such an experiment that by outing inertia revised the foundations of >>>>>>> dynamics.
Making a device that is bigger, smaller or slightly different is not an >>>>>> invention, Arindam.
It is not slightly different, stupid lying penisnino. It is vastly
different,
No, it is no different in principle than models built over a hundred
years ago, crackpot. Using modern, synthetic insulated wire instead of >>>> cloth insulated wire doesn't make it different, crackpot.
Arindam used super capacitors for his experiment which were not around a >>> century ago, fool.
The only difference between super capacitors and what was available 100
years ago is the size of the capacitors for a given capacitance,
crackpot.
All of which is irrelevant as electricity is electricity no matter the
source, crackpot.
Current amplitude and physical size matter, fool.
By the way, crackpot, Fauchon-Villeplée patented his device (US1421435A)
in 1919.
Fat lot of anything that did for the failed US rail guns.
On Sat, 24 May 2025 22:13:10 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 14:47:19 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 13:25:40 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 13:24:06 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2025 13:54:24 +0000, occam wrote:
On 22/05/2025 02:00, Arindam's bitches wrote:
The Israelis and Indians evidently know what to do about crude missile
attacks.
Short range missiles. You detect, you shoot.
The discussion so far has been on long range missiles. Not the same >>>>>>>>>> thing.
Arindam's new design rail gun can launch missiles at supersonic speeds.
You have reproduced something invented almost 200 years ago and your >>>>>>>> version is capable of nothing more than rolling pipes at low speed, >>>>>>>> crackpot.
No, not so, Pennino. Don't lie.
No one invented the low voltage heavy armature electromagnetic rail gun >>>>>>> design before Arindam Banerjee, who did it in 2015
The basic principal can be traced back to the work of Charles Wheatstone >>>>>> in the 1840's, crackpot.
Using the principal to launch a projectile was demonstrated by André >>>>>> Louis Octave Fauchon-Villeplée in 1917, crackpot.
<snip insane rant>
We are not talking old stuff here, dodgy liar. Totally irrelevant to >>>>> Arindam's astounding work that is completely original. No one ever did >>>>> such an experiment that by outing inertia revised the foundations of >>>>> dynamics.
Making a device that is bigger, smaller or slightly different is not an >>>> invention, Arindam.
It is not slightly different, stupid lying penisnino. It is vastly
different,
No, it is no different in principle than models built over a hundred
years ago, crackpot. Using modern, synthetic insulated wire instead of
cloth insulated wire doesn't make it different, crackpot.
<snip insane ranting>
Your so called experiment is lacking any instrumentation and proves
nothing, Arindam.
Nonsense and lies,
So list your instrumentation along with the range, resolution and
accuracy, crackpot.
Why bother about rabid imbeciles with no clue about science!
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 14:47:19 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 13:25:40 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 13:24:06 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2025 13:54:24 +0000, occam wrote:
On 22/05/2025 02:00, Arindam's bitches wrote:
The Israelis and Indians evidently know what to do about crude missile
attacks.
Short range missiles. You detect, you shoot.
The discussion so far has been on long range missiles. Not the same >>>>>>>>> thing.
Arindam's new design rail gun can launch missiles at supersonic speeds.
You have reproduced something invented almost 200 years ago and your >>>>>>> version is capable of nothing more than rolling pipes at low speed, >>>>>>> crackpot.
No, not so, Pennino. Don't lie.
No one invented the low voltage heavy armature electromagnetic rail gun >>>>>> design before Arindam Banerjee, who did it in 2015
The basic principal can be traced back to the work of Charles Wheatstone >>>>> in the 1840's, crackpot.
Using the principal to launch a projectile was demonstrated by André >>>>> Louis Octave Fauchon-Villeplée in 1917, crackpot.
<snip insane rant>
We are not talking old stuff here, dodgy liar. Totally irrelevant to
Arindam's astounding work that is completely original. No one ever did >>>> such an experiment that by outing inertia revised the foundations of
dynamics.
Making a device that is bigger, smaller or slightly different is not an
invention, Arindam.
It is not slightly different, stupid lying penisnino. It is vastly
different,
No, it is no different in principle than models built over a hundred
years ago, crackpot. Using modern, synthetic insulated wire instead of
cloth insulated wire doesn't make it different, crackpot.
<snip insane ranting>
Your so called experiment is lacking any instrumentation and proves
nothing, Arindam.
Nonsense and lies,
So list your instrumentation along with the range, resolution and
accuracy, crackpot.
<snip remaining insane ranting>
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 22:13:10 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 14:47:19 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 13:25:40 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 13:24:06 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 22 May 2025 13:54:24 +0000, occam wrote:
On 22/05/2025 02:00, Arindam's bitches wrote:
The Israelis and Indians evidently know what to do about crude missile
attacks.
Short range missiles. You detect, you shoot.
The discussion so far has been on long range missiles. Not the same >>>>>>>>>>> thing.
Arindam's new design rail gun can launch missiles at supersonic speeds.
You have reproduced something invented almost 200 years ago and your >>>>>>>>> version is capable of nothing more than rolling pipes at low speed, >>>>>>>>> crackpot.
No, not so, Pennino. Don't lie.
No one invented the low voltage heavy armature electromagnetic rail gun
design before Arindam Banerjee, who did it in 2015
The basic principal can be traced back to the work of Charles Wheatstone
in the 1840's, crackpot.
Using the principal to launch a projectile was demonstrated by André >>>>>>> Louis Octave Fauchon-Villeplée in 1917, crackpot.
<snip insane rant>
We are not talking old stuff here, dodgy liar. Totally irrelevant to >>>>>> Arindam's astounding work that is completely original. No one ever did >>>>>> such an experiment that by outing inertia revised the foundations of >>>>>> dynamics.
Making a device that is bigger, smaller or slightly different is not an >>>>> invention, Arindam.
It is not slightly different, stupid lying penisnino. It is vastly
different,
No, it is no different in principle than models built over a hundred
years ago, crackpot. Using modern, synthetic insulated wire instead of
cloth insulated wire doesn't make it different, crackpot.
