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.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# South African Broken Newtons 1st law

page: 1
0
share:

posted on May, 4 2003 @ 01:40 PM
Merlin
I don't know if this will astound you but a man here in South Africa has invented a propulsion system he claims shows that newtons first law is wrong. I know that people have been looking into something that would not need an external force to propell a body! Well this invention "dup drive" as it has been coined used only internal force. I will keep you updated.

What if Sir Isaac Newton was wrong? His first law of motion is that an object can only start moving if an external force is applied. However, a Klerksdorp inventor shows Carte Blanche his propulsion system that defies Newton's law. His invention could make it possible to one day travel to the moon and back in an afternoon.

Hope to hear from you soon,

Kind Regards,

www.tauro.org.za

posted on May, 4 2003 @ 02:08 PM
Newton's three laws :

1. Objects at rest will stay at rest and objects in motion will move in a straight line unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

2. Force is equal to mass times acceleration.

3. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

posted on May, 4 2003 @ 02:22 PM
the link of the story :
www.news24.com... 81,00.html

---------------------

New propulsion system
Ryk van Jaarsveld

Klerksdorp - A former aircraft manufacturing engineer, Mr Hannes du Preez of the city, has invented a revolutionary new propulsion system which could change the face of the globe. He calls his invention the "oscillating force generator" - an invention resulting from years of study and development. During his years as an aircraft engineer, Du Preez was fascinated by the massive amount of brute force required to get large aircraft and space-craft into the air and to keep them there.
When he retired in October 1999, he decided to apply his mind to the possibility of developing an alternative propulsion system that would be far more efficient and powerful than any known existing power source.
To achieve this, he realised that it would probably be necessary to challenge the very essence of Newton‘s laws.
Du Preez‘s objective was to build a mechanical device which generates a force from within, which would in turn result in the device gaining momentum in a predetermined direction - without any external forces acting upon it!
In all, 47 models of the mechanical device were built and were used to create more than 150 different setups to investigate the possible reduction or total cancellation of reacting forces.
This led to the discovery of the oscillating force generator, a concept which was validated by a well-known professor of physics, Prof OC de Jager.
According to the inventor, this revolutionary concept would make it possible for man to attain, and even surpass, the magical speed of light.
The size, magnitude and potential of this concept, however, is such that only very large multinational entities can effectively realise the potential of the product on a global scale for the benefit of mankind.

[Edited on 4-5-2003 by VzH]

posted on May, 4 2003 @ 02:36 PM
Hmmm... sounds interesting, but really vague on the details.

Suprisingly little discussion about it, the discussion board atached to the link seemed to have totally missed it.

I wonder if this will be one of those "supressed" inventions that just quietly disapear?

posted on May, 4 2003 @ 05:09 PM
A former printing press operator made similar claims as far back as the 1970s. Robert Cook, inventor of the CIP (Cook Inertial Propulsion system) wrote the book "Death of Rocketry" with Joel Dickinson in 1980. It is a very interesting read, and according to a couple of engineers it might be possible.

Cook is apparently still attempting to prove his theories, although no one is currently buying it. I am not sure if this is because it doesnt work, or because doing so would cause too many problems for established industry.

www.americanantigravity.com...

www.forceborne.com...

I would say that, if he is proven correct, it would be a very interesting scientific find, however, I believe his CIP to be outclassed by currently used magneto-hydrodynamic and electrogravitic propulsion systems currently used in X Craft out of Area 51.

But then, those dont exist either do they?

posted on May, 4 2003 @ 05:47 PM
such claims are generally proven false within a matter of time, and other, unconsidered factors, show otherwise...

Would be nice though...but if it does work, it will end up as a patent in the possession of a company that seems to have no other purpose or ties...and the models will be crated up, and likely stored next to the arc of the covenent, hehe....*sigh*

posted on May, 4 2003 @ 06:24 PM
It can't be patented one of the requirements for patenting is it must follow the laws of nature, physics, which means Newton's laws and the Laws of Thermodynamics.

And Dragonrider have you ever worked in Area-51? No? Ok then thank you.

[Edited on 4-5-2003 by HKoT]

posted on May, 4 2003 @ 06:51 PM
And Dragonrider have you ever worked in Area-51? No? Ok then thank you. Posted by HKoT

No I havent. However, I have close contacts with the military who have. Given some interesting conversations, I can tell you that NOTHING at Area 51 is extraterrestrial (they hold that material at a different location), and the X Craft present are derived from technology that was developed here on earth as early as the 1880s.

