South African Broken Newtons 1st law

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 5 2003 @ 05:44 PM
link   
my question was directed more towards those who have some knowledge of this supposed invention. Posted by MorningCrescent

I am not sure how this South African device is exactly supposed to work, although it sounds similar to Robert Cooks CIP drive.

The CIP drive is supposed to work by creating an unbalanced centrifugal force. What Cook did was take a weight (propellant mass) and stick it on the outside of a spinning disk. In such a scenario, the rapidly spinning weight would rapidly build up a large amount of kinetic energy, however, because it was spinning in 360 degrees, it would have no net movement. Cooks idea was to have a contrarotating plate next to the first plate, and using a contraption of spinning electromagnets, the propellant mass would be swung 180 degrees one direction, where it would swap to the other disk and spin 180 degrees in the opposite direction, where it would again reverse direction.

The end result of this is that the kinetic energy contained in the moving propellant mass would be confined to only 180 degrees of arc, instead of the whole 360 degrees where it would cancel itself out. The result would be an unbalanced system producing an inertial thrust in the direction of the 180 degrees of propellant arc.

OK, confused yet?

On September 10, 1971, Cook demonstrated his principal to a group of engineers for United Airlines, Test Center for Process Engineering. The engineering report indicated that the principal did in fact work, and went so far as to point out practical improvements to improve efficiency.

Jagdelflieger is correct in that the total amount of energy required for movement remains approximately the same, and the main drawback to this system is that it is largely inefficient compared to more direct systems of propulsion.




posted on May, 5 2003 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
"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...
)


what can I say, I'm a classic


and thank you for the explaination, dragonrider. that did clear up the concept for me



posted on May, 5 2003 @ 06:28 PM
link   
OK im just gonna put in my 2 cents on this little argument you and dragon are having...

1) Most likely there are not any ET craft/technology in Area 51 itself...for a few reasons

A) Area 51 has gotten WAY to much attention over the past 50 years, many people have tried to get a glimpse of anything that resembles ET. Now, Area 51 was the testing spot for the B-52 (Stealth Bomber), and yes, oddly enough, resembles a triangle, and again, coincidence that around the time of development, many triangle shaped craft were seen around the world *cough* Belgium *cough*. So, if the U.S. Government has any ET technology, it wouldn't likely be in Area 51, because it is too obvious, and the security has been compromised, hopefully you see my point...if anything exists at all its probably in some underground base in Kansas or something...wanna go camping with me to find out hehe



posted on May, 5 2003 @ 06:41 PM
link   
I get the idea DR, but why isn't the directional force cancelled out by the return of the weight? It is going back 180 deg in the opposite direction on the other disk...


Originally posted by dragonrider
my question was directed more towards those who have some knowledge of this supposed invention. Posted by MorningCrescent
The CIP drive is supposed to work by creating an unbalanced centrifugal force. What Cook did was take a weight (propellant mass) and stick it on the outside of a spinning disk. In such a scenario, the rapidly spinning weight would rapidly build up a large amount of kinetic energy, however, because it was spinning in 360 degrees, it would have no net movement. Cooks idea was to have a contrarotating plate next to the first plate, and using a contraption of spinning electromagnets, the propellant mass would be swung 180 degrees one direction, where it would swap to the other disk and spin 180 degrees in the opposite direction, where it would again reverse direction.

The end result of this is that the kinetic energy contained in the moving propellant mass would be confined to only 180 degrees of arc, instead of the whole 360 degrees where it would cancel itself out. The result would be an unbalanced system producing an inertial thrust in the direction of the 180 degrees of propellant arc.



posted on May, 5 2003 @ 06:59 PM
link   
I get the idea DR, but why isn't the directional force cancelled out by the return of the weight? It is going back 180 deg in the opposite direction on the other disk... Posted by NetChicken

That is the point that is hotly contested between Robert Cook and his detractors. This system seems to work sporadically, IE it will work well in one situation and not work at all in a slightly different situation. After the demonstration with UAL, it was demonstrated for engineers from NASA, where it did not live up to expectations, and the NASA engineering report indicated that no net kinetic energy was generated.

From looking at it, I would expect that when the propellant mass slams from one direction to another, even though it may have its kinetic energy confined to a 180 degree arc, and therefore be producing a quantifiable inertial pulse, the bulk of the kinetic energy would be wasted as the propellant mass changes direction. This would create an oscillation at right angles to the direction of movement.

Supposedly, this is to be cured by using 3 units (as described above) 120 degrees out of phase, thereby smoothing out any oscillations into a smooth motive force.

As I mentioned, even if this concept is workable, it is still outclassed by magneto-hydrodynamic and electrogravitic propulsion used by the current X Craft.



posted on May, 6 2003 @ 08:58 AM
link   
A good starting point for anyone researching these "law-defying devices" is the Museum of Unworkable Devices. It has everything -- physics explained, examples given!

www.lhup.edu...



posted on May, 6 2003 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Wait, how the heck does this work? I mean, the law is practically an axiom. You cannot move without something to push off of. If we were floating in a vacuum we would have no way to move because there would be nothing to return our force to move. Birds couldnt fly in a vacuum, and if you take all external influences away from anything it will be immobile. This device has to use external influences to move, it cannot work without them. I put more faith in "free energy" than this. But if someone wants to correct me, I would gladly accept them.

XAOS





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join