<snip insane ranting>
Your so called experiment is lacking any instrumentation and proves
nothing, Arindam.
Nonsense and lies,
So list your instrumentation along with the range, resolution and
accuracy, crackpot.
Why bother about rabid imbeciles with no clue about science!
Translation: Arindam had no instrumentation, which means no data, which
means he has no clue what actually happened in his so called experiment.
On Sun, 25 May 2025 3:24:25 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Translation: Arindam had no instrumentation, which means no data, which
means he has no clue what actually happened in his so called experiment.
Fact: JinPee the penisnono is a stupid liar.
What else can the Einsteinian apes be!
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
On 25/05/2025 05:45, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 3:24:25 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Translation: Arindam had no instrumentation, which means no data, which
means he has no clue what actually happened in his so called experiment.
Fact: JinPee the penisnono is a stupid liar.
What else can the Einsteinian apes be!
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
I have had enough already of that bullshit (even cross-poste
bullshit!), but I am a bit reluctant to kill-file you.
Are you going to reply to every single fucking thing every
single spamming piece of shit posts, so at least doubling
the amount of spam?
Spammer and co-spammers?
-Julio
On Sun, 25 May 2025 3:24:25 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 22:13:10 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 14:47:19 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 13:25:40 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 13:24:06 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 22 May 2025 13:54:24 +0000, occam wrote:
On 22/05/2025 02:00, Arindam's bitches wrote:
The Israelis and Indians evidently know what to do about crude missile
attacks.
Short range missiles. You detect, you shoot.
The discussion so far has been on long range missiles. Not the same
thing.
Arindam's new design rail gun can launch missiles at supersonic speeds.
You have reproduced something invented almost 200 years ago and your >>>>>>>>>> version is capable of nothing more than rolling pipes at low speed, >>>>>>>>>> crackpot.
No, not so, Pennino. Don't lie.
No one invented the low voltage heavy armature electromagnetic rail gun
design before Arindam Banerjee, who did it in 2015
The basic principal can be traced back to the work of Charles Wheatstone
in the 1840's, crackpot.
Using the principal to launch a projectile was demonstrated by André >>>>>>>> Louis Octave Fauchon-Villeplée in 1917, crackpot.
<snip insane rant>
We are not talking old stuff here, dodgy liar. Totally irrelevant to >>>>>>> Arindam's astounding work that is completely original. No one ever did >>>>>>> such an experiment that by outing inertia revised the foundations of >>>>>>> dynamics.
Making a device that is bigger, smaller or slightly different is not an >>>>>> invention, Arindam.
It is not slightly different, stupid lying penisnino. It is vastly
different,
No, it is no different in principle than models built over a hundred
years ago, crackpot. Using modern, synthetic insulated wire instead of >>>> cloth insulated wire doesn't make it different, crackpot.
<snip insane ranting>
Your so called experiment is lacking any instrumentation and proves >>>>>> nothing, Arindam.
Nonsense and lies,
So list your instrumentation along with the range, resolution and
accuracy, crackpot.
Why bother about rabid imbeciles with no clue about science!
Translation: Arindam had no instrumentation, which means no data, which
means he has no clue what actually happened in his so called experiment.
Fact: JinPee the penisnono is a stupid liar.
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 3:24:25 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 22:13:10 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 14:47:19 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 13:25:40 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 May 2025 13:24:06 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 22 May 2025 13:54:24 +0000, occam wrote:
On 22/05/2025 02:00, Arindam's bitches wrote:
The Israelis and Indians evidently know what to do about crude missile
attacks.
Short range missiles. You detect, you shoot.
The discussion so far has been on long range missiles. Not the same
thing.
Arindam's new design rail gun can launch missiles at supersonic speeds.
You have reproduced something invented almost 200 years ago and your
version is capable of nothing more than rolling pipes at low speed, >>>>>>>>>>> crackpot.
No, not so, Pennino. Don't lie.
No one invented the low voltage heavy armature electromagnetic rail gun
design before Arindam Banerjee, who did it in 2015
The basic principal can be traced back to the work of Charles Wheatstone
in the 1840's, crackpot.
Using the principal to launch a projectile was demonstrated by André >>>>>>>>> Louis Octave Fauchon-Villeplée in 1917, crackpot.
<snip insane rant>
We are not talking old stuff here, dodgy liar. Totally irrelevant to >>>>>>>> Arindam's astounding work that is completely original. No one ever did >>>>>>>> such an experiment that by outing inertia revised the foundations of >>>>>>>> dynamics.
Making a device that is bigger, smaller or slightly different is not an >>>>>>> invention, Arindam.
It is not slightly different, stupid lying penisnino. It is vastly >>>>>> different,
No, it is no different in principle than models built over a hundred >>>>> years ago, crackpot. Using modern, synthetic insulated wire instead of >>>>> cloth insulated wire doesn't make it different, crackpot.
<snip insane ranting>
Your so called experiment is lacking any instrumentation and proves >>>>>>> nothing, Arindam.
Nonsense and lies,
So list your instrumentation along with the range, resolution and
accuracy, crackpot.
Why bother about rabid imbeciles with no clue about science!
Translation: Arindam had no instrumentation, which means no data, which
means he has no clue what actually happened in his so called experiment.
Fact: JinPee the penisnono is a stupid liar.
Fact: Arindam had no instrumentation, which means no data, which means
he has no clue what actually happened in his so called experiment that
slowly rolled a pipe and nothing more.
On Sun, 25 May 2025 13:06:16 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Fact: Arindam had no instrumentation, which means no data, which means
he has no clue what actually happened in his so called experiment that
slowly rolled a pipe and nothing more.
Facts:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 3:24:25 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 22:13:10 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 14:47:19 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 13:25:40 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 May 2025 13:24:06 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 22 May 2025 13:54:24 +0000, occam wrote:
On 22/05/2025 02:00, Arindam's bitches wrote:
The Israelis and Indians evidently know what to do about crude missile
attacks.
Short range missiles. You detect, you shoot.
The discussion so far has been on long range missiles. Not the same
thing.
Arindam's new design rail gun can launch missiles at supersonic speeds.
