Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
Ever few years we get a new claim like this,, does anyone fall for this rubbish anymore? NASA engineer's 'helical engine' may violate the laws of physics
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Not again!
- Thread starter Darkforbid
- Start date
I might, but the article is mistitled. It specifically admits that NASA is not backing his work -- that it is a pet project of a relatively unknown employee. His name should be in the title, not 'NASA'.
To me it sounds cool, if it works. So far it sounds like just another cold fusion project.
I don't know for sure, but I expect far more people fall for rubbish like a literal interpretation of Genesis.
People are hard to figure out.
Tom
At least people are bold enough to come up with new ideas.
It was said of Churchill that, he was useless he had a thousand new ideas per day but only two or three were any good
I am betting whoever made that comment did not have two or three good ideas a day, or even in their lifetime.
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
He's actually a NASA electrician
And I'd say anyone who agrees with the concept need to update their understanding of relativity drastically
And I'd say anyone who agrees with the concept need to update their understanding of relativity drastically
From your link
Burns has worked on his design in private, without any sponsorship from NASA, and he admits his concept is massively inefficient.
Do you know anyone who does?
I don't even find the concept interesting enough to click a link.
Even that perpetual energy machine based on rising bubbles in buckets was more interesting than this, to me.
Tom
Here is a basic treatment of what it attempts to do and why it will fail.
In particular, it ignores the forces produced by the E&M fields used to accelerate the alpha particles.
In particular, it ignores the forces produced by the E&M fields used to accelerate the alpha particles.
When stories like this come out, my first rule is to ignore the regular media which does not know how to report such ideas. In this case the OP does cite a good source.
From the article: ...exploits mass-altering effects known to occur at near-light speed... This mass changing isn’t prohibited by physics.
So that makes it an interesting idea based on known physics and not automatically woo-woo.
And as the article notes: He also suggests ways that momentum could be conserved, such as in the spin of the accelerated ions.
“I know that it risks being right up there with the EM drive and cold fusion,” he says. “But you have to be prepared to be embarrassed. It is very difficult to invent something that is new under the sun and actually works.”
From the article: ...exploits mass-altering effects known to occur at near-light speed... This mass changing isn’t prohibited by physics.
So that makes it an interesting idea based on known physics and not automatically woo-woo.
And as the article notes: He also suggests ways that momentum could be conserved, such as in the spin of the accelerated ions.
“I know that it risks being right up there with the EM drive and cold fusion,” he says. “But you have to be prepared to be embarrassed. It is very difficult to invent something that is new under the sun and actually works.”
exchemist
Veteran Member
Some people fall for it, but apparently neither NASA nor this bloke in Germany. My guess would be that, being an engineer, rather than a physicist, this inventor may perhaps not understand relativity well enough to spot the flaw in his reasoning. At any rate it seems vanishingly unlikely that there will be anything in this.
The mass increase at high speeds is real. The problem is in reversing the acceleration to get a smaller mass at the other side. That is done by an E&M field, but that field also produces a force on the ship. And that force balances the differences in the mass at the two ends.
Yes, this *is* woo-woo. It is using the concept of mass increase (a real effect) incorrectly and ignoring vital aspects of the scenario (the back reaction from the E&M field).
Ooops, I forgot the link in my comment above. Here it is:
Near-infinite specific thrust from drive that ignores physics
Near-infinite specific thrust from drive that ignores physics
exchemist
Veteran Member
That explains it all - and having read the article I now I understand your remarks.
I love the unicorn graphic, by the way.
Yeah, I stopped trying.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. It won't work.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I have yet to see a "free energy device" that is not the product of some sort of bad math.