### Author Topic: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?  (Read 12292 times)

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« on: 07/23/2017 05:39 PM »
Hi,

I have a device that I think will be of interest.
I have attached a video so that you can see how it works; only lasts 62 seconds so please view until the end when transfer of momentum takes place.
Brief explanation as follows: as rotor arms decelerate, conservation of momentum dictates that body cannot rotate in opposite direction.
As rotor magnet and body magnet are forced together the load to the DC motor rises.
Due to armature reaction as the load increase the magnetic neutral axis moves against the direction of rotation as the main field flux lines distort.
As rotor tube magnet passes across the body magnet it is propelled down the tube away from the body magnet   ( ignore change in angular momentum).
Load rapidly collapses causing magnetic neutral axis to move in the direction of rotation as the field flux lines shorten, which will pull the body in the direction of rotation.
As the body attempts to move in the direction of rotation the rotor arms begin to accelerate and push against the body, stopping the body from moving forward.
Now that there is no counter rotation of the body, we have a small window of opportunity so if we turn the power to the motor off as the rotor arms accelerate we can transfer the rotor arms momentum onto the body by means of collision enabling the body to rotate in the same direction as the rotor arms.
Slightly more complicated than this but should give you a good understanding of how it works.

I will attempt to answer any questions you may wish to ask to the best of my ability.

#### meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1863
• Liked: 1729
• Likes Given: 410
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #1 on: 07/23/2017 05:56 PM »
I will attempt to answer any questions you may wish to ask to the best of my ability.

Here are a few questions:

Have you taken even an introductory course in physics?

Have you heard of the principles of conservation of momentum and conservation of angular momentum?

Can you not recognize the transfer of angular momentum through the wire connected to the ceiling?

If yes to any of the above, why do you think that this device is anything other than a noisy toy?

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #2 on: 07/23/2017 06:13 PM »
yes
yes
string will apply restoring force to the body when it is not in rest position. this applies to both directions
force pairing would suggest that the body would counter rotate when the rotor arms are accelerating which it does not.

#### Robotbeat

• Senior Member
• Posts: 28616
• Minnesota
• Liked: 8585
• Likes Given: 5600
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #3 on: 07/23/2017 07:08 PM »
Sounds like a New Physics thread.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

#### meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1863
• Liked: 1729
• Likes Given: 410
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #4 on: 07/23/2017 07:16 PM »
string will apply restoring force to the body when it is not in rest position. this applies to both directions
What do you mean "both directions" do you mean clockwise and counterclockwise torques? If you look at the string in the video, it has more than just "2 directions" of motion. It is acting like both a regular pendulum (in multiple axes) and a torsional pendulum.

force pairing would suggest that the body would counter rotate when the rotor arms are accelerating which it does not.
If you actually were telling the truth to the first 2 questions you would realize that there is no reason for your device to be an exception. Also, It clearly does counter rotate when you turn it on, and when you turn it off, the end to the jerky motion from your motors stops driving the 2 parts to be rotating at different rates, and lets friction cause the 2 pieces to rotate together with the net angular momentum they had acquired through the string connected to the ceiling.

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #5 on: 07/23/2017 08:50 PM »
the body counter rotates in the first instance because i have to push the magnet down the tube to allow it to start  they are very strong magnets)
there is no counter rotation of the body when the power is switched off? are you referring to the bounce back of the rotor arms which should be expected when the transfer of momentum has occurred. This is something you should be aware of?
The body starts in its rest position and is in the rest position when the power is switched off so there is nothing acquired from the string.
When the rotor arms impart their momentum onto the body, the body rotates almost one full turn against the restoring force of the string and the wire, it is clear that the  body does not.

#### meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1863
• Liked: 1729
• Likes Given: 410
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #6 on: 07/23/2017 09:05 PM »
I cannot parse your post because half of it is ungrammatical, and what is left appears to be statements that directly contradict the video.

Among the problems (particularly evident in your first post) is that you appear to think that people are mind readers. You generally do not clearly describe your device (e.g. you keep referring to "the body" without clearly stating what part it is). You also use relative terms like "forward" with no indication what direction "forward" is supposed to be.

I see nothing interesting or useful about the device in your video.

If you do not demonstrate at least the ability to communicate in clear, coherent sentences in your next post, I fully expect a mod to come by and delete this thread as a waste of time.

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #7 on: 07/25/2017 12:51 PM »
In response to your comments regarding the string, the device operates in the same manner on a thrust bearing. Just curious; what would you expect to happen to the body (stator) when the rotor arms (armature) accelerate?

#### meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1863
• Liked: 1729
• Likes Given: 410
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #8 on: 07/25/2017 03:15 PM »
When you turn it on, and the arms start accelerating, I expect the wood piece with the motor attached (what I am assuming you call the body/stator) to rotate in the opposite direction. At least until torque from the string takes effect, resulting in rotation in the other direction. This is exactly what happens.

On a bearing, The counter torque applied would be from friction and therefore proportional to angular velocity rather than angular displacement, but the effect would be similar, and difficult to distinguish, since the jerky part of the motion and whatever is causing it appear to bring in some amount of chaos to the system. (Chaos is a formal concept where slight changes in the initial condition significantly effect the evolution of the system)

• Senior Member
• Posts: 3370
• Boca Chica, Texas
• Liked: 6112
• Likes Given: 362
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #9 on: 07/25/2017 03:26 PM »
didn't get much further than "as rotor arms decelerate, conservation of momentum dictates that body cannot rotate in opposite direction" since that'd exactly opposite what conservation of momentum "dictates".
The Bugs Bunny school of physics isn't really the best place to learn it.

