It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# The Brain Science behind My Rocket Surgery: OmegaLogos's theory on OverUnity!

page: 1
2
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 04:52 AM
Explanation: Hi!

Everybody knows the famous equation found by Einstien ... E=MC^2

And everybody also knows that we get 100% energy out of similar matter+anti-matter explosions ... E =2MC^2

And everybody also 'knows' that we can't get more than that!

But I am an idiot and so I can't be fooled and therefor ... WATCH THIS ...

Keeping the above fully in mind ...

Ok ... we take a hypergolic chemical rocket fuel ...

WAIT A MINUTE OL ... you'll never reach over unity with such fuels!

Really .. well thanks for jumping in and saying that before the whole theory was explained!

And we make that fuel go BANG!

And we get the momentum kick from that and we vent the exhaust to the rear! i.e. +n%

Now IMAGINE that the above process is DOUBLED UP ... so we use twice the amount of fuel ok! i.e. 2n%

Next IMAGINE that the 2nd extra set of fuel is an ANTI-MATTER varient!

Finally IMAGINE the real-matter exhaust intersecting and interacting with the anti-matter exhaust and since this is an IDEALIZED thought experiment .. imagine 100% conversion rate for that final mixing.

Last but not least ... gamma rays [byproducts from real+anti-matter explosion] are vented to the rear!

Real+Anti-matter Energy Output = 2mc^2 = 100% ...PLUS the % output from the hypergolic fuel bang!

2n%+ 100% => 100%

... THEREFOR THIS IS OVERUNITY!

Personal Disclosure: The above 2 stage process can be used using many other types of fuel such as fission and fusion nukes. I hope this helps show that overunity is very possible and doesn't involve invoking extra dimensions or getting something from nothing etc!

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 05:00 AM
I just checked and the local hardware store is out of all types of anti-matter.

The closest thing they have is Pepsi.

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 05:04 AM
Yeah, the whole producing and stockpiling of anti-matter thing is still kind of tricky.

You get an E for effort though.

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 05:15 AM
I always liked star trek where they done did the thing and then the balloon something, well they always say it soos well. Me like you dumb dumb tick tock man. That called anti could also be called restorative yes?

My tip if you need them antis head to the edge of the atmosphere and just jet from there.

High-energy cosmic rays impacting Earth's atmosphere (or any other matter in the Solar System) produce minute quantities of antiparticles in the resulting particle jets, which are immediately annihilated by contact with nearby matter.

Also brain sciences is good story but i will burn that book.

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 05:24 AM

... THEREFOR THIS IS OVERUNITY!

No-one has picked up on this yet so I will point out the obvious flaw.

Do you realise that every increase in thrust that you have listed above requires additional fuel?

Saying that you will add an anti-matter version of whatever fuel you choose to use will still double the fuel weight.

There is no over-unity, ZPE, free energy here as the increase in thrust can only be achieved with an increase in fuel.

Fail.

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 05:40 AM

Explanation:

This isnt about thrust at all!

I just used a rocket engine for ease of explaining the concept.

Lets assume that the TOTAL mass of both real+matter and anti-matter hypergolic fuels is 500kg making 1ton of fuel gross.

The real+matter and anti-matter explosion at the end of the process I detail in the OP results in 100% conversion to raw energy in the form of gamma rays, which are ejected to the rear.

Now all I am doing ... adding in a 1st stage process were we get the n% CHEMICAL bang for buck 1st ... and as that occurs within the engine and with the same fuel that energy output must also be accounted for!

Same fuel .. 2 types of bang .. 1st is chemical ... 2nd is real+matter and anti-matter annihilation

Therefor n% (chemical) + 100% (nuclear) DOES = MORE THAN 100% energy output!

IT IS OVERUNITY!

Personal Disclosure: However that doesn't mean that we can go FTL ... and I am still working on such concepts.

edit on 25-11-2012 by OmegaLogos because: Edited to remove extra unrequired statement.

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 05:58 AM

FTL is a time machine which none of you will ever do that is my baby. Just watch the movies.

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 05:58 AM
Assuming an equal amount of matter and anti-matter react, than all of that mass will be converted into energy. However, that does not imply that energy can only be stored in the form of mass, there is also kinetic energy, chemical energy, and so forth.

In this example, all you would be doing is converting the chemical potential energy into energy, and then you would be converting the mass into potential energy. Thus laws of physics are fulfilled.

You are making the mistake of thinking that 100% of the energy that can possibly be released is in the form of mass. It is only "overunity" in the sense that you get more energy out than you would if the reactants did not chemically react.

2n%+ 100% => 100%

WRONG.

chemical potential energy + mass potential energy == 100%.

Rearranging the above equation you would find that the total energy released would be greater than the mass portion of the energy released.

i.e. This wouldn't cause perpetual motion or anything like that.
edit on 25/11/12 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 25/11/12 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 25/11/12 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 06:09 AM

Therefor n% (chemical) + 100% (nuclear) DOES = MORE THAN 100% energy output!

IT IS OVERUNITY!

I don't agree.

Were it over-unity, it would keep going on ad-infinitum.

What you have done is postulated a more effective way of utilising the fuel for thrust.

Something that has been done many times before.

en.wikipedia.org...

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 08:06 AM

Therefor n% (chemical) + 100% (nuclear) DOES = MORE THAN 100% energy output!

Yeah... no.

When you're adding efficiencies, you don't just get to sum the efficiencies. You sum your total actual yield and divide it by your total theoretical yield. For the sake of argument, let's say that you get 50 units of energy based on the chemical process out an assumed 100 possible units based on 100% conversion, and that you get 100 units of energy based on the nuclear process out of an assumed 100 possible units based on 100% conversion. Your total efficiency would be (50 + 100)/(100 + 100) or 75%, not (50/100) + (100/100) or 150%.

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 08:50 AM

The error lies in you assumption, that mass-energy equivalence is only applicable to matter-antimatter reactions.

The product of a exothermic chemical reaction has less mass than the reactants. A water molecule weighs a little less than two free hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom. Even changing the temperature of something will affect its mass proportional to the energy supplied/removed.

new topics

top topics

2