You have reproduced something invented almost 200 years ago and your
version is capable of nothing more than rolling pipes at low speed, >>>>>>>>>>> crackpot.
No, not so, Pennino. Don't lie.
No one invented the low voltage heavy armature electromagnetic rail gun
design before Arindam Banerjee, who did it in 2015
The basic principal can be traced back to the work of Charles Wheatstone
in the 1840's, crackpot.
Using the principal to launch a projectile was demonstrated by André >>>>>>>>> Louis Octave Fauchon-Villeplée in 1917, crackpot.
<snip insane rant>
We are not talking old stuff here, dodgy liar. Totally irrelevant to >>>>>>>> Arindam's astounding work that is completely original. No one ever did >>>>>>>> such an experiment that by outing inertia revised the foundations of >>>>>>>> dynamics.
Making a device that is bigger, smaller or slightly different is not an >>>>>>> invention, Arindam.
It is not slightly different, stupid lying penisnino. It is vastly >>>>>> different,
No, it is no different in principle than models built over a hundred >>>>> years ago, crackpot. Using modern, synthetic insulated wire instead of >>>>> cloth insulated wire doesn't make it different, crackpot.
<snip insane ranting>
Your so called experiment is lacking any instrumentation and proves >>>>>>> nothing, Arindam.
Nonsense and lies,
So list your instrumentation along with the range, resolution and
accuracy, crackpot.
Why bother about rabid imbeciles with no clue about science!
Translation: Arindam had no instrumentation, which means no data, which
means he has no clue what actually happened in his so called experiment.
Fact: JinPee the penisnono is a stupid liar.
Fact: Arindam had no instrumentation, which means no data, which means
he has no clue what actually happened in his so called experiment that
slowly rolled a pipe and nothing more.
In sci.physics bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 13:06:16 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip huge pile of old crap>
Fact: Arindam had no instrumentation, which means no data, which means
he has no clue what actually happened in his so called experiment that
slowly rolled a pipe and nothing more.
Facts:
<snip huge pile of links to youtube videos with no list of
instrumentation>
On Sun, 25 May 2025 13:41:34 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 13:06:16 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip huge pile of old crap>
Fact: Arindam had no instrumentation, which means no data, which means >>>> he has no clue what actually happened in his so called experiment that >>>> slowly rolled a pipe and nothing more.
Facts:
<snip huge pile of links to youtube videos with no list of
instrumentation>
Simple multimeter, video camera, self generated software, measuring and weight scales are enough instrumentation for Arindam
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 13:41:34 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 13:06:16 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip huge pile of old crap>
Fact: Arindam had no instrumentation, which means no data, which means >>>>> he has no clue what actually happened in his so called experiment that >>>>> slowly rolled a pipe and nothing more.
Facts:
<snip huge pile of links to youtube videos with no list of
instrumentation>
Simple multimeter, video camera, self generated software, measuring and
weight scales are enough instrumentation for Arindam
Which means you don't have a clue as to the the dynamic voltage or
current nor do you have anything to measure acceleration.
As would be expected from someone who would attempt to power a rail gun
with super capacitors which have a maximum voltage rating of under 3
volts.
What a clueless buffoon.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 4:45:34 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 13:41:34 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 13:06:16 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip huge pile of old crap>
Fact: Arindam had no instrumentation, which means no data, which means >>>>>> he has no clue what actually happened in his so called experiment that >>>>>> slowly rolled a pipe and nothing more.
Facts:
<snip huge pile of links to youtube videos with no list of
instrumentation>
Simple multimeter, video camera, self generated software, measuring and
weight scales are enough instrumentation for Arindam
Which means you don't have a clue as to the the dynamic voltage or
current nor do you have anything to measure acceleration.
A video camera with a scale is sufficient to show that the centre of
gravity accelerates with internal force.
That was the point fool. To make a low voltage heavy armature gun making
a very low resistance circuit. That is what makes it a brilliant new
design, 100 times better than the old rail gun designs. Penisnino is
such an ass that he does not know that 6 supercapacitors in series
generate 6 times 2.7 volts or 16.2 Volts. Which when shorted give an
average current of nearly 3000 amperes, enough for the purpose. With conventional rail gun design, the armature is light and the voltage is
very high.
In sci.physics bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 4:45:34 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 13:41:34 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 13:06:16 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip huge pile of old crap>
Fact: Arindam had no instrumentation, which means no data, which means >>>>>>> he has no clue what actually happened in his so called experiment that >>>>>>> slowly rolled a pipe and nothing more.
Facts:
<snip huge pile of links to youtube videos with no list of
instrumentation>
Simple multimeter, video camera, self generated software, measuring and >>>> weight scales are enough instrumentation for Arindam
Which means you don't have a clue as to the the dynamic voltage or
current nor do you have anything to measure acceleration.
A video camera with a scale is sufficient to show that the centre of
gravity accelerates with internal force.
Utter nonsense.
<snip delusional nonsense>
That was the point fool. To make a low voltage heavy armature gun making
a very low resistance circuit. That is what makes it a brilliant new
design, 100 times better than the old rail gun designs. Penisnino is
such an ass that he does not know that 6 supercapacitors in series
generate 6 times 2.7 volts or 16.2 Volts. Which when shorted give an
average current of nearly 3000 amperes, enough for the purpose. With
conventional rail gun design, the armature is light and the voltage is
very high.
More utter nonsense.
With an applied voltage of 16.2 volts, the resistance would have to be
less than 0.0054 Ohms to get 3000 Amps. The actual resistance of such a device is going to be in the range of somewhere between 0.1 and 0.5
Ohms,
but you have no way to know what it actually is as simple multimeters
can
not accurately measure resistences less than about 1 Ohm.
Trying to run a rail gun at low voltage is not something new or a new discovery as the equations that describe the operation of a rail gun
have no limits on the applied voltage.
Since the generated force is directly related to current and I=E/R, you
must apply as much voltage as possible to get a high force and resultant acceleration to launch a projectile, i.e. make it a rail gun and not
just a pipe roller.
Since you have no way to measure the dynamic voltage, current and acceleration, you have no idea how much energy went into accerating
force and how much went into resistive heating.
