Jump to content
Science Forums

A hypothesis for a possible reactionless drive


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

1. With motion of any sort, there is friction.  2. If by 'reactionless', you mean that there is no NUCLEAR reaction, then I'll give you that. But a true reactionless drive would have no 2 parts whic

Dubbel, This dude PeterAX, is a flaming crank just ignore his stupid bullshit and move along.

He's not talking to either of us, he is talking to the OP.

2 hours ago, PeterAX said:

A hot discussion occurs in https://centerforinquiry.org/forums/topic/how-to-interpret-these-curious-real-experimental-results/page/6/
A gang of professional cheaters and manipulators do their best to reject simple obvious truths. Please follow the above mentioned discussion, if you like.

Like I said you are a crank, sorry man it's just that perpetual motion is literally impossible everyone that has ever been on a science forums or to college knows this. That's why I posted that video about the impossibility of perpetual motion devices in the hopes you would understand why what you are saying is nonsense. We have a similar thread about the Dunning-Kruger effect(https://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36852-crackpottery-and-dunning-kruger-effect/).

 

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites

To VictorMedvil.

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

  

Although constantly pretending to be a great expert you keep constantly avoiding to answer clearly my two simple quesions.

Consider carefully and thoroughly again the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY&t=54s

Ma = 1 kg

Mb = 4  kg

V1 = 1 m/s

V2 = ? (What would be the value of V2? How many meters per second would V2 be equal to?)

V3 = ? (What would be the value of V3? How many meters per second would V3 be equal to?)

Looking forward to your two answers for the Nth time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, PeterAX said:

To VictorMedvil.

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

  

Although constantly pretending to be a great expert you keep constantly avoiding to answer clearly my two simple quesions.

Consider carefully and thoroughly again the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY&t=54s

Ma = 1 kg

Mb = 4  kg

V1 = 1 m/s

V2 = ? (What would be the value of V2? How many meters per second would V2 be equal to?)

V3 = ? (What would be the value of V3? How many meters per second would V3 be equal to?)

Looking forward to your two answers for the Nth time.

The Energy of input would be less than Energy of output because friction has turned part of the energy into heat, so the energy will be less than the input which (Kinetic Energy) = (1/2)*(Mass)*(Velocity)^2 , the velocity is just a function of mass and Energy however friction will always happen which removes part of the energy. Even if you made it to where friction was only 1 billionth of the total kinetic energy then you would still have a machine that was only 99.9999999% of energy conversion and it would eventually stop moving, friction can never truly reach zero, even in super fluids there is still friction that is very small (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180201092440.htm). This is also possibly true for superconductors that there is a very small electrical resistance that our instruments cannot measure because it is that small but still there. I want to clarify that even if friction or electrical resistance was zero such a device would NEVER produce more energy than what enters the system from various sources such as Electromagnetic Radiation, Kinetic Energy, Chemical Energy, Nuclear Energy, and Etc., that's why this post was instantly dropped into the silly claims forums because the moderators and admins know that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy).

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites

Reciprocal catalyzation consumes fuel but gives back more energy.

The ballistic resonance allows a short lived beam, or millions of them in the case of RC, but that produces energy by collecting what's already there into focus feely via polarizing of the light. You get more energy than is put in by temporarily cancelling the inverse square law. This can continuously heat up a nucleus but the fusion reaction catalyzes ballistic resonance enough to sustain it.

 

Annihilation catalyzation is even better, and lasts longer, but requires quantum tunnelling, controlled quantum tunnelling. We're a Dyson swarm ways off from that. You teleport one electrical operation into a second and teleport it back, effective parallel operations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To JeffreysTubes8.

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

Hi there,

Thank you for your reply. 

Your post is very, very interesting. Please give me some time to consider it carefully. I'll write to you in the nearest future.

Regards,

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

To VictorMedvil.

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

You did not answer my two simple questions again.

So let me repeat again the essence of the text of my directed-to-you last post with some small addition.

1) For the present we are talking SOLELY AND ONLY about velocities. For the present we are not talking about energies or about whatever else.

2)  Ma = 1 kg, Mb = 4 kg and and V1 = 1 m/s.

3) V2 = ? (What would be the value of V2? How many meters per second would V2 be equal to?)

4) V3 = ? (What would be the value of V3? How many meters per second would V3 be equal to?)

Looking forward to your two answers for (N+1)th time.

Edited by PeterAX
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

Reciprocal catalyzation consumes fuel but gives back more energy.

The ballistic resonance allows a short lived beam, or millions of them in the case of RC, but that produces energy by collecting what's already there into focus feely via polarizing of the light. You get more energy than is put in by temporarily cancelling the inverse square law. This can continuously heat up a nucleus but the fusion reaction catalyzes ballistic resonance enough to sustain it.

 

This is wrong. Fusion releases 1% return, even a fraction of that is enough for controlled ballistic resonance if you know how to align and spin+rotate the polarizing light filters without heating them past 600 celsius (their individual melting) via dispersion of heat. 

That 1% release gets it's heat loss (inverse square law) cancelled by way of controlled ballistic resonance. The beams can be redirected by convex glass in the same way the filters are rotated and spun (nano electronic silicon rods embedded in triangular wedges of glass and filters allowing two simultaneous directions of 360 degree spin).

Overtime you get more fusion. So SOME ENERGY IS LOST and fuel is consumed as well.

Still, this form of reciprocal catalyzation beats any practical power source we have today. And gets exponentially more efficient the closer one gets to the sun. In fact of you supplement this process with solar energy, even in a lagrange orbit at Earth's distance of sun, it approaches self sustained fusion. It surpasses self sustained fusion at Mercury's distance from the sun.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

To JeffreysTubes8.

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

Hi dear colleague,

Thanks a lot for your second interesting post. 

1) Obviously you are a top-expert in physics and in chemistry. Unfortunately no member of our team has your level of expertise and qualification.

2) But we (our team) are ready to educate and qualify in the field of higher physics and chemistry under your supervision. So if you agree to read us some lectures on higher physics and chemistry, then we would like to ask our first three questions.

Question 1. What is reciprocal catalyzation?

Question 2. What is ballistic resonance?

Question 3. What is RC?

Thank you very much for your time and thank you in advance.

Looking forward to your three answers.

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

P.S. You really started a very, very interesting topic.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

To those members of this forum, who are interested in our zigzag concept.

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

Ma = 1 kg

Mb = 4  kg

V1 = 1 m/s

V2 = ? (What would be the value of V2? How many meters per second would V2 be equal to?)

V3 = ? (What would be the value of V3? How many meters per second would V3 be equal to?)

Looking forward to your two answers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...