Not that this is top secret information, if you do a bit of research, you will find lots of information that supports my statements publicly available. I just happen to have had it confirmed by military contacts.

posted on May, 4 2003 @ 06:52 PM
It can't be patented one of the requirements for patenting is it must follow the laws of nature, physics, which means Newton's laws and the Laws of Thermodynamics. Posted by HKoT

This is correct. The fact that there are holes in the laws is a fact that is often ignored, and serves as a mechanism to control new technology that would "rock the boat" for established industries.

posted on May, 4 2003 @ 09:35 PM
Well see I have friends who worked in Area 51 too, and they don't seem to agree with you, and I trust my friends better

I don't think we're very far, but I do think they're hiding something there, or were, just not something as magnificent as some people think.

However, due to their ability to restrict patents as such, you have to wonder what things have been invented, and are under complete government control.

posted on May, 4 2003 @ 11:07 PM
Well see I have friends who worked in Area 51 too, and they don't seem to agree with you, and I trust my friends better Posted by HKoT

Really? In that case, I have a few questions:

What position/function do these people perform at Area 51?

What contact would they have with the classified articles within Area 51?

What sort of security clearance or contact with the military would you have to be in contact with these people?

If they are just aquaintances, what rates you the privaledge of obtaining this information?

If you have such information, why have you not posted it previously?

Since you will ask the same questions of me, I will certainly not hesitate to answer them.

I work as an environmental liason between a municipal government and the military (we have multiple army/AF bases in the city where I work). I know multiple contacts in the military environmental field. Between them, they have acquired 2 trips to Gakona (HAARP), 1 trip to Ft. Mead (HAARP), 1 trip to the facility in Colorado (HAARP), and 4 trips to Area 51.

These people are consumate professionals, and not ones who would fabricate such information.

At Area 51, they were tasked with assessing and abating certain specialized environmental conditions (at least one trip regarded worker exposure to exotic chemicals/materials, the others were not divulged to me).

I did share some of my research with some of my contacts (concerning the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial vehicals in favor of human built craft) and basically my research was confirmed.

If you wish to do a bit of research on the subject, you will find that the phenomena observed during UFO sightings are very consistent with technology stemming from research conducted by Nikola Tesla, beginning in 1880. This research has been continued through to today, and the alien UFO hypothesis provides a very convenient source of disinformation.

Indeed, when you do a bit of research, magneto-hydrodynamic and electrogravitic propulsion research was carried on in public view up to the 1950s, where it all but ceased in the US... which would be because that was about the time that operational X Craft were being brought online.

In addition, do some searches for the following people:

Nikola Tesla
Thompson Townsenhend Brown
Victor Shauberger
Eugene Sanger
Rudolf Schriever

To name a few... There is no need to invent aliens to explain Area 51... we have had the technology for over 120 years.

posted on May, 4 2003 @ 11:09 PM
One wishes that just one of these perpetual motion wheezes would turn out to be even half-true.
The archives for Sc & Tech. are full of these fraudulent claims.
As I recall, this fellow began by claiming "greater efficiency" which, technically, is what every one is after and would require no challenge to anybody's laws - jsut, simply put, better engineering and better processes.
Then it sems to have gone on to greater claims of revolutionising physics. And, this somewhat incredible "oscillating force generator"
The section : "mechanical device which generates a force from within" etc. is just pseudo-science.

posted on May, 5 2003 @ 12:47 AM

Originally posted by HKoT
Well see I have friends who worked in Area 51 too

don't we all. and I was on the scene for the Roswell crash and I'm also a highly trained assassin who is a supermodel in her spare time.

and if we run on the assumption that a device driven by "internal force" breaks Newton's first law, then wouldn't the motion of a human break that law? when I get up to walk across the room, that action isn't really powered by anything external; someone doesn't physically shove me every time I get up out of my chair. of course, I'm probably completely misunderstanding the concept, so if anyone has an explaination, I'd be much obliged

posted on May, 5 2003 @ 01:00 AM
No we don't all, the only ones I know who do are myself and Dragon.

One of my friends is now involved in building the Yucca Mountain facility too, so that's pretty cool.

And no, the device is meaning that it moves through magic, an unimaginable form of motion, hence why it probably doesn't exist.

The human body moves through gravity, your muscles re-arrange the balance in your body so that you can "fall" a little further ahead of yourself then you already were.