In other words, you have nothing.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 15:17:12 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 4:45:34 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 13:41:34 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 13:06:16 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip huge pile of old crap>
Fact: Arindam had no instrumentation, which means no data, which means >>>>>>>> he has no clue what actually happened in his so called experiment that >>>>>>>> slowly rolled a pipe and nothing more.
Facts:
<snip huge pile of links to youtube videos with no list of
instrumentation>
Simple multimeter, video camera, self generated software, measuring and >>>>> weight scales are enough instrumentation for Arindam
Which means you don't have a clue as to the the dynamic voltage or
current nor do you have anything to measure acceleration.
A video camera with a scale is sufficient to show that the centre of
gravity accelerates with internal force.
Utter nonsense.
<snip delusional nonsense>
That was the point fool. To make a low voltage heavy armature gun making >>> a very low resistance circuit. That is what makes it a brilliant new
design, 100 times better than the old rail gun designs. Penisnino is
such an ass that he does not know that 6 supercapacitors in series
generate 6 times 2.7 volts or 16.2 Volts. Which when shorted give an
average current of nearly 3000 amperes, enough for the purpose. With
conventional rail gun design, the armature is light and the voltage is
very high.
More utter nonsense.
No, it is the height of sense.
With an applied voltage of 16.2 volts, the resistance would have to be
less than 0.0054 Ohms to get 3000 Amps. The actual resistance of such a
device is going to be in the range of somewhere between 0.1 and 0.5
Ohms,
It is actually in the order of millions typically 5 milliohms or 0.05
ohms.
but you have no way to know what it actually is as simple multimeters
can
not accurately measure resistences less than about 1 Ohm.
We are not checking the resistance with meter. We are finding the
average current from the force and knowing the average voltage we are
finding it.
About direct calculation from resistive path. The main circuit is thick copper with near zero resistance. The only resistance is at the contacts which are low thanks to the heavy weight of the armature. The heavy
weight makes it a good short. Arindam spent years improving the contact
and indeed that is crucial for further development.
Check out the specs of the internal resistance of the super capacitors
from the manufacturer. The internal resistance is below one milliohm
Trying to run a rail gun at low voltage is not something new or a new
discovery as the equations that describe the operation of a rail gun
have no limits on the applied voltage.
It is absolutely new as no one did it before. Arindam's experiment is
totally new as your consternation and ignorance show.
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 15:17:12 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 4:45:34 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 13:41:34 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 13:06:16 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip huge pile of old crap>
Fact: Arindam had no instrumentation, which means no data, which >>>>>>>> means he has no clue what actually happened in his so called >>>>>>>> experiment that slowly rolled a pipe and nothing more.
Facts:
<snip huge pile of links to youtube videos with no list of
instrumentation>
Simple multimeter, video camera, self generated software, measuring and >>>>> weight scales are enough instrumentation for Arindam
Which means you don't have a clue as to the the dynamic voltage or
current nor do you have anything to measure acceleration.
A video camera with a scale is sufficient to show that the centre of
gravity accelerates with internal force.
Utter nonsense.
<snip delusional nonsense>
That was the point fool. To make a low voltage heavy armature gun making >>> a very low resistance circuit. That is what makes it a brilliant new
design, 100 times better than the old rail gun designs. Penisnino is
such an ass that he does not know that 6 supercapacitors in series
generate 6 times 2.7 volts or 16.2 Volts. Which when shorted give an
average current of nearly 3000 amperes, enough for the purpose. With
conventional rail gun design, the armature is light and the voltage is >>> very high.
More utter nonsense.
No, it is the height of sense.
With an applied voltage of 16.2 volts, the resistance would have to be
less than 0.0054 Ohms to get 3000 Amps. The actual resistance of such a
device is going to be in the range of somewhere between 0.1 and 0.5
Ohms,
It is actually in the order of millions typically 5 milliohms or 0.05
ohms.
And how could you possibly know that since it requires very special
equipment to measure milliohms?
but you have no way to know what it actually is as simple multimeters
can
not accurately measure resistences less than about 1 Ohm.
We are not checking the resistance with meter. We are finding the
average current from the force and knowing the average voltage we are finding it.
And how could you possibly know that since you have no equipment to
measure force even indirectly?
About direct calculation from resistive path. The main circuit is thick copper with near zero resistance. The only resistance is at the contacts which are low thanks to the heavy weight of the armature. The heavy
weight makes it a good short. Arindam spent years improving the contact
and indeed that is crucial for further development.
Utter nonsense as you have no equipment capable of measuring resistances
of less than an Ohm.
Check out the specs of the internal resistance of the super capacitors
from the manufacturer. The internal resistance is below one milliohm
Totally irrelevant to anything from above.
Trying to run a rail gun at low voltage is not something new or a new
discovery as the equations that describe the operation of a rail gun
have no limits on the applied voltage.
It is absolutely new as no one did it before. Arindam's experiment is totally new as your consternation and ignorance show.
It has never been done because the equations that describe such an
apparatus clearly show using low voltage is blazingly stupid and you are
the first person stupid enough to do it.
FYI, the root problem with Arindam is that he denies Newton's third law.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 15:17:12 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 4:45:34 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 13:41:34 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 13:06:16 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip huge pile of old crap>
Fact: Arindam had no instrumentation, which means no data, which means >>>>>>>> he has no clue what actually happened in his so called experiment that >>>>>>>> slowly rolled a pipe and nothing more.
Facts:
<snip huge pile of links to youtube videos with no list of
instrumentation>
Simple multimeter, video camera, self generated software, measuring and >>>>> weight scales are enough instrumentation for Arindam
Which means you don't have a clue as to the the dynamic voltage or
current nor do you have anything to measure acceleration.
A video camera with a scale is sufficient to show that the centre of
gravity accelerates with internal force.
Utter nonsense.
<snip delusional nonsense>
That was the point fool. To make a low voltage heavy armature gun making >>> a very low resistance circuit. That is what makes it a brilliant new
design, 100 times better than the old rail gun designs. Penisnino is
such an ass that he does not know that 6 supercapacitors in series
generate 6 times 2.7 volts or 16.2 Volts. Which when shorted give an
average current of nearly 3000 amperes, enough for the purpose. With
conventional rail gun design, the armature is light and the voltage is
very high.
