NASA's suicide missions

Mark,

Do you like Hot Salsa?


Just posted on UniKEF:

***************************************

From: Amish_Inventor in response to Message 7 Sent: 2/8/2003 3:19 PM
Dear Mac and Twister,

Approximately twenty three years ago, Mr. Dan K. McCoin invented the Rotary Opposed Piston Engine (R.O.P.E.), which radically differs from the familiar, conventional, automobile engine. Because Mr. Dan K. McCoin excluded the crankshaft and piston rods from the design, Dan has brilliantly improved the internal engine, under our vehicles' hoods. R.O.P.E. consists of curved pistons within a hollow torus chamber.

Mr. Mark McCoin, his son, recently built a model/prototype. After I watch both model's and bravo prototype's mechanisms "intricately dance", the motion fascinated me. I personally believe that R.O.P.E. can safely burn hydrogen and ethanol
alcohol, that can originate from biomass (ie. fermenting garbage).Yes, I can say, "Yankee ingenuity still exists!"

Because the Mr. Dan K. McCoin and Mr. Mark D. McCoin have surpassed what you would normally expect from a college professor, the twosome remind me of the movie, "Lorenzo's Oil" which starred Ms. Susan Sarandon and Mr. Nick Nolte.

Mr. James Watt patented the steam engine in 1769. After 330 years have
elapsed, the internal engine has finally evolved into R.O.P.E.

If I watch AMDATA Inertial Drive System travel on flat ice, the demonstration will likely mystify and stupefy me, until I recant everything, and I eat my engineering analysis with hot salsa.

Sincerely,

S. Salen
*************************************************

FYI: Mr Salen is a young, brilliant if not gifted, engineer that attended our public demonstration of ROPE. My son and I have screwed up everything he thought he knew.

You may not find this funny but I'm still laughing.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Sharpen that pencil.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Mac, you are the one who must sharpen his pencil and show the math works out. I don't, since I've done all the math I know and according to my model you haven't got an inertial drive. Now an engine design is a different story. This is something new. I though we were talking here about converting angular to liner momentum without any mass ejection or burning fuel of any kind.

Show me the math and I show you where you're wrong. No math no story to tell. I'm doubling the bet. It's now a dime's worth if you got an inertial drive.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Finally how is it that you deny the Sandia units performance.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Why are you saying I denied something I did not? The Sandia gismo is not an inertial drive. It's a like a gyro. It can be used to change angular rates around three linear axes (roll, pitch and yaw) by changing the moments of inertia and cross coupling moments. It won't give you a linear thrust unless you already got one. It just changes the direction and magnitude of an existing thrust. Total energy is conserved Mac but mass movement simulates mass ejection.

Physics 101: run towards the back of a boat and the boat will move forward. Run towards the front and the boat is back where it started. Spin around the center of the boat as fast and as long as you can, the boat will keep rolling around it's long axis. Spin around while increasing the radious and the boat's bow will scribe a circle. You'll never get anywhere and I'm sure if you could, Robinson Crusoe had plenty of time to figure it out.

Mark,

The engine reference was supurflous. The close ragarding AMDATA and his eating his engineering analysis with hot sauce was the pun.

Now. You have it wrong for a couple of reasons.

1 - I don't have to prove math to anybody. I have operated the cart and it ran. By the way I have done the math and you are missing something. I suspect it is actually detailing the foces I have indicated by going through the cycle.

2 - You are convenced I don't have an inertial drive or that inertial drives are impossible and hence don't want to waste time to do the actual calculation.

a - I have to caution you that the unit I have described is not the unit on the rail cart and on the spring scales.

b - Without eluding to detailed math. Tell me where you think the counter force to the masses momentum comes from? I will then tell you why you are wrong.

Acceleration force cancels - zilch net on the frame after 360 degrees.

The momentum decelleration force is applied to the frame in a linear vector. No counter force present.

Accumulative centrifugal force lags the momentum vector by 90 degrees (not 180).

I have done the integration but one doesn't have to if you simply lay it out and look at it. There is no counter force it is not a simple vibratory system.

It produces a series of linear pulses by converting rotary torque (power).