Without gravity you'd be pretty useless, flailing your arms and that's it.

posted on May, 5 2003 @ 02:11 AM
There is some kind of strange invalid INCOMING TCP protocol attached to that link from SA.

posted on May, 5 2003 @ 02:49 AM
Every once and awhile you hear about someone who has created an invention which claim to violate physical laws as we know them (such as cold fusion). When other people try to replicate the experiment, they can't duplicate the results. Other members who have submitted to this thread are probably well aware of such cases. As far as I know, the energy requirements to perform a certain task, is the same regardless as to how that task is performed. In short even if an anti-gravity drive was developed, the energy requirements to make a trip to the moon with a space craft powered by this drive would be the same as for the standard rocket. In fact when people evaluate these devices (and anyother thing in life) with the following principle: TANSTAFL. (There a'int no such thing as free lunch).

posted on May, 5 2003 @ 03:15 AM

Originally posted by HKoT
No we don't all, the only ones I know who do are myself and Dragon.

we're all insiders on the 'net, didn't you get the memo?

And no, the device is meaning that it moves through magic, an unimaginable form of motion, hence why it probably doesn't exist.

magic. sweet. I should know better than to ask an honest question by now. my question was directed more towards those who have some knowledge of this supposed invention.

posted on May, 5 2003 @ 11:47 AM
"don't we all. and I was on the scene for the Roswell crash and I'm also a highly trained assassin who is a supermodel in her spare time"

Wow, a supermodel, and in your 70's? That's amazing!
(Yes, I know you were kidding...
)

posted on May, 5 2003 @ 04:42 PM
I just copied this off a local website for informational purposes. I left all warnings and disclaimers and changed nothing. This will be the last word from me. Thanks for all the people who replied.

Forward Propulsion

Date : 04 May 2003
Producer : Eugene Botha
Presenter : Derek Watts
Genre : Inventions and Innovations

For more than three centuries, Newton’s laws of motion and gravity have been accepted by scientists and taught in our schools to this very day, with good reason.

But here in a workshop in Klerksdorp a local inventor claims to have turned Newton’s laws upside down and is threatening to revolutionise earthly and space travel as we know it.

Hannes du Preez: “I know that this thing is going to change your life, definitely. Eventually, it’s going to change the life of every person on this planet.

Hannes du Preez has devoted most of his life to inventing gadgets of all shapes and sizes. As a mechanical technician working for Armscor and later Denel, his innovative streak found ample expression. It all seemed to start at an early age.

Derek Watts, Carte Blanche reporter: “Hannes, were you a very creative little boy inventing alternative catapults and things?”

Hannes: “Most definitely. All my life I knew I had a knack for creating things.”

Derek: “So the mind’s always ticking over there?”

Hannes: “Always. My wife calls it tinkering.”

Derek: “Tinkering over…”

Hannes: “What gives me a great kick in life is to make something and design something, making it and at the end of the day it works.”

But all of this tinkering was just preparation for Hannes’ big dream – achieving the impossible: a propulsion system for cars and even aeroplanes that defies the laws of nature as we know them.

Hannes: “I set an objective to build a mechanical device with which I can generate an internal force to propel a body or a motor or an aeroplane in a predetermined direction without using any external forces.”

But this is impossible because according to Newton’s First Law, an object cannot start moving by way of its internal force. For example, this matchbox will only move if an external force is applied to it. Even a small engine inside it wouldn’t help.

However, Hannes challenged this scientific cornerstone. He surmised that with the right propulsion system inside an object, he could get it to move forward and even upwards. This is the stuff that science-fiction movies are made of and which no serious scientist would even contemplate.

For nearly two decades, Hannes kept his dream alive and finally in 1999 he was able to devote himself full-time to its practical pursuit in the hope that it would one day revolutionise our entire transport system.

Hannes: “You’re going to have a vehicle with a much smaller engine. You’re going to have aircraft with much smaller engines. You’re going to have the possibility for space travel.”

With this vision and a selection of his prototypes, Hannes then approached a number of physicists. Their responses to his outlandish ideas invariable ranged from incredulous to downright rude.

Derek: “How many people did you go to who ridiculed you?”

Hannes: “[laughing] You know, a lot. Some said to me, ‘No man, if you want to do that, you must rewrite the laws of nature’. Certain people told me, ‘Man look, do not waste my time with work that belongs in a Grade 10 class.”

It was here at the University of Potchefstroom’s Department of Physics that Hannes finally found somebody willing to listen. At first a Doubting Thomas, Prof Ockie de Jager started thinking twice about some of these seemingly crazy inventions.

Prof Ockie de Jager: “He told me that other people were sceptical about it, and when I saw the kind of stuff that he was working on, I understood why.”

Sympathetic to Hannes’ plight, Ockie investigated his inventions but each time he was able to, by means of computer simulations and mathematical equations that his prototypes could not possibly work. But Hannes just wouldn’t give up.

Ockie: “He’s got a tenacity to go on with things.”

Ockie spent nearly three years testing model after model that came out of Hannes’ workshop. There was a basic problem: they were largely static, they did not produce enough forward motion. But in August last year, with prototype no. 42, there was a breakthrough.