More utter nonsense.
No, it is the height of sense.
With an applied voltage of 16.2 volts, the resistance would have to be
less than 0.0054 Ohms to get 3000 Amps. The actual resistance of such a
device is going to be in the range of somewhere between 0.1 and 0.5
Ohms,
It is actually in the order of millions typically 5 milliohms or 0.05
ohms.
but you have no way to know what it actually is as simple multimeters
can
not accurately measure resistences less than about 1 Ohm.
We are not checking the resistance with meter. We are finding the
average current from the force and knowing the average voltage we are
finding it.
About direct calculation from resistive path. The main circuit is thick copper with near zero resistance. The only resistance is at the contacts which are low thanks to the heavy weight of the armature. The heavy
weight makes it a good short. Arindam spent years improving the contact
and indeed that is crucial for further development.
Check out the specs of the internal resistance of the super capacitors
from the manufacturer. The internal resistance is below one milliohm
Trying to run a rail gun at low voltage is not something new or a new
discovery as the equations that describe the operation of a rail gun
have no limits on the applied voltage.
It is absolutely new as no one did it before. Arindam's experiment is
totally new as your consternation and ignorance show.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
Since the generated force is directly related to current and I=E/R, you
must apply as much voltage as possible to get a high force and resultant
acceleration to launch a projectile, i.e. make it a rail gun and not
just a pipe roller.
Since you have no way to measure the dynamic voltage, current and
acceleration, you have no idea how much energy went into accerating
force and how much went into resistive heating.
In other words, you have nothing.
--
It is absolutely new as no one did it before. Arindam's experiment is
totally new as your consternation and ignorance show.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
Den 27.05.2025 00:29, skrev Bertitaylor:
It is absolutely new as no one did it before. Arindam's experiment is
totally new as your consternation and ignorance show.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
Internet is full of "reaction free drives", and Arindam's is yet
another. They are all nonsense, of course, and Arindam's experiment
is very simple to disclose.
Look at this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc
See the run that starts at ca. 9:44.
When the cylinder has moved ca. 10 cm, the rail has moved ca. 2 cm
to the right. Friction transfers the reaction momentum to the Earth
(via table and building).
Then the cylinder is moving all the way to the end while the rail
does not move at all.
You must be incredible naive to interpret this as there is no reaction.
The blatantly obvious explanation is of course that the force on
the cylinder is to weak to overcome the stiction. So the reaction
momentum is transferred to the Earth.
When the cylinder hits the stopper at the end, the whole assembly
moves 4 cm to the left, and the friction will transfer the momentum
of the cylinder to the Earth.
The centre of mass of the assembly-Earth will not move.
This must be the least effective way to accelerate a cylinder
anybody has figured out.
On Tue, 27 May 2025 13:02:48 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 27.05.2025 00:29, skrev Bertitaylor:
It is absolutely new as no one did it before. Arindam's experiment is
totally new as your consternation and ignorance show.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
Internet is full of "reaction free drives", and Arindam's is yet
another. They are all nonsense, of course, and Arindam's experiment
is very simple to disclose.
Look at this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc
See the run that starts at ca. 9:44.
When the cylinder has moved ca. 10 cm, the rail has moved ca. 2 cm
to the right. Friction transfers the reaction momentum to the Earth
(via table and building).
Yes the rolling friction to begin with pushes the whole system
backwards. If the armature slided then that would be less. The spring
used to accelerate the armature also creates a backward reaction. The
rolling is necessary to prevent welding. If it welds then it cannot accelerate. The more sticking by welding happens meaning more sparking
less the force on the armature.
Anyway it is shown from the 1s video that despite the initial backward
motion the centre of gravity of the whole system accelerates and gets
shifted thereby revising physics. Inertia is violated by this new
invention, the low voltage heavy armature rail gun. It shows a new
effect - under this geometry the Lorentz force does not have an equal
and opposite reaction.
Then the cylinder is moving all the way to the end while the rail
does not move at all.
Yes that shows that the Lorentz force accelerating the armature in this
novel experiment never done before does not have an equal and opposite reaction. So while the armature moves that force does NOT push the whole system back.
As it does not the centre of gravity of the system accelerates violating inertia and revising physics. A cyclic engine (will take some money to develop) will be a reaction less motor making jets and rockets obsolete.
Arindam's 2017 videos show details about the design of faster than light craft for interstellar travel.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
You must be incredible naive to interpret this as there is no reaction.
The blatantly obvious explanation is of course that the force on
the cylinder is to weak to overcome the stiction. So the reaction
momentum is transferred to the Earth.
When the cylinder hits the stopper at the end, the whole assembly
moves 4 cm to the left, and the friction will transfer the momentum
of the cylinder to the Earth.
The centre of mass of the assembly-Earth will not move.
This must be the least effective way to accelerate a cylinder
anybody has figured out.
--
On 5/27/2025 12:52 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
FYI, the root problem with Arindam is that he denies Newton's third law.
So you do, poor trash; the rule your idiot
guru has replaced Newton's law with - differs
from it.
Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 15:17:12 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 4:45:34 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 13:41:34 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 13:06:16 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip huge pile of old crap>
Fact: Arindam had no instrumentation, which means no data, which >>>>>>>>>> means he has no clue what actually happened in his so called >>>>>>>>>> experiment that slowly rolled a pipe and nothing more.
Facts:
<snip huge pile of links to youtube videos with no list of
instrumentation>
Simple multimeter, video camera, self generated software, measuring and >>>>>>> weight scales are enough instrumentation for Arindam
Which means you don't have a clue as to the the dynamic voltage or >>>>>> current nor do you have anything to measure acceleration.
A video camera with a scale is sufficient to show that the centre of >>>>> gravity accelerates with internal force.
Utter nonsense.