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #10 on: 07/25/2017 06:19 PM »
WHAT?! The body (stator) applies the braking force to the rotor arms (armature). Therefore conservation of momentum (exchange of momentum) means that as the rotor arms slow the momentum must be exchanged with the body. This is Sophomore physics at its best.

Okay, imagine that you are on a sphere in space. We will add gravity so that you have grip. You are standing on a red dot for point of reference. You start to run away from the red dot (forget direction). The sphere will now begin to counter-rotate in the opposite direction to you. You then decide the stop. You now apply a braking force which means your momentum will now exchange onto the sphere. You will be at rest and the sphere will be at rest; that is conservation of momentum.

Now please stop with the insults, you're just shooting yourself in the foot. Hopefully this will enable you to move onto the next part of the explanation. If you have any problems please contact me, and if I will explain it to you if I am able.

#### meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1863
• Liked: 1729
• Likes Given: 410
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #11 on: 07/25/2017 06:55 PM »
Your description of running on the sphere is correct, but it contradicts the statement Nomadd quoted. I think I now see what you meant but that is not what you wrote.

I also think I figured out your confusion with the device you built.

When you turn it on, angular momentum is split between the body and the arms.

As the device continues, the body comes to rest due to forces such as air resistance and forces in the string that transfer momentum to the ceiling. The motor ensures that the arms keep spinning so the device as a whole obviously has net angular momentum, acquired from the external interactions.

Since the device now has net momentum, when you turn it off the 2 parts lock together and the body accelerates and the arms slow to match rates.

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #12 on: 07/26/2017 01:50 PM »
I have read the initial posting, and the explanation could have been written far better. I apologize for any confusion that this may have caused.
I understand your comments concerning the string, but the amount of restoring force in the string would have to be quite considerable for it to produce the end reaction, and as I have earlier mentioned, the device works equally well when placed on a thrust bearing so that there is no restoring force at all since it is not attached to a string.
We may have to return to the deceleration of the rotor arms at a later stage, but I would like to move on and address the acceleration of the rotor arms. If I could leave you with something to think about, so that I can relate to it, you probably are aware of this experiment, but there may be some people viewing this thread that are not.
If you hold a slinky with an outstretched arm and allow it to fully extend so that the end of the slinky is around a foot from the floor, when you let go of the slinky you will observe that the bottom of the slinky 'levitates' for a moment and defies gravity. The physics behind it is quite simple; the elastic potential of the stretched slinky is released when you let go, so that the bottom of the slinky is travelling upwards with the same amount of force as gravity is pulling it down. Therefore, the bottom of the slinky will remain in its position until the slinky has returned to its original shape, and then it will fall to the ground. I would like to refer to this when I contact you again. I am busy all today so it will probably be some time tomorrow.

#### meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1863
• Liked: 1729
• Likes Given: 410
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #13 on: 07/26/2017 02:17 PM »
I understand your comments concerning the string, but the amount of restoring force in the string would have to be quite considerable for it to produce the end reaction
You can see that at 4 seconds into the video, the restoring force on the string is already reversing the direction of the wooden part's rotation.

, and as I have earlier mentioned, the device works equally well when placed on a thrust bearing so that there is no restoring force at all since it is not attached to a string.
And as I already mentioned, a bearing still involves a force known as friction that will provide a counter torque leading to a similar effect.

If you hold a slinky with an outstretched arm and allow it to fully extend so that the end of the slinky is around a foot from the floor, when you let go of the slinky you will observe that the bottom of the slinky 'levitates' for a moment and defies gravity.
Yes, that is quite an interesting experiment, at least as far as it shows that basic physics sometimes gives results that initially seem unintuitive, but I see no relevant relation between it and yours. You have yet to point out anything in your experiment that operates even slightly different from what would be predicted by basic physics, or any useful effect of your device.

Also when you say "acceleration of the rotor arms" you are referring to the acceleration as you initially turn the device on, and not the jerky part of the motion right?
« Last Edit: 07/26/2017 02:21 PM by meberbs »

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #14 on: 07/27/2017 06:48 PM »
The time of the counter rotation can be varied depending on how far the magnets are placed down the tube, i.e. with no magnets the body will counter rotate many turns. It is the collapse of the torque reaction when the magnetic interactions begin that enables the swinging process.

However, we can use your four seconds for a thought experiment. Imagine we take the device into deep space where the external friction is approx -22kg/m^3. We have a battery fitted, and turn the device on. As you have noted, the body's counter rotation will last for four seconds, so being generous we will give the body 10 turns in that time period. Magnetic interactions will now cause the body to stop counter rotating as seen at the end of the video, and the rotor arms will accelerate and decelerate every quarter turn with a slight oscillation of the body that you have highlighted. The power is switched off at the required time and the whole device will now rotate in the direction that the rotors were, and will continue to rotate for a very very and just for effect I will add another very long time. The device will of course eventually come to rest, but I feel that this would not be in my life time.

A thrust bearing, as you have noted, will apply friction to the device as long as the device is moving. A bearing can apply resistance to movement, but to the best of my knowledge can not exert a restoring force to the device.

As for usefulness, please refer to the thought experiment, i.e. transfer of energy/momentum from battery to the device.

Yes, acceleration of rotor arms every quarter turn after load collapse.

#### meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1863
• Liked: 1729
• Likes Given: 410
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #15 on: 07/27/2017 07:42 PM »
The time of the counter rotation can be varied depending on how far the magnets are placed down the tube, i.e. with no magnets the body will counter rotate many turns. It is the collapse of the torque reaction when the magnetic interactions begin that enables the swinging process.
You are probably going to have to draw a diagram to clarify what you are talking about here.

However, we can use your four seconds for a thought experiment. Imagine we take the device into deep space where the external friction is approx -22kg/m^3.
Remember when my first question was whether you had taken a basic physics course? I have to ask that again, because friction is a force, and you just gave a density. (Density being important for calculating the "air resistance" force, but correct terminology is essential for communication.)

As you have noted, the body's counter rotation will last for four seconds,
I stated that the body turned around due to the torque applied from the string at 4 seconds into your video. In space, (ignoring the negligible external forces) the counter rotation would last until you turn the device off from basic conservation of momentum. When you turn off the device, it stops moving (energy is dissipated with the friction between the 2 parts)

Also, magnetic interactions have nothing to do with why the body portion comes to a stop in your video.

A thrust bearing, as you have noted, will apply friction to the device as long as the device is moving. A bearing can apply resistance to movement, but to the best of my knowledge can not exert a restoring force to the device.
Why does it matter if it is a restoring force? It still applies a torque to the device which is where it gets its net angular momentum before you turn it off.

As for usefulness, please refer to the thought experiment, i.e. transfer of energy/momentum from battery to the device.
But the correct result of the thought experiment is that it stops moving when you turn it off, so this isn't a real use.

Yes, acceleration of rotor arms every quarter turn after load collapse.
"load collapse" is not a phrase that has any meaning here.
Also, you say "yes" to it being the initial acceleration, but then you say "every quarter turn" which implies you are using "acceleration" to refer to the jerky part of the motion.
« Last Edit: 07/27/2017 08:02 PM by meberbs »

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #16 on: 07/28/2017 03:13 PM »
You are probably going to have to draw a diagram to clarify what you are talking about here.
If you cannot visualize what will happen without the magnets, I don't think the diagram is going to help.

Also, magnetic interactions have nothing to do with why the body portion comes to a stop in your video.
This statement is illogical; if the magnets are taken away then it is impossible for the body to remain in its rest position. Also, if you are to make such as statement, could you at least add support to your argument. However, at least we have made progress in that you do recognize that the body does stop.

Why does it matter if it is a restoring force? It still applies a torque to the device which is where it gets its net angular momentum before you turn it off.
The lack of a restoring force is everything - for the body to remain stationary, it is unable to overcome the friction of the thrust bearing.

"load collapse" is not a phrase that has any meaning here.
Also, you say "yes" to it being the initial acceleration, but then you say "every quarter turn" which implies you are using "acceleration" to refer to the jerky part of the motion.

This pedantic manner is helping no one. I do not wish to be like two bald men fighting over a comb. So, if we could move on and maybe find some common ground.
Therefore, if I can ask a question, is it theoretically impossible for the rotor arms to accelerate (in the jerky bit) without applying an opposite force to the body?

#### meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1863
• Liked: 1729
• Likes Given: 410
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #17 on: 07/28/2017 04:40 PM »
You are probably going to have to draw a diagram to clarify what you are talking about here.
If you cannot visualize what will happen without the magnets, I don't think the diagram is going to help.
I cannot see any magnets in the video, and you seem to have trouble describing things with words. Your "descriptions" of your device are all worded in such a way that they can't be understood by anyone who doesn't already know exactly how the device was built, making them fairly useless. From your descriptions, I can't even tell whether you are talking about permanent magnets, electromagnets, ones attached to the body, ones attached to the arms, or ones that have some freedom of movement.

To paraphrase, "Often times a diagram is worth a thousand words."

Also, magnetic interactions have nothing to do with why the body portion comes to a stop in your video.
This statement is illogical; if the magnets are taken away then it is impossible for the body to remain in its rest position. Also, if you are to make such as statement, could you at least add support to your argument. However, at least we have made progress in that you do recognize that the body does stop.
" if the magnets are taken away then it is impossible for the body to remain in its rest position" is illogical. Objects that have nothing to do with magnets are very good at staying in their rest position. I have a feeling you meant to say something different, but you have again failed at communicating whatever that was.

As for support to my statement, magnetic forces still obey conservation laws, so unless you have set up the magnets on the device to basically be a compass (so they exchange momentum with the Earth's fields) then they can't be responsible for bringing only the body to rest without bringing the rotor to rest. The body coming to rest is quite clearly due to external forces that you keep insisting on discounting for no apparent reason.

Why does it matter if it is a restoring force? It still applies a torque to the device which is where it gets its net angular momentum before you turn it off.
The lack of a restoring force is everything - for the body to remain stationary, it is unable to overcome the friction of the thrust bearing.
The body in the video obviously doesn't "remain stationary", it accelerates from interaction with the rotor and then comes to rest from the external forces. If it was on a bearing, it would also obviously come to rest from the friction, because that is what friction does. (Although due to the jerky motion, some interesting looking effects might happen related to the difference between kinetic and static friction.)

"load collapse" is not a phrase that has any meaning here.
Also, you say "yes" to it being the initial acceleration, but then you say "every quarter turn" which implies you are using "acceleration" to refer to the jerky part of the motion.

This pedantic manner is helping no one. I do not wish to be like two bald men fighting over a comb. So, if we could move on and maybe find some common ground.
Finding common ground will have to involve us both using words and phrases that we both understand the meaning of. This is pretty much the basis of communication. When I point out that you are using terms that have no apparent meaning to anyone but you it is not being pedantic, it is pointing out that there is a failure of communication.