Hannes revealed this – the 'Dup Drive' – which he claimed was finally proving Newton wrong. He again went to Ockie.

Hannes: “I begged Prof De Jager – Ockie – ‘asseblief man, please do us a simulation on this thing’. And he agreed to get rid of me and to his surprise the thing worked.”

Ockie: “That was quite a moment because you do not have jet-like action like a rocket and that is the confusing part.”

Ockie was puzzled because model no. 42 seemed to transgress Newton’s Laws. Hannes had somehow managed to create a small propulsion system that seemed to use an internal force to move forward and kept on accelerating of its own accord and with surprising efficiency.

A piston-like action propels Hannes’ device forward. According to Newton’s Laws, an opposite and equal reaction should occur that would ultimately stop this device dead in its tracks. But somehow Hannes had eliminated this reactionary force and his “Dup Drive” managed to keep on moving forward.

Hannes: “You just see the action, as far as the complete unit. You just see the action, no reaction.”

Ockie: “It appeared to be transgressing ‘action and reaction’ to a large extent and when I saw that the machine was accelerating in a forward direction, I was puzzled. I mean, I was puzzled for a long time.”

Ockie’s astonishment grew when his computer simulations and algebraic analysis also confirmed that Hannes’ device was functioning. Ockie then organised for independent testing to be done at Kentron, part of the Aerospace Group of Denel, that also appeared to confirm the forward motion and acceleration of Hannes’ internal force generator. Hannes’ critics had deemed this impossible.

Hannes: “I’m absolutely delighted with the findings. The physicists of this world are going to drive around in vehicles powered by this propulsion system and they’re still going to wonder what the hell is going on.”

The “Dup Drive” is not in fact an engine but a propulsion system. For its piston to function, one would need to attach a very small power source, like an electric or petrol engine.

Hannes: “I have connected it to an external air supply, but even this air supply … the pipe is slack enough not to cause any push effect on the unit.”

This is a motorcar engine, as we know it: it provides the power to turn the wheels through a series of gearboxes and transmission. If Hannes’ theories work in practice all of this could be replaced by a box this size containing the engine and the means of propulsion.

Hannes: “What we managed with this technology is to change power (Watts) to push (thrust; Newtons) extremely effectively. We can get as low as one Watt for one Newton. Compare that to certain aircraft – you sit with a situation of 103 Watt for one Newton. Motorcars – we can use an engine 30 times smaller that is used at the moment.”

When we visited Hannes to film his brainchild, we took along Winstone Jordaan, physicist and engineer, whom we met last year in our story on the SkyCar.

Winstone Jordaan: “I was very sceptical and I wanted to see where the errors were in the reasoning of the whole thing. What I’ve seen over this last two days is that there really is something interesting here. The reactive forces seem to have been suppressed. But as a scientist I must still say that Newton’s Laws apply and therefore there’s just something that we’re missing.”

Derek: “Are you saying that our viewers tonight are seeing something that has never been done in the world before?”

Hannes: “Yes, most definitely. I am creating an internal unbalanced force. That’s not supposed to happen. I’m contradicting what Newton’s Third Law says.”

Winstone: “Everybody assumes the laws and tries to adhere to the laws. They don’t try to breach the laws. I think most of the great inventions have actually come out of very simple ideas and people with backyard ideas.”

There is no doubt that Hannes still has to face many obstacles in his quest to cheat Newton but the potential applications of the “Dup Drive” could benefit our lives in ways that we can only imagine.

Hannes: “In future with this thing I believe you’re going to have a vertical take-off, out of the atmosphere, away from gravity. If you want to go to Heathrow from South Africa, you’ll put yourself into orbit to Heathrow, accelerating halfway and decelerating the other half and then just have a slow descent.

“A trip to Mars shouldn’t take longer than a week there and back. A trip to the moon shouldn’t take longer than one o’clock on a Sunday afternoon, go up there, have tea at three and be back by five o’clock.”

Derek: “But some people must regard you as a crank?”

Hannes: “There’s nobody on earth that will prove me wrong. Nobody.”

Derek: “Are you willing to take on all the scientists?”

Hannes: “Anybody. Anybody … the devil himself.”

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: While every attempt has been made to ensure this transcript or summary is accurate, Carte Blanche or its agents cannot be held liable for any claims arising out of inaccuracies caused by human error or electronic fault. This transcript was typed from a transcription recording unit and not from an original script, so due to the possibility of mishearing and the difficulty, in some cases, of identifying individual speakers, errors cannot be ruled out.

posted on May, 5 2003 @ 04:54 PM
Follow the link to see an excerpt of the interview live as it was recorded or listen to a full audio insert.

Carte Blanche Interview

top topics

0