<snip delusional nonsense>
That was the point fool. To make a low voltage heavy armature gun making >>>>> a very low resistance circuit. That is what makes it a brilliant new >>>>> design, 100 times better than the old rail gun designs. Penisnino is >>>>> such an ass that he does not know that 6 supercapacitors in series
generate 6 times 2.7 volts or 16.2 Volts. Which when shorted give an >>>>> average current of nearly 3000 amperes, enough for the purpose. With >>>>> conventional rail gun design, the armature is light and the voltage is >>>>> very high.
More utter nonsense.
No, it is the height of sense.
With an applied voltage of 16.2 volts, the resistance would have to be >>>> less than 0.0054 Ohms to get 3000 Amps. The actual resistance of such a >>>> device is going to be in the range of somewhere between 0.1 and 0.5
Ohms,
It is actually in the order of millions typically 5 milliohms or 0.05
ohms.
And how could you possibly know that since it requires very special
equipment to measure milliohms?
but you have no way to know what it actually is as simple multimeters
can
not accurately measure resistences less than about 1 Ohm.
We are not checking the resistance with meter. We are finding the
average current from the force and knowing the average voltage we are
finding it.
And how could you possibly know that since you have no equipment to
measure force even indirectly?
About direct calculation from resistive path. The main circuit is thick
copper with near zero resistance. The only resistance is at the contacts >>> which are low thanks to the heavy weight of the armature. The heavy
weight makes it a good short. Arindam spent years improving the contact
and indeed that is crucial for further development.
Utter nonsense as you have no equipment capable of measuring resistances
of less than an Ohm.
Check out the specs of the internal resistance of the super capacitors
from the manufacturer. The internal resistance is below one milliohm
Totally irrelevant to anything from above.
Trying to run a rail gun at low voltage is not something new or a new
discovery as the equations that describe the operation of a rail gun
have no limits on the applied voltage.
It is absolutely new as no one did it before. Arindam's experiment is
totally new as your consternation and ignorance show.
It has never been done because the equations that describe such an
apparatus clearly show using low voltage is blazingly stupid and you are
the first person stupid enough to do it.
FYI, the root problem with Arindam is that he denies Newton's third law.
Hence, in Arindam physics 'internal forces' don't need to balance,
and an isolated box in free space can self-accelerate.
(as he explained many postings ago)
All other stupidities (perpetuum mobile, reactionless drive)
follow from that,
Jan
Den 28.05.2025 10:23, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 13:02:48 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote: the
Den 27.05.2025 00:29, skrev Bertitaylor:
It is absolutely new as no one did it before. Arindam's experiment is
totally new as your consternation and ignorance show.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
Internet is full of "reaction free drives", and Arindam's is yet
another. They are all nonsense, of course, and Arindam's experiment
is very simple to disclose.
Look at this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc
See the run that starts at ca. 9:44.
When the cylinder has moved ca. 10 cm, the rail has moved ca. 2 cm
to the right. Friction transfers the reaction momentum to the Earth
(via table and building).
Let us first look at what it means that the mass centre
of a system doesn't move.
Consider this scenario:
You are inertial (free falling) somewhere in space.
We will call your initial position for stationary-
You have a gun and fire a bullet.
Then we have: mv = MV → v/V = M/m (conservation of momentum)
where:
m is the mass of the bullet
v is the speed of the bullet relative to your initial position.
M is the mass of you and the gun
V is your speed relative to your initial position
If d(t) is the bullet's distance to the mass centre
and D(t) is your distance to the mass centre,
we have for all t after the bullet was fired:
d/D = v/V = M/m → dm = DM
which mean that the mass centre is stationary.
# That the mass centre is stationary follows from
# the conservation of momentum.
Now you return to the Earth.
You position your gun against a solid concrete wall
and fire it.
Now you and the wall don't seem to move.
But i does! The gun is not reactionless!
M is now the mass of the Earth!
If the mass of the bullet is 20 g and it's speed is 1000 m/s,
then the Earth will change its speed by V = 3.3e-24 m/s
The Earth as a whole will obviously not change it's speed.
It will be a shockwave in the wall and the ground.
Molecules will move and mass will change its position on
the Earth. The point is that momentum will be conserved
and the mass centre of the bullet-Earth system will remain
constant (move around the Sun with unchanged speed)
Yes the rolling friction to begin with pushes the whole system
backwards. If the armature slided then that would be less. The spring
used to accelerate the armature also creates a backward reaction. The
rolling is necessary to prevent welding. If it welds then it cannot
accelerate. The more sticking by welding happens meaning more sparking
less the force on the armature.
You get it backwards.
The friction pushes the Earth to the right, and the momentum
of the cylinder will be equal to the momentum transferred to the Earth,
mv = Ft
where:
m is the mass of the cylinder,
v is the speed of the cylinder when it has moved 10 cm,
mv is the momentum of the cylinder when it has moved 10 cm,
F is the friction between rail and table (independent of speed)
t is the time it takes for the cylinder to move 10 cm.
Anyway it is shown from the 1s video that despite the initial backward
motion the centre of gravity of the whole system accelerates and gets
shifted thereby revising physics. Inertia is violated by this new
invention, the low voltage heavy armature rail gun. It shows a new
effect - under this geometry the Lorentz force does not have an equal
and opposite reaction.
Nonsense.
A well known experiment is to have a heap of wire on the floor
and send current through it. The wire will then become a circular loop.
This is the same phenomenon as the Arindam drive.
Nobody has ever had the idiotic idea that this motion of the wire
prove that momentum is not conserved
Then the cylinder is moving all the way to the end while the rail
does not move at all.
Yes that shows that the Lorentz force accelerating the armature in this
novel experiment never done before does not have an equal and opposite
reaction. So while the armature moves that force does NOT push the whole
system back.
Nonsense. Didn't you read what I wrote?
You must be incredible naive to interpret this as there is no reaction.
The blatantly obvious explanation is of course that the force on
the cylinder is to weak to overcome the stiction. So the reaction
momentum is transferred to the Earth.
The stiction will be equal to the accelerating force, and will
transfer a momentum to the Earth equal to the increased momentum
As it does not the centre of gravity of the system accelerates violating
inertia and revising physics. A cyclic engine (will take some money to
develop) will be a reaction less motor making jets and rockets obsolete.
Do you also believe in Santa Clause ?