Therefore, if I can ask a question, is it theoretically impossible for the rotor arms to accelerate (in the jerky bit) without applying an opposite force to the body?
First, I should mention that when I say "jerky" I mean both the colloquial understanding of the term, and the formal physical definition of jerk, which is "rate of change of acceleration"

In the jerky parts, acceleration rapidly changes between counterclockwise and clockwise (Looking down from above). This basically causes a vibration (on top of the other motion), which results in an opposite vibration in the body. Depending on the details of what is happening, sometimes things are in a roughly steady state where the net is no acceleration. Other times such as when you first turn it on, there is a net clockwise acceleration of the arms, resulting in a counterclockwise acceleration of the body. Later on, the net direction of acceleration depends on factors such as the external forces involved, and the current relative motion of the body and rotor since the motor output likely varies with this.
« Last Edit: 07/28/2017 04:46 PM by meberbs »

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #18 on: 07/29/2017 11:45 AM »
If we now look at the role that the magnets play in the deceleration of the rotor arms in the "jerk" process. We are on the new physics thread so this will allow us the freedom to "ski off piste" if necessary, but at the moment we can just concentrate on old physics.

The rotor arm magnet rotates into the repelling magnet field of the body magnet. As the distance between the two magnets decreases, the repelling force will increase. The repelling force of the body magnet will act upon the rotor arms, causing them to decelerate which can easily be seen on the video. If we apply third law, the rotor arm magnet must therefore apply the same increasing repelling force on the body magnet. This repelling force must therefore restrict the body's attempts to counter rotate. Since the body/stator is applying the load to the rotor arms/armature then the body cannot counter rotate.

Regarding a diagram, I agree that this will be useful. I type with my two index fingers and as you have noted my thoughts do not easily convey onto the screen. I will provide you with a diagram shortly and if you are in agreement with the above, we can then move on to the next interaction of the quarter rotation.

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #19 on: 07/31/2017 11:58 AM »
Since there have been no objections I will continue. We are at the point where the rotor arm has just enough momentum left to move across the body magnet. The magnetic potential energy in the body magnet and the rotor magnet is released and the rotor magnet is accelerated down the tube, which you can hear on the video. The motor is now free to accelerate and again, using classical physics, we know what should happen. As the rotor arms accelerate a force should be applied to the body causing the body to counter rotate. But as you can see in the video, the body does not counter rotate. This means that there is a counter force acting on the body which stops it counter rotating. There is a slight oscillation in the body but, if we refer to the slinky experiment, we can use statics to explain this process.

I will pause for the moment. If I receive no further objections to the above then I will continue to the next set of interactions.

#### meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1863
• Liked: 1729
• Likes Given: 410
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #20 on: 07/31/2017 03:45 PM »
Since there have been no objections I will continue.
No, I was waiting for the diagram you promised in you last post, so that I can give a clearer explanation of why your device does not break conservation laws like you seem to think it does.

For example I can't comment on the "accelerated down the tube" because you have never described where this tube is, what is in it or where whatever is accelerating something down it (presumably a magnet) is located.

"Since the body/stator is applying the load to the rotor arms/armature then the body cannot counter rotate."
This statement in itself is similar to the statement Nomadd objected to earlier. Since the body is applying a torque to the rotor, it experiences an equal an opposite counter-torque. Saying "can't counter rotate" sounds like you are saying that the counter-torque does not exist because of magic, but even more confusing because it sounds like their is some sort of magical restriction on direction it is actually rotating in, when the relevant discussion is about its  angular acceleration. You also should clarify what direction you mean when you say counter-rotate. Note how I refer to clockwise and counter-clockwise (assuming a view from above) to keep it clear.

But as you can see in the video, the body does not counter rotate. This means that there is a counter force acting on the body which stops it counter rotating. There is a slight oscillation in the body but, if we refer to the slinky experiment, we can use statics to explain this process.
Did you even read my previous posts? It is clear in the video that the rotor will slow down (accelerate counter clockwise) and then speed back up (accelerate clockwise)  the body clearly has the opposite accelerations at the same time. At points, it gets a bit confusing because of the external torques applied by the string which (along with some air drag torques) is the source of all angular momentum present in the device when you turn it off.

#### Bob012345

• Full Member
• Posts: 582
• Liked: 125
• Likes Given: 219
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #21 on: 07/31/2017 05:24 PM »
Since there have been no objections I will continue. We are at the point where the rotor arm has just enough momentum left to move across the body magnet. The magnetic potential energy in the body magnet and the rotor magnet is released and the rotor magnet is accelerated down the tube, which you can hear on the video. The motor is now free to accelerate and again, using classical physics, we know what should happen. As the rotor arms accelerate a force should be applied to the body causing the body to counter rotate. But as you can see in the video, the body does not counter rotate. This means that there is a counter force acting on the body which stops it counter rotating. There is a slight oscillation in the body but, if we refer to the slinky experiment, we can use statics to explain this process.

I will pause for the moment. If I receive no further objections to the above then I will continue to the next set of interactions.

I object to the description of how the device works. There are many statements of exactly what is purported to be happening but no data to prove it. Jerky video isn't good data. I think this is a complicated system but the beauty of physics is that general principles allow one to cut through all the complexity. I agree with Meberbs that this is just a system getting net angular momentum from the earth through torque provided by the string. It's that simple.

« Last Edit: 07/31/2017 05:27 PM by Bob012345 »

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #22 on: 07/31/2017 06:00 PM »
And the thrust bearing?

#### meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1863
• Liked: 1729
• Likes Given: 410
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #23 on: 07/31/2017 06:07 PM »
And the thrust bearing?
For the third time: Friction would apply a torque.

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #24 on: 07/31/2017 06:10 PM »
So it's not the string?

#### Bob012345

• Full Member
• Posts: 582
• Liked: 125
• Likes Given: 219
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #25 on: 07/31/2017 06:17 PM »
And the thrust bearing?

Same.

#### meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1863
• Liked: 1729
• Likes Given: 410
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #26 on: 07/31/2017 06:21 PM »
So it's not the string?

If you hang the device using a string connected between the body and the ceiling, the body will eventually come to rest from torques provided by the string, resulting in the body+rotor system having net angular momentum.

If you get rid of the string, turn the device upside down, and rest it on a bearing, the body will also come to rest but from the friction forces in the bearing this time, which cause torques that again result in body+rotor having net angular momentum.

#### Bob012345

• Full Member
• Posts: 582
• Liked: 125
• Likes Given: 219
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #27 on: 07/31/2017 06:26 PM »
So it's not the string?

It's the fact that the system is connected to the earth either by string or bearing. Since you seem to want to generate 'field propulsion' my suggestion is to study the two potential candidates being discussed in this forum, Mach Effect Thrusters or the Woodward effect and the EMDrive. Mach effect may be easier to invent a macro scale device without dangerous and expensive high tech equipment. If you love to build stuff, that might be a useful avenue to explore. Just make sure you understand the concept of the 'Dean Drive' and avoid trying to build that, since it would never work.
« Last Edit: 07/31/2017 06:30 PM by Bob012345 »

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #28 on: 07/31/2017 06:34 PM »
Look, I know how you feel, I've been there. It is difficult to think that such a simple device can achieve what you see on the video. Now you will have to take my word for it, it is NOT the string. I have checked, double checked, and triple checked it. I understand it's all that you've got to say that it doesn't work. On a positive note, since the diagram was of a device suspended by a piece of string, I no longer have to supply it. Would it not be prudent to allow me to finish and then have your say?

#### meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1863
• Liked: 1729
• Likes Given: 410
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #29 on: 07/31/2017 06:42 PM »
Look, I know how you feel, I've been there. It is difficult to think that such a simple device can achieve what you see on the video.
What I see on the video is a device that obeys basic physics exactly as expected and does nothing useful.

Now you will have to take my word for it, it is NOT the string. I have checked, double checked, and triple checked it.
Sorry, "taking your word for it" isn't an option. Exactly what did you check to show that the string that is obviously providing torque isn't providing a torque?

On a positive note, since the diagram was of a device suspended by a piece of string, I no longer have to supply it.
The string is not the important part of the diagram, I can see that clearly enough in the video. The diagram is needed for the tubes, magnets, electromagnets, etc that you have failed to effectively describe with words.

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #30 on: 08/01/2017 07:07 PM »
So, as the magnets are forced together, load is applied to the motor. If we look at armature reaction, we will see that, due to the load, the main field flux lines will distort and shift the Magnetic Neutral Axis in the opposite direction to rotation. As stated earlier, the body cannot move since it is effectively pushing against itself. It is easier to visualize the movement of the M.N.A so that when the tube magnet accelerates down the tube, load will rapidly drop which will cause the main field flux lines to shorten and the M.N.A will now move in the direction of rotation. This will drag the body in the direction of rotation.

We now have the required situation where the body is attempting to move in the direction of rotation. At the same time the rotor arms apply the counter force as they accelerate.

So there you have it. A very simple device. Everything that has been explained is known and can be easily accessed. All the information can be easily found on the internet  or in any electrical engineering textbook.

I am amazed at the mention of dean drive. You make reference to a device that famously did not work because it was suspended from a string (i.e. no contact with the ground) and yet almost in the same breath you are arguing that the only reason the device works, as in the video, is because it is suspended from a string?

Always remember that a thrust bearing will apply an equal amount of friction in either direction. May I suggest that you now do some easy searching so that you may understand more clearly what I have stated. The various websites etc. will explain it in far more detail than me.

#### meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1863
• Liked: 1729
• Likes Given: 410
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #31 on: 08/01/2017 07:26 PM »
As stated earlier, the body cannot move since it is effectively pushing against itself.
What? the motor drive pushes against the rotor.

Always remember that a thrust bearing will apply an equal amount of friction in either direction.
This statement makes no sense. it only applies torque that counters the rotation of whatever is on top of it.

Now how about you actually respond to any of the issues that have been pointed out to you, or actually providing a diagram like you promised?

#### Bob012345

• Full Member
• Posts: 582
• Liked: 125
• Likes Given: 219
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #32 on: 08/01/2017 07:27 PM »
So, as the magnets are forced together, load is applied to the motor. If we look at armature reaction, we will see that, due to the load, the main field flux lines will distort and shift the Magnetic Neutral Axis in the opposite direction to rotation. As stated earlier, the body cannot move since it is effectively pushing against itself. It is easier to visualize the movement of the M.N.A so that when the tube magnet accelerates down the tube, load will rapidly drop which will cause the main field flux lines to shorten and the M.N.A will now move in the direction of rotation. This will drag the body in the direction of rotation.

We now have the required situation where the body is attempting to move in the direction of rotation. At the same time the rotor arms apply the counter force as they accelerate.

So there you have it. A very simple device. Everything that has been explained is known and can be easily accessed. All the information can be easily found on the internet  or in any electrical engineering textbook.