Mark,

Another thought just came to mind. Perhaps we have a different definition or understanding of what consitutes an "Inertial Drive".

My view is any device or system that is self contained that can move itself in space or in absence of a reaction medium; which does not eject matter such as a rocket.

A closed thrust drive.

You are still saying that the Sandia unit will not do what they say it can do. Go from a lower orbit to a higher orbit. Not just reorient a vehicle with forward momentum.

I might suggest you contact Sandia and request the full data on the unit. The short news article doesn't tell much.

PS: Its not big news because they don't work that well. Extreme limitation on net force vs weight.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Mac]
Another thought just came to mind. Perhaps we have a different definition or understanding of what consitutes an "Inertial Drive".

My view is any device or system that is self contained that can move itself in space or in absence of a reaction medium; which does not eject matter such as a rocket.

A closed thrust drive.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I see no big problems with this definition. A large current loop could react against the Earth's magnet field, and although this is useful and cool it is not really what we are talking about here.

But your definition seems to cover that. We are on the same page.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Mac]
You are still saying that the Sandia unit will not do what they say it can do. Go from a lower orbit to a higher orbit. Not just reorient a vehicle with forward momentum.

I might suggest you contact Sandia and request the full data on the unit. The short news article doesn't tell much.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I've done this. I found two "email us" links, one for technical questions and one for general questions (it goes to "webmaster"). I got an immediate "unknown" reply from the tech link and no reply so far from the general link.

I'll try again next week. Perhaps there is just a temporary server problem. But when the dust settles I bet ANOTHER nickel you have misread their claim. PLEASE UNDERSTAND, this is a bet I really would like to loose.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Mac]
PS: Its not big news because they don't work that well. Extreme limitation on net force vs weight.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
You CLAIM a 120 pound device that puts out a continuous 7 pounds of thrust with no reaction mass or medium. That's about 5%. For the range of relative speeds we see here in the Solar system relativiistic effects are about 8 orders of magnitude smaller.

Weight is irrelevant in space. Any non-zero thrust is useful. And significant in the scientific sense even if it is not in the transportation sense. It is big news.

The only way to be absolutely sure you haven't overlooked something is to put your gizmo in orbit and test it there. But this is probably more expense than most of us can handle. A very inexpensive alternative that is ALMOST as conclusive as an actual orbital test is the Pendulum Test. Literally hang the damn thing on a rope and take a video of what it does. $10 for the rope? Borrow a camera, $5 for a blank tape or two.

Mark asks for equations and/or analysis, but I know from personal experience that you can miss problems that are there or see problems that aren't there, even after days of discussing and cogitating. When the option of a Pendulum Test exists, it is the evaluation method of choice. For me, anyway.

You are under no obligation to impress us either as a group or as individuals. Impressing us PLUS a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee in some places, so you can see how valuable it is.

But how about impressing yourself? Isn't that worth something? Even if you never show it to US, you should take that video.

Regards,
LB

LB,

It may surprise you but I agree with everything you just stated.

The reason I said it was not big news is that I have been disappointed in that I have not yet found the holy grail of over unity doing this.

I was mad at myself when I realized just how valuble these devices would be once IN space. I should have pushed the issue back in the 70's. MIght have just made the $1.00<img src=icon_smile_blush.gif border=0 align=middle>

I will go back and see if I still have a contact number to get the full text description. I'm not sure if I still have my copy or if my son has it but I do know it was a poor copy and would most likely nt be readable if it were re-copied.

And while you could be correct, that I miss interpreted something I really don't think so because it really got our attention when it came out because we thought we were the only ones in the world doing this and were way out front of the pack.

But when I saw that news release my hart sank thinking I missed another one.

My original unit like theres was made of two auto starter solenoids bolted face to face with one slug. They were mounted to a rotating shaft with a commutator which yanked the slug over center each 180 degrees.

If you look at the numbers even the pendulum test would be difficult to prove in that a stationary offset of 3 1/3 degrees would be all you should expect.

That is a lot of work and bother to just prove it doesn't work well enough to be useful. Now when I break unity - THAT WILL BE BIG NEWS.
<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>