Arindam's 2017 videos show details about the design of faster than light
craft for interstellar travel.
Quite.
When you revise physics ad libitum anything is possible.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
You must be incredible naive to interpret this as there is no reaction.
The blatantly obvious explanation is of course that the force on
the cylinder is to weak to overcome the stiction. So the reaction
momentum is transferred to the Earth.
When the cylinder hits the stopper at the end, the whole assembly
moves 4 cm to the left, and the friction will transfer the momentum
of the cylinder to the Earth.
The centre of mass of the assembly-Earth will not move.
This must be the least effective way to accelerate a cylinder
anybody has figured out.
--
I am not going to post more to this thread.
Too stupid!
Right. Under certain situations as in Arindam's new design rail gun the
first and third laws of motion are violated.
On Tue, 27 May 2025 10:52:13 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 15:17:12 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 4:45:34 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 13:41:34 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 May 2025 13:06:16 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip huge pile of old crap>
Fact: Arindam had no instrumentation, which means no data, which >>>>>>>>>>> means he has no clue what actually happened in his so called >>>>>>>>>>> experiment that slowly rolled a pipe and nothing more.
Facts:
<snip huge pile of links to youtube videos with no list of
instrumentation>
Simple multimeter, video camera, self generated software, measuring and
weight scales are enough instrumentation for Arindam
Which means you don't have a clue as to the the dynamic voltage or >>>>>>> current nor do you have anything to measure acceleration.
A video camera with a scale is sufficient to show that the centre of >>>>>> gravity accelerates with internal force.
Utter nonsense.
<snip delusional nonsense>
That was the point fool. To make a low voltage heavy armature gun making >>>>>> a very low resistance circuit. That is what makes it a brilliant new >>>>>> design, 100 times better than the old rail gun designs. Penisnino is >>>>>> such an ass that he does not know that 6 supercapacitors in series >>>>>> generate 6 times 2.7 volts or 16.2 Volts. Which when shorted give an >>>>>> average current of nearly 3000 amperes, enough for the purpose. With >>>>>> conventional rail gun design, the armature is light and the voltage is >>>>>> very high.
More utter nonsense.
No, it is the height of sense.
With an applied voltage of 16.2 volts, the resistance would have to be >>>>> less than 0.0054 Ohms to get 3000 Amps. The actual resistance of such a >>>>> device is going to be in the range of somewhere between 0.1 and 0.5
Ohms,
It is actually in the order of millions typically 5 milliohms or 0.05
ohms.
And how could you possibly know that since it requires very special
equipment to measure milliohms?
but you have no way to know what it actually is as simple multimeters >>>>> can
not accurately measure resistences less than about 1 Ohm.
We are not checking the resistance with meter. We are finding the
average current from the force and knowing the average voltage we are
finding it.
And how could you possibly know that since you have no equipment to
measure force even indirectly?
About direct calculation from resistive path. The main circuit is thick >>>> copper with near zero resistance. The only resistance is at the contacts >>>> which are low thanks to the heavy weight of the armature. The heavy
weight makes it a good short. Arindam spent years improving the contact >>>> and indeed that is crucial for further development.
Utter nonsense as you have no equipment capable of measuring resistances >>> of less than an Ohm.
Check out the specs of the internal resistance of the super capacitors >>>> from the manufacturer. The internal resistance is below one milliohm
Totally irrelevant to anything from above.
Trying to run a rail gun at low voltage is not something new or a new >>>>> discovery as the equations that describe the operation of a rail gun >>>>> have no limits on the applied voltage.
It is absolutely new as no one did it before. Arindam's experiment is
totally new as your consternation and ignorance show.
It has never been done because the equations that describe such an
apparatus clearly show using low voltage is blazingly stupid and you are >>> the first person stupid enough to do it.
FYI, the root problem with Arindam is that he denies Newton's third law.
Right. Under certain situations as in Arindam's new design rail gun the
first and third laws of motion are violated.
Hence, in Arindam physics 'internal forces' don't need to balance,
and an isolated box in free space can self-accelerate.
Absolutely, with proper engineering. They can go faster than light or at least be far more efficient than jets or rockets.
(as he explained many postings ago)
All other stupidities (perpetuum mobile, reactionless drive)
follow from that,
Perpetuum mobile is marketed by the Chinese. Reaction less drives, not
yet.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
Jan
--
Den 28.05.2025 10:23, skrev Bertitaylor:
Arindam's 2017 videos show details about the design of faster than light
craft for interstellar travel.
Quite.
When you revise physics ad libitum anything is possible.
On 29/05/25 06:34, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 28.05.2025 10:23, skrev Bertitaylor:
Arindam's 2017 videos show details about the design of faster than light >>> craft for interstellar travel.
Quite.
When you revise physics ad libitum anything is possible.
I always liked Larry Niven's take on it:
Trying to change one law of physics is like trying to eat one peanut.
On Wed, 28 May 2025 20:34:43 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 28.05.2025 10:23, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 13:02:48 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote: the
Den 27.05.2025 00:29, skrev Bertitaylor:
It is absolutely new as no one did it before. Arindam's experiment is >>>>> totally new as your consternation and ignorance show.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
Internet is full of "reaction free drives", and Arindam's is yet
another. They are all nonsense, of course, and Arindam's experiment
is very simple to disclose.
Look at this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc
See the run that starts at ca. 9:44.
When the cylinder has moved ca. 10 cm, the rail has moved ca. 2 cm
to the right. Friction transfers the reaction momentum to the Earth
(via table and building).
Rolling friction and spring action are the mechanical forces causing
initial pushback. Sliding would prevent former.
Let us first look at what it means that the mass centre
of a system doesn't move.
Irrelevant.
Consider this scenario:
You are inertial (free falling) somewhere in space.
We will call your initial position for stationary-
You have a gun and fire a bullet.
Then we have: mv = MV → v/V = M/m (conservation of momentum)
where:
m is the mass of the bullet
v is the speed of the bullet relative to your initial position.
M is the mass of you and the gun
V is your speed relative to your initial position
If d(t) is the bullet's distance to the mass centre
and D(t) is your distance to the mass centre,
we have for all t after the bullet was fired:
d/D = v/V = M/m → dm = DM
which mean that the mass centre is stationary.