I am amazed at the mention of dean drive. You make reference to a device that famously did not work because it was suspended from a string (i.e. no contact with the ground) and yet almost in the same breath you are arguing that the only reason the device works, as in the video, is because it is suspended from a string?

Always remember that a thrust bearing will apply an equal amount of friction in either direction. May I suggest that you now do some easy searching so that you may understand more clearly what I have stated. The various websites etc. will explain it in far more detail than me.

I do not believe the Dean Drive was suspended from a string at all. It was purported to sit on a desk or a scale. Not sure where you got that from. My bigger point is that you have shown us a very complicated device. Counter-rotating parts with moving magnets and fields and such hanging from a string or mounted on a bearing is not what I call simple. You have given us a verbal description of how it works and a Youtube video. That's not sufficient especially when simple physics strongly suggests a different explanation. If you are that confident your device is generating net momentum on its own, go show it to some professionals who can do a detailed analysis. I'm trying to save you time. If you won't believe me, which is fine, then I suggest you write and publish a detailed paper with all the tests procedures, calibration results and experimental details included.
« Last Edit: 08/01/2017 07:34 PM by Bob012345 »

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #33 on: 08/02/2017 05:57 PM »
For the benefit of people who do not know, Dean Drive was an oscillating thruster of some notoriety, around the 1960s. A couple of his devices were tested and found not to work because they were suspended off the ground.
No oscillating thruster will work if suspended because it has no contact with the ground.

With regards to your comment of 'if you are sure', I do not have the equipment to be 100% sure, but I am comfortable to use the phrase 'is looking promising'. As far as I am aware, no other device has so far been able to achieve the observed reaction on the video, when suspended.

The issue that has been highlighted that the method of suspension is responsible for the observed reaction presents me with a problem as NASA's breakthrough propulsion program specifically states that it is a requirement for any device to be suspended so as to negate any oscillating thrusters. I hope you do not feel offended, but I must go with NASA here since they have a lot of experience in this matter.

Sketch of device from below attached.

#### meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1863
• Liked: 1729
• Likes Given: 410
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #34 on: 08/02/2017 06:35 PM »
The diagram helps a lot.

Here is a basic test that would put this issue to rest. Remove the magnets from the arms (or the one on the body, whichever is easier), and then test the device again. You may need to wait a different amount of time (my guess is a bit longer) for the body to come to rest because of the removal of the jerky part of the motion.

Other than the removal of the jerky motion, the end result will not significantly change, demonstrating that the momentum is transferred through the string.

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #35 on: 08/03/2017 01:24 PM »
Because of the need to push past the repelling magnetic field of the body magnet, the power supply settings are such that if I were to remove the body magnet, the motor would accelerate very quickly and hence so would the body. The body would become snagged in the power input wires so at the moment it really isn't a viable option. Thank you for the feedback though, and if you or anyone else has any more suggestions, please feel free to air them.
We do, however, have a set of interactions that we can now look at, and don't forget we are starting with a deceleration (it is very easy to look at this back to front).

If we say the magnets are M:
the Field Flux is FF
the Body is B
and the Rotor Speed is N
We now have..

-N + (M+-M) + (FF+-FF) + (B+-B) + N = 0

Or in a simple visual sense - a five ball Newton's cradle. The brackets are the three center balls. So, the -N ball decelerates, the three middle balls remain static, and to conserve (transfer) momentum, the N ball must accelerate.
I know this is a very simplistic explanation but it does conform with everything we know.

#### meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1863
• Liked: 1729
• Likes Given: 410
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #36 on: 08/03/2017 02:01 PM »
Because of the need to push past the repelling magnetic field of the body magnet, the power supply settings are such that if I were to remove the body magnet, the motor would accelerate very quickly and hence so would the body. The body would become snagged in the power input wires so at the moment it really isn't a viable option.
Have you tried this, or are you just guessing?

The torque provided by the string in your setup seem like it should be sufficient to turn the body around before this becomes an issue.

I'd appreciate it if you stopped trying to make arguments that read "this device obeys conservation of momentum, therefore it breaks conservation of momentum."

The description you just wrote down shows that the angular momentum of the body must always be equal and opposite to the angular momentum of the rotor unless their is an external torque applied to the system. There obviously is an external torque applied from the string.

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #37 on: 08/03/2017 02:49 PM »
I have tried it, the body just keeps counter rotating.
I am unaware that newton's cradle breaks conservation of momentum? Could you please explain?

#### meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1863
• Liked: 1729
• Likes Given: 410
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #38 on: 08/03/2017 02:52 PM »
Your entire claim in this thread is that you have built a device that violates conservation of momentum.

You haven't but you refuse to accept any of the explanations of why you haven't.

#### Bob012345

• Full Member
• Posts: 582
• Liked: 125
• Likes Given: 219
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #39 on: 08/03/2017 04:26 PM »
Because of the need to push past the repelling magnetic field of the body magnet, the power supply settings are such that if I were to remove the body magnet, the motor would accelerate very quickly and hence so would the body. The body would become snagged in the power input wires so at the moment it really isn't a viable option. Thank you for the feedback though, and if you or anyone else has any more suggestions, please feel free to air them.
We do, however, have a set of interactions that we can now look at, and don't forget we are starting with a deceleration (it is very easy to look at this back to front).

If we say the magnets are M:
the Field Flux is FF
the Body is B
and the Rotor Speed is N
We now have..

-N + (M+-M) + (FF+-FF) + (B+-B) + N = 0

Or in a simple visual sense - a five ball Newton's cradle. The brackets are the three center balls. So, the -N ball decelerates, the three middle balls remain static, and to conserve (transfer) momentum, the N ball must accelerate.
I know this is a very simplistic explanation but it does conform with everything we know.

