Jump to content
Science Forums

A hypothesis for a possible reactionless drive


Recommended Posts

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
  • Replies 97
  • 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.

On 6/9/2021 at 4:11 AM, PeterAX said:

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.

 

The answer to question 3 is reciprocal catalyzation, which is using the output of a physical reaction, such as fusion, to power a controlled ballistic resonance event, which would take all the energy (photons) and negate the inverse square law from them and redirect them back at the nuclei in your fusion reaction using glass to bend the beams, and then use the energy released from that fusion again.

Answer for Question 2:

https://scitechdaily.com/new-physical-paradox-discovered-by-russian-scientists-ballistic-resonance/amp/

Well described here but it's so far an uncontrolled effect. It does seem to harness energy from the vacuum though.

I wanted to build a nanodevice that can control the conversion of light from ray to beam. It is said that this can't be done, but these "ultrapure-crystals" seem to be doing it.

Here's where I believe those "crystals" for ballistic resonance actually came from for that particular experiment and that particular url I posted

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/weird/1063836/area-51-worker-exposes-alien-technology-bombshell-video-spt/amp

Because a demonstration of such a "paradox* turning a ray into a beam is kind of a gigantic paradigm shift not just as large as stable fusion if not larger, but it like discovering electricity or the invention of fire

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2021 at 9:45 AM, VictorMedvil said:

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).

I know a simpler way to defy conservation laws, you simply plug an outlet back into the socket it is a attached to

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Please have a look again at our post of 06/11/2021 02:50 PM

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

V2 = ? V3 = ?

Looking forward to your two answers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The device in the experiment on harnessing controlled ballistic as a potential over unity device will involve hundreds of imperfect carbon nanotubes (more for conducting electricity and absorbing heat than durability), with 32 simultaneous and continuous rotary features powered by electric impulses (that's the energy input in the denominator of the over unity calculation because the sunlight is free), & 16 polarizing light filters. Whereas the numerator would be the overall energy output of the continuous laser pulse it generates if successful.

If successful as an over unity device, it would be installed into one of the satellites over earth that have static orbits in order to receive continuous sunlight along with and integrated into a miniaturized version of the tokamak fusion reactor.

Edited by JeffreysTubes8
Link to post
Share on other sites

To JeffreysTubes8.

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

Hi dear colleague,

Thank you for your last interesting post. Need some time to consider it carefully. I will write to you in the nearest future.

Regards,

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

P.S. By the way is there any video and/or drawings related to the concept that you describe in your posts? Or it is a matter of a secret project for the present?    

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Please have a look again at our post of 06/11/2021 02:50 PM

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

V2 = ? V3 = ?

Looking forward to your two answers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, PeterAX said:

 is a matter of a secret project for the present?    

 

I see you read my silicon valley thread. No I won't give away the proof of concept or for that matter, the way in which the device recollects scattering in a rays transition between them!

Look, as far as I'm concerned, I'm a puppet of the workforce with the brains of a sophisticate, and the ones with the materials to run MY experiments are the knuckle draggers who aren't puppets.

What we got here is a case of mismatched April fool's azzbackwards in social status.

 

Edited by JeffreysTubes8
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

To those members of this forum, who are interested in our zigzag concept.
------------------------------------
1) Please look again at PART 3 of the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY&t=24s  . Please focus on the “upper” zigzag case.
2) Ma = 1 kg.
3) Mb = 4 kg.
------------------------------------
4) Va’ = pre-zig-zag velocity of the blue component = 1 m/s = const.
5) Vb’ =  pre-zig-zag velocity of the black component = 0 m/s; the black component is motionless.
------------------------------------
6) Va” = during-zig-zag velocity of the blue component = variable and comparatively difficult (but not impossible) to calculate.
7) Vb” = during-zig-zag velocity of the black component = variable and comparatively difficult (but not impossible) to calculate.
8/ Vy = during-zig-zag velocity of each couple blue rod-blue ball along the Y-axis = variable and comparatively difficult (but not impossible) to calculate.
------------------------------------
9) Va”’ = post-zig-zag velocity of the blue component = 0.6 m/s = const.
10) Vb”’ = post-zig-zag velocity of the black component = 0.1 m/s = const.
------------------------------------
11) According to the third Newton’s law and to the related law of conservation of linear momentum we can write down the equalities
((Ma) x (Va’)) +  ((Mb) x (Vb’)) =  ((Ma) x (Va”’)) +  ((Mb) x (Vb”’))      <=>
<=>  ((Ma) x (Va’)) + 0 =  ((Ma) x (Va”’)) +  ((Mb) x (Vb”’))       <=>
<=>  (Ma) x (Va’) =  ((Ma) x (Va”’)) +  ((Mb) x (Vb”’))       <=>
<=>  (1 kg) x (1 m/s) = ((1 kg) x (0.6 m/s)) +  ((4 kg) x (0.1 m/s))     <=>
<=>  1 kg.m/s = 1 kg.m/s.
12) In one word, the values of Va”, Vb” and Vy are actually of no interest to us.  Actually only the values of Va’, Va”’ and Vb”’ are of interest to us as these three values determine the validity of the third Newton’s law and the related law of conservation of linear momentum.
13) The mass of each couple blue rod-blue ball is much smaller than the mass of the blue T-shaped component. For example if Ma=1kg, then the mass of each couple blue rod-blue ball must be equal to, let’s say, 0.0001 kg (and even smaller).
14) In our numerous real experiments we strongly reduce friction and the mean experimental values of  Va”’ and Vb”’ are equal to 0.5999992 m/s and to 0.0999997 m/s, respectively, that is, Va”’ = 0.5999992 m/s and  Vb”’ =  0.0999997 m/s. The latter clearly shows that the experimental error (due to friction) is much smaller than 1 % and this experimental error is perfectly acceptable.

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

Looking forward to your comments.

Edited by PeterAX
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me remind only again (it is written in the explanatory text of the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY  ) that the zigzags generate a mechanical effect (let us call this mechanical effect the "X effect"), (a) which is absolutely identical and equivalent to friction and (b) which does not generate heat. (We take gravity and friction out of equation and consideration.) And really even if the mean experimental value of force of friction inside the zigzag channels is equal to 0.0000001 N (our last experimental result), then the "X effect" still remains and can be clearly observed as in PART 3 of the link above.

Looking forward to your comments. 

Edited by PeterAX
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Please have a look again at our post of 06/17/2021 03:53 PM.

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

The “X effect” does not depend on the value of the force of friction Ffr inside the zigzag channels. No matter how small is Ffr the “X effect” still exists. According to our last experiments Ffr = 0.0000001 N. Therefore (a) Ffr, (b) the related generated heat and (c) the related due-to-friction experimental error (which is obviously much smaller than 1 %) can be neglected.

Looking forward to your comments.

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...