NASA's suicide missions

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Mac]
In terms of propulsion

[...]

My last one was however a continuous smooth output.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Spring scales are (er, can be) cheap and simple, but not fool-proof. Oscillating masses often cause them to give false non-zero indications. And oscillating masses have been making boxes move around on the floor for decades. Yawn.

Tell you what. Mount one of your gizmos on a pendulum constrained to move in a plane. The longer it is the more sensitive it is to small forces.

Cheap, simple and very close to fool-proof. If it moves off-center <b>and stays there</b> I'll get excited.

I AM ready to get excited. But I'll bet you a nickel your gizmo fails the Pendulum Test.

Regards,
LB

For moving a pendulum to stay off center by passive mass sping load is impossible. This requires kinetic energy transformed to potential energy. If this can be with a pendulum it can also be without a pendulum. This is simple Physics. For the pendulum to stay off center must be a constant external force to balance gravity force. Force in a mass spring box at the end of a pendulum is internal force by third law and D'Alembert principle. This can work only if God wants a miracle. I lose one euro to see it.

Enrico

A note to all participants... the moderator (Mark) gets 10% juice on all wagers


Mark Vitrone

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
A note to all participants... the moderator (Mark) gets 10% juice on all wagers
Mark Vitrone<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Sounds like a bargain.

But 10% of a nickel (my standard sucker bet) isn't much. If Mac can actually deliver I'll let you have all of it.

LB

Somehow I am not surprised by the groups reaction.<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

1 - That is why I was careful to point out that the vehicle also ran down the rails in both directions.

2 - Forget my work (3 out of perhaps 15 designs have ever done anything but vibratory locomotion but of the ones that have they have been scrutinized carefully.

3 - I have been disappointed in performance. I have wanted to come up with an over unity machine which could lift itself (for obvious reasons) but haven't come close.

4 - Sandia Labs is not a Backyard outfit. I built their unit decades before they did. Its output is so poor that I didn't even pursue it.

BUT it works and produces net vector force IN SPACE. The brief article in the link doesn't tell you much but because of my work and interst in the area Sandia forwarded me a complete manuscript of the project with mathematics on how it works.

The primary thing made clear in that publication vs the short version is that they call it their "Bang-Bang" unit and that it can be fired repeatedly and actually cause a change of orbit of a satllite in space where there is no tangiable medium for vibratory locomotion.

So you can propose all the pendulums you like the real tests have already been done and there is no need for such basic verifications.

Mac,

The Sandia link talks about changing the orientation of the vehicle with this device, which allows for more precise guidance (when a force is later applied). It says nothing about producing thrust with the device itself.

If the device they describe could produce thrust without ejecting any reaction mass, they would be having a non-stop stream of press conferences the like-of-which had never been seen before.

And I would be VERY excited.

???
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Mac]
1 - That is why I was careful to point out that the vehicle also ran down the rails in both directions.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

If the gizmo touches ANYTHING the results are most likely invalid. A properly designed pendulum comes very close to the condition of "not touching anything". (If you get a postiive result, you need to look at your pendulum to be sure there is no way a torque can be generated at the support.)

I'm not saying your gizmo CAN'T pass the Pendulum Test. I'm saying I want to see it pass the test.

Or put one in orbit and demonstrate even small changes in the orbit <b>without</b> the help of aerodynamic effects or thrust from a rocket or an electromagnetic effect or some other system we already know about.

I really do want to be excited. Show me.

I'm not holding my breath, but I am crossing my fingers.

Good Luck,
LB