Sorry but this equation makes no physical sense. You are mixing different concepts with different units like they just add up.

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #40 on: 08/04/2017 02:17 PM »
I wasn't intending on entering it for any physics prize.
You're missing the point here. If you are of a certain level of physics, you do not need me to help you with the explanation (or at least shouldn't).
There are people, however, who may not be in that position. The formula is intended to help with the explanation and therefore must match it. Since I have used 'the body' in the explanation, so 'the body' is used in the formula. Any reasonable person would understand this. If the formula can help a single person (and I mean literally one person) to understand how the momentum transfers through the system then I am a happy man.
However, on a technical basis, you are correct. Anyway, have you got anymore comments on your 'string theory'?
P.S. I have not claimed to be breaking conservation of momentum.

#### whitelancer64

##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #41 on: 08/04/2017 02:26 PM »
Then what exactly is it you are claiming that this device is doing?
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

#### meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1863
• Liked: 1729
• Likes Given: 410
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #42 on: 08/04/2017 02:28 PM »
P.S. I have not claimed to be breaking conservation of momentum.
Your device starts at rest with no angular momentum.
It ends with net angular momentum.
You claim that this would happen even in space where nothing else could apply a torque to it.
If true, this would violate conservation of angular momentum.
It is not true, because the string applies torque.

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #43 on: 08/04/2017 03:42 PM »
I did say that a battery was fitted.

#### meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1863
• Liked: 1729
• Likes Given: 410
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #44 on: 08/04/2017 03:47 PM »
I did say that a battery was fitted.
How is this in any way relevant? Batteries store energy, not angular momentum.

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #45 on: 08/04/2017 04:30 PM »
Interesting.

#### whitelancer64

##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #46 on: 08/04/2017 04:33 PM »
Interesting.

Is it?

What exactly are you claiming your device does?
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

#### Bob012345

• Full Member
• Posts: 582
• Liked: 125
• Likes Given: 219
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #47 on: 08/04/2017 05:01 PM »
I wasn't intending on entering it for any physics prize.
You're missing the point here. If you are of a certain level of physics, you do not need me to help you with the explanation (or at least shouldn't).
There are people, however, who may not be in that position. The formula is intended to help with the explanation and therefore must match it. Since I have used 'the body' in the explanation, so 'the body' is used in the formula. Any reasonable person would understand this. If the formula can help a single person (and I mean literally one person) to understand how the momentum transfers through the system then I am a happy man.
However, on a technical basis, you are correct. Anyway, have you got anymore comments on your 'string theory'?
P.S. I have not claimed to be breaking conservation of momentum.

I assume you are responding to me but in general it helps if you quote to whom you are responding to. I'm glad that you see that the formula is not technically correct. Consider that in order to enlighten people, it is better to use formulas that are correct and sensible rather than formulas that appeal to a lay persons potential miscomprehension's.

I think the string is acting like a spring, storing up energy and releasing it and the earth is yielding up some angular momentum to the system through the torque that the string has.

Consider a simple experiment. Hang an object by a string. Input some angular momentum by spinning the object with your hand. Watch as the object eventually stops spinning and then begins spinning in the opposite direction. How is it able to do that if the string is not an agent capable of doing the things we have been telling you specifically, able to apply a torque to the object?
« Last Edit: 08/04/2017 05:28 PM by Bob012345 »

#### Jim Davis

• Full Member
• Posts: 560
• Liked: 117
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #48 on: 08/04/2017 05:40 PM »
Have you considered suspending your device from two strings, parallel to each other and about a centimeter apart? If, after you turn your device on, the strings twist around each other, you will know that the stings are applying a torque when the device is turned off as they unwind.

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #49 on: 08/05/2017 10:53 AM »
I think the string is acting like a spring, storing up energy and releasing it and the earth is yielding up some angular momentum to the system through the torque that the string has.

I totally agree with your comments on winding a string. We can all remember winding a swing when we were children and then letting it spin as it unwound. This is what Jim Davis is referring to but, of course, we need to wind to unwind.

I will go through the video in detail :-
1) The body is at rest and the nearest tube magnet has been pushed down the tube to allow for starting.
2) Power is switched on, the rotor arms accelerate and the body counter-rotates, winding the string.
3) Jerk cycle takes effect, resulting in no counter-rotation of the body.
4) The string now unwinds, so the device swings back and forth (string winding and unwinding) until it returns to its rest position (i.e. string is not wound).
5) Transfer of momentum as observed, device moves in the direction of the rotor arms.

If you turn the power off when the device has returned to its rest position at exactly the moment the tube magnet begins to accelerate down the tube when facing the body magnet, the device will not move, so there is no stored energy in the string at this point.

If I can return to the thrust bearing, a thrust bearing can only apply friction, it cannot operate as a spring.

Have you considered suspending your device from two strings, parallel to each other and about a centimeter apart? If, after you turn your device on, the strings twist around each other, you will know that the stings are applying a torque when the device is turned off as they unwind.

Thanks for the suggestion. I have referred to it in my earlier remarks.

#### meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1863
• Liked: 1729
• Likes Given: 410
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #50 on: 08/05/2017 01:16 PM »
5) Transfer of momentum as observed, device moves in the direction of the rotor arms.
Yes, transfer of angular momentum that ultimately came from the Earth through the string, making your device effectively useless.

