It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ms898
a reply to: fractal5
It doesn't really need to be efficient. In space if you had a baseball perfectly still a slight touch would all you would need to get it moving in that direction forever* because there is no resistance. In fact if there was an object the size of a house and it was still, a slight touchwould move it in that direction
* If it didn't run into something or gravity acted opon it..
and dammit I'm gonna get excited about this....you guys can be all serious and skeptical but I'm not gonna be.
Bring on a golden age of space travel
originally posted by: Dark Ghost
I understand that there are people who are sceptical and I wouldn't want or expect on a website such as this for others to blindly accept and automatically agree with the information in the opening post. However, I do believe this is a potentially exciting development and just wanted to share the information for those who were unaware.
originally posted by: roguetechie
a reply to: Plotus
It's not fuel less, and the articles saying that it is are just shoddy reporting!
What it actually is... Is a REACTIONLESS thruster, which is just as big of a deal for space travel etc.
What this means, is you can keep gaining velocity or change directions without shooting something out the butt of your space craft and or doing hellish math and depending heavily upon orbital mechanics to slingshot or brake your spacecraft!
This violates Newton... That's the big deal.
So to recap, REACTIONLESS not FUELLESS!
We've been wrong about the laws of physics before so it can happen, but it doesn't happen so much lately thanks to all the experiments under our belt which have done a lot to test the laws of physics as we understand them. So even the updated article linked in your post still says this:
originally posted by: LightAssassin
a reply to: intrptr
But you posted an article from Popular mechanics so i posted the follow-up....and dammit I'm gonna get excited about this....you guys can be all serious and skeptical but I'm not gonna be.
Most physicists believe these far-out systems cannot work and that their potential benefits, such as getting to Mars in ten weeks, are illusory.
If people will admit the failure when it happens, then that would be a worthwhile test. Some people won't want to admit the failure however, and another problem is if we don't understand how the drive actually works it's difficult to optimize the design using theory which is how engineers usually optimize designs.
One way to cut through all the technical arguments about torque balances and eddy currents is to actually test the drive in space. If it fails, it fails. If it works, then physicists will have some explaining.
Yes it does contradict known physics, he just doesn't understand enough physics to realize it, and no matter how many of his tests fail he keeps trying.
In short it is the negative shift in the centre of gravity that was the main problem I have overcome. Like I keep on saying, if you can rotate lever systems in a near balance and tap there leverage forces, then you can get more energy out than the energy put in to drive the system, the energy gain comes from the efficient use of gravity.
That is not over unity that is a free second input from gravity that is bigger than the drive energy input. This does not contradict know physics in general.