# That the mass centre is stationary follows from
# the conservation of momentum.
Now you return to the Earth.
You position your gun against a solid concrete wall
and fire it.
Rubbish.
Now you and the wall don't seem to move.
But i does! The gun is not reactionless!
M is now the mass of the Earth!
If the mass of the bullet is 20 g and it's speed is 1000 m/s,
then the Earth will change its speed by V = 3.3e-24 m/s
The Earth as a whole will obviously not change it's speed.
It will be a shockwave in the wall and the ground.
Molecules will move and mass will change its position on
the Earth. The point is that momentum will be conserved
and the mass centre of the bullet-Earth system will remain
constant (move around the Sun with unchanged speed)
Blah
Yes the rolling friction to begin with pushes the whole system
backwards. If the armature slided then that would be less. The spring
used to accelerate the armature also creates a backward reaction. The
rolling is necessary to prevent welding. If it welds then it cannot
accelerate. The more sticking by welding happens meaning more sparking
less the force on the armature.
You get it backwards.
You try your best not to get it.
The friction pushes the Earth to the right, and the momentum
of the cylinder will be equal to the momentum transferred to the Earth,
Which is not happening. There is violation of momentum with internal
force as a net velocity is obtained for the system.
mv = Ft
where:
m is the mass of the cylinder,
v is the speed of the cylinder when it has moved 10 cm,
mv is the momentum of the cylinder when it has moved 10 cm,
F is the friction between rail and table (independent of speed)
t is the time it takes for the cylinder to move 10 cm.
Blah
Anyway it is shown from the 1s video that despite the initial backward
motion the centre of gravity of the whole system accelerates and gets
shifted thereby revising physics. Inertia is violated by this new
invention, the low voltage heavy armature rail gun. It shows a new
effect - under this geometry the Lorentz force does not have an equal
and opposite reaction.
Nonsense.
A well known experiment is to have a heap of wire on the floor
and send current through it. The wire will then become a circular loop.
This is the same phenomenon as the Arindam drive.
Nobody has ever had the idiotic idea that this motion of the wire
prove that momentum is not conserved
Then the cylinder is moving all the way to the end while the rail
does not move at all.
Yes that shows that the Lorentz force accelerating the armature in this
novel experiment never done before does not have an equal and opposite
reaction. So while the armature moves that force does NOT push the whole >>> system back.
Nonsense. Didn't you read what I wrote?
You must be incredible naive to interpret this as there is no reaction.
The blatantly obvious explanation is of course that the force on
the cylinder is to weak to overcome the stiction. So the reaction
momentum is transferred to the Earth.
The stiction will be equal to the accelerating force, and will
transfer a momentum to the Earth equal to the increased momentum
As it does not the centre of gravity of the system accelerates violating >>> inertia and revising physics. A cyclic engine (will take some money to
develop) will be a reaction less motor making jets and rockets obsolete.
Do you also believe in Santa Clause ?
Arindam's 2017 videos show details about the design of faster than light >>> craft for interstellar travel.
Quite.
When you revise physics ad libitum anything is possible.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
You must be incredible naive to interpret this as there is no reaction. >>>>
The blatantly obvious explanation is of course that the force on
the cylinder is to weak to overcome the stiction. So the reaction
momentum is transferred to the Earth.
When the cylinder hits the stopper at the end, the whole assembly
moves 4 cm to the left, and the friction will transfer the momentum
of the cylinder to the Earth.
The centre of mass of the assembly-Earth will not move.
This must be the least effective way to accelerate a cylinder
anybody has figured out.
--
I am not going to post more to this thread.
Too stupid!
--
On Tue, 27 May 2025 10:52:13 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:
It has never been done because the equations that describe such an
apparatus clearly show using low voltage is blazingly stupid and you are >> the first person stupid enough to do it.
FYI, the root problem with Arindam is that he denies Newton's third law.
Right. Under certain situations as in Arindam's new design rail gun the
first and third laws of motion are violated.
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 10:52:13 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:
It has never been done because the equations that describe such an
apparatus clearly show using low voltage is blazingly stupid and you are >>>> the first person stupid enough to do it.
FYI, the root problem with Arindam is that he denies Newton's third law.
Right. Under certain situations as in Arindam's new design rail gun the
first and third laws of motion are violated.
Yes, that's why it doesn't work as advertised.
Jan
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 17:53:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 10:52:13 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:
Right. Under certain situations as in Arindam's new design rail gun the >>>> first and third laws of motion are violated.It has never been done because the equations that describe such an >>>>>> apparatus clearly show using low voltage is blazingly stupid and you are >>>>>> the first person stupid enough to do it.
FYI, the root problem with Arindam is that he denies Newton's third law. >>>>
Yes, that's why it doesn't work as advertised.
Arindam's rail gun exists in his garden shed in dismantled form.
As well it should...
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 17:53:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 10:52:13 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:
Right. Under certain situations as in Arindam's new design rail gun theIt has never been done because the equations that describe such an
apparatus clearly show using low voltage is blazingly stupid and you are >>>>> the first person stupid enough to do it.
FYI, the root problem with Arindam is that he denies Newton's third law. >>>
first and third laws of motion are violated.
Yes, that's why it doesn't work as advertised.
Arindam's rail gun exists in his garden shed in dismantled form.
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 22:08:03 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 17:53:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 10:52:13 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:
Right. Under certain situations as in Arindam's new design rail gun the >>>>> first and third laws of motion are violated.It has never been done because the equations that describe such an >>>>>>> apparatus clearly show using low voltage is blazingly stupid and you are
the first person stupid enough to do it.
FYI, the root problem with Arindam is that he denies Newton's third law. >>>>>
Yes, that's why it doesn't work as advertised.
Arindam's rail gun exists in his garden shed in dismantled form.
As well it should...
Easy to reassemble. Its job is over, as proving itself a new invention demonstrating a new effect.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 504 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 16:10:31 |
| Calls: | 9,904 |
| Files: | 13,797 |
| Messages: | 6,344,928 |