If you turn the power off when the device has returned to its rest position at exactly the moment the tube magnet begins to accelerate down the tube when facing the body magnet, the device will not move, so there is no stored energy in the string at this point.
If you are watching the video carefully, you can see the the body + arms clearly have net clockwise angular momentum as the body returns to the rest position. The forces with the magnets are just transferring angular momentum back and forth between the arms and body. There is no magic point like you just described.

If I can return to the thrust bearing, a thrust bearing can only apply friction, it cannot operate as a spring.
It doesn't matter if it doesn't operate as a spring. For the 4th or 5th time: It still provides a torque.

#### Bob012345

• Full Member
• Posts: 582
• Liked: 125
• Likes Given: 219
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #51 on: 08/05/2017 06:07 PM »
I think the string is acting like a spring, storing up energy and releasing it and the earth is yielding up some angular momentum to the system through the torque that the string has.

I totally agree with your comments on winding a string. We can all remember winding a swing when we were children and then letting it spin as it unwound. This is what Jim Davis is referring to but, of course, we need to wind to unwind.

I will go through the video in detail :-
1) The body is at rest and the nearest tube magnet has been pushed down the tube to allow for starting.
2) Power is switched on, the rotor arms accelerate and the body counter-rotates, winding the string.
3) Jerk cycle takes effect, resulting in no counter-rotation of the body.
4) The string now unwinds, so the device swings back and forth (string winding and unwinding) until it returns to its rest position (i.e. string is not wound).
5) Transfer of momentum as observed, device moves in the direction of the rotor arms.

If you turn the power off when the device has returned to its rest position at exactly the moment the tube magnet begins to accelerate down the tube when facing the body magnet, the device will not move, so there is no stored energy in the string at this point.

If I can return to the thrust bearing, a thrust bearing can only apply friction, it cannot operate as a spring.

Have you considered suspending your device from two strings, parallel to each other and about a centimeter apart? If, after you turn your device on, the strings twist around each other, you will know that the stings are applying a torque when the device is turned off as they unwind.

Thanks for the suggestion. I have referred to it in my earlier remarks.

Looking at the video closely, it looks like right at the end, it's just about to go the other way which is what I expect it to do consistent with what we have been saying. You should run the  video longer, till it completely stops.

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #52 on: 08/06/2017 04:01 PM »
Now that we have established that the string is not wound when the power is switched off, we can move on.

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #53 on: 08/07/2017 02:21 PM »
We can now briefly look at the thrust bearing. In the jerk cycle, as the rotor arms accelerate, the body is unable to counter rotate because it is unable to overcome the friction of the thrust bearing. When the power is switched off  momentum transfer takes place and the device moves in the direction as the rotor arms overcoming the same amount of friction.
Therefore I feel it reasonable to conclude, that a force is acting on the body which cancels out the force applied to the body when the rotor arms accelerate.

#### meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1863
• Liked: 1729
• Likes Given: 410
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #54 on: 08/07/2017 02:46 PM »
We can now briefly look at the thrust bearing. In the jerk cycle, as the rotor arms accelerate, the body is unable to counter rotate because it is unable to overcome the friction of the thrust bearing. When the power is switched off  momentum transfer takes place and the device moves in the direction as the rotor arms overcoming the same amount of friction.
Therefore I feel it reasonable to conclude, that a force is acting on the body which cancels out the force applied to the body when the rotor arms accelerate.
You still seem to be having trouble understanding how to communicate clearly. For example "When the power is switched off  momentum transfer takes place" it is unclear what you mean. Momentum transfer from the arms to the body, or from the Earth to the body through the bearing. (The actual answer is that momentum would have already transferred from the Earth to the arms through the bearing and body. When you turn off the device some of the momentum in the arms then transfers to the body. I can't tell if you understand this from your wording.)

Your last sentence appears to be acknowledging what I and others have told you all along, there would be an external torque on the body from the bearing, which allows angular momentum to build up in the rotor arms. Since your device only has angular momentum at the end because of its physical connection to the Earth, your device does nothing useful.

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #55 on: 08/08/2017 12:16 PM »
All of the energy/momentum that the body requires is provided by the power supply. The device does not need anything from anywhere else ( in fact quite the reverse ). In the jerk cycle, you are interrupting this cycle at a given point and observing what nature has decided to do. I will repeat again, the string is not wound when the power is switched off.

#### meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1863
• Liked: 1729
• Likes Given: 410
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #56 on: 08/08/2017 01:43 PM »
All of the energy/momentum that the body requires is provided by the power supply.
Batteries do not store momentum in any form. Your statement is simply nonsense.

In your setup with the external power supply any (negligible) momentum (linear or angular) that comes from the motion of the electrons would still involve a back reaction of the power supply pushing on the Earth.

the string is not wound when the power is switched off.
What does that matter? The string has been applying torques the whole time, which on net have built up angular momentum in the device. Whether there currently is a torque being applied by the string is unrelated to whether the string has already transferred angular momentum from the Earth to the device.

You have now quite thoroughly demonstrated that you don't understand basic physics concepts. Are you willing to learn something, or are you going to keep spouting contradictory nonsense?
« Last Edit: 08/08/2017 02:44 PM by meberbs »

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #57 on: 08/08/2017 05:17 PM »
I am always willing to learn, however I do not think that you have anything to teach me.

#### Lar

• Fan boy at large
• Global Moderator
• Senior Member
• Posts: 10811
• Saw Gemini live on TV
• A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
• Liked: 7730
• Likes Given: 5608
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #58 on: 08/08/2017 06:12 PM »
Locked. NSF can add no further value to this device.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Tags: