Reactionless Drive

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jerramy

Guest
Okay, so we've all seen them before, and not one has panned out. <br /><br />Folks, please tell me why this appears to work, and yet is not achieving what he thinks it is. <br /><br />It is supposed to be a reactionless drive, where a mass just "moves forward" through space, without any backwardly pushed mass.<br /><br />http://www.dialup4less.com/~donald/action.html
 
B

brigandier

Guest
I don't understand how you make the reaction force "lag".
 
V

vogon13

Guest
Serious and woo-woo folks alike have been trying to make the Dean Drive work since the fifties.<br /><br />Without some theoretical breakthrough illustrating how such a device can be perfected, it seems the Dean Drive will remain something for our Phenomena Forum.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
W

wick07

Guest
I am not entirely sure if this device is actually violating newtons 3 law. It just looks like he is using springs to absorb the "reaction" force. So you get a strong pulse of motion in the x direction, and then spreading out the reaction in the -x throughout the entire cycle. By doing so he is probably allowing friction within his system to overwhelm the -x thus allowing overall motion in the x direction.<br /><br />Kinda like if you were sitting in a canoe without any paddles. If you make a quick motion towards the rear of the canoe it will move forward in the water. Then slowely and gently creep back to the front of the canoe and repeat. You will get overall forward motion in the canoe, however it is not very efficient.<br /><br />Two major drawbacks to his design. It would seem to get a faster more forceful motion you now need to incraese the friction within the system (so it can absorb the backwards force), but increasing friction will decrease overall efficiency, so you have a self-limiting system.<br /><br />Also in space where friction will not be an issue, I don't think you would go anywhere at all.<br /><br />So in the end his device works, but is limited in it's usefulness (sorry, no levetation here). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#3366ff"><strong>_______________________________<em> </em></strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"</em>If you are surrounded by those who constatly agree with you, then you're in an intellectual vacuum.  If you feel like trying to make a difference, you have to BE different.  How can you do that without interacting with those who are different from yourself?"</font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">-  a_lost_packet_</font></p> </div>
 
R

richalex

Guest
The Encyclopedia of "Popular Mechanics" projects had a toy like that. It looked like just a plain box, about 6 inches long by 2 by 1. But, when it was activated, it would make a pulsing push against a hand, or jump along a table top. Inside was a large metal bearing that served as a ballast. A motor or spring pushed it back rapidly, pushing the box forward. Friction kept the box in place while the ballast was moved forward, again.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Since there's really no lossless friction, especially in space, show me how that is relevant. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
R

richalex

Guest
It is relevant because it is the same device. Why? Did you think I was advocating reactionless motion?
 
M

mindopener9

Guest
One day, a long time ago, I was musing upon how a flying saucer might propel itself w/o rockets or some force field type of drive. Then I hit upon the same sort of rotational mass "throwing" inside the imaginary craft, that if designed just right, could lift the thing using giant cams surrounding the outer diameter, but inside the shell, of course. Just by rotating the heaviest part of the cam's mass with the greatest speed at the top of the "throw" and then slowing down after, enuf to allow the next cycle w/o losing the centrifical lift. You would need a lot of these piston/cams to get enuf lift and smooth out the process. But of course, I did not take into account Newton's Law concerning equal and opposite reactions. Over complicated concept, never even drew up a diagram, it was all in my head. <br />Same sort of methodology as this reaction-less drive, I guess. Interesting at the time, to me, but still useless. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> We must progress and expand, or we will stagnate and die. </div>
 
M

mindopener9

Guest
I especially liked the Neo-Fascist articles by people who would deny the Truth concerning Global Warming. Condemning Al Gore for telling it like it is. Al Gore could have saved this country from a the huge embarassment of the last seven years, save for a GOP Majority Supreme Court decision. This is not a political Forum, I realize, but I did not place that link here for all to see. <br />Personally, I don't consider myself un-Patriotic, for disliking the Bush administration or for agreeing with Al Gore. It is politicians and big business who are largely responsible for the U.S.'s contibutions to Green House emissions and Global Warming, not the collective population of this great nation. <br />Enough of this political crap, tho, I'm getting myself worked up over the debacle of the last seven years. <br />"There's no place like home. There's no place like home. There's no place like home!" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> We must progress and expand, or we will stagnate and die. </div>
 
D

dragon04

Guest
<font color="yellow">This is not a political Forum, I realize, but I did not place that link here for all to see.</font><br /><br />That's okay. We talk about weird things here..... Like....... AlGore.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
 
M

mindopener9

Guest
I know Al is a character, but to me, he has done a lot more to better Humanity than anything Bush/Cheney have done.<br />Getting Global Warming the world attention the topic deserves is as important as saving US as a species. The Earth will be just fine wether the climate kills us off or not.<br />Cutting down rain forests in Africa and South America at an increasing pace has recently made news and should give alarm to folks. I don't care if big business will loss money by changing some of their short-sighted practices. Third world will have to step up, too to find alternatives to destroying a great storage media for CO2 in those forests they not only cut down, but burn, releasing said CO2 at even faster rates. So it isn't just industrialized nations doing all the wrong things. Al Gore should get a medal, not criticism from the same sort that voted GW back in for a 2nd term. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> We must progress and expand, or we will stagnate and die. </div>
 
M

MannyPim

Guest
<font color="yellow"> I know Al is a character, but to me, he has done a lot more to better Humanity than anything Bush/Cheney have done. <br />Getting Global Warming the world attention the topic deserves is as important as saving US as a species. The Earth will be just fine wether the climate kills us off or not. <br />Cutting down rain forests in Africa and South America at an increasing pace has recently made news and should give alarm to folks. </font><br /><br />Ahhh... you see, if you actually take the time to evaluate what algore has done for us (or to us) you will find it's not so easy to say he has had a positive impact.<br /><br />Precisely what is wrong wiht the global warming alarmism is that it drives us to take actions which could have WORSE consequences than if we did nothing.<br /><br />Deforestation is a case in point. The global warming alarmism is creating a huge demand for so called "bio fuels" which, in turn have drastically increased the economic pressures that drive the cutting down of the world's rainforests. The end result of which will very likely be much more painful for all of us than simply adpating to the changing climate.<br /><br />At the very least, we should make sure that we UNDERSTAND both the problem we are facing and THINK about the consequences of our actions, weighing them to determine if the cure may be worth the risk or if it may actually kill the patient. <br /><br />Here is a link for you: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=biofuels-bad-for-people-and-climate<br /><br />And some excerpts from the article:<br /><font color="orange"> Converting corn to ethanol in Iowa not only leads to clearing more of the Amazonian rainforest, researchers report in a pair of new studies in Science, but also would do little to slow global warming—and often make it worse.<br /><br />"Prior analyses made an accounting error," says one study's lead a</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible.</em></font> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts