Aquatek

But if we use the laws of physics that most here believe cannot be circumvented, then we can dismiss any possibility that UAP's even exist, regardless of what the pentagon tells us, and regardless of what 10s of 1000s have witnessed. It's just a blanket-No, because they do not conform to what we understand about physics. And these are not !ideas! I am presenting here, this is a working device. !Experts! get it wrong all the time, even after years of knowing what is true. For example, how long have we been dealing with DC circuits, and the flow of DC energy/power?. But even now, some cannot use common sense or some of your known physics to work it out--they still get it wrong. Take this video for example, in which Veritasium gets it wrong, and even has !so called! experts back him up. The simplest of things still escape the experts every now and then. I am an amateur in electronics and such, and have my own electronics lab at home with all the fruit. But even i know he is wrong in this one.

Ok, well a question for all those here that are well versed in physics, and believe they are absolutes. In July this year, we had the Pentagon it self admit to the existence of UAP's (UFO's). These UAP's have mass, as they show up on all forms of radar. They also have no visible means of propulsion. Along with that, they perform maneuvers that the current known laws of physics do not allow for. Perhaps those here well versed in the laws of physics can explain all this ?. Quote: He views the UAP/UFO phenomena as a scientifically interesting problem, driven in part by observations that seem to defy the laws of physics. https://www.space.com/unidentified-aerial-phenomena-scientific-scrutiny. How is it that it is well believed that electrical energy can be converted into mechanical rotational energy, and then into linear thrust by accelerating a mass, but the opposite cannot happen, where electrical energy converted into mechanical rotational energy is used to decelerate that very same mass. Surely those here, well versed in these laws of physics, can see how gyroscopic forces-deflection and angular momentum can be used to decelerate a linear flowing mass, and change the direction of that reaction force of that mass to being at right angles. I didn't join up here to have my device fully disclosed. I joined in the hope as to get some guidance as to how to go about getting it peer reviewed etc. I expected some criticism, which is understandable. But i hardly think throwing turkeys at walls during xmas is helpful criticism. Some say it took me a while to disclose the fact that it required a power source, but i did that in the very first post. This makes me think that some do not actually read before making comments. Anyway, perhaps I am in the wrong place. But regardless, I hope you guys all have a great xmas.

I see. So mocking some one is scientific ?. The design of the device has not change throughout the thread. It has remained the same. Others in this thread have presented there own theories on the design, or how it may be designed. Quote: It took long enough for the OP to admit that the system needed energy input (the electrical cables) or energy stored in another form eg chemical.). Are you serious?. Did you not read my very first post?.--> Quote: My first working model was completed in 2017, and showed a thrust value of just 242 grams, for a thruster that weighed 14.6 Kg's, and an electrical input of 1.42Kw. 5 weeks ago, I finished the 4th thruster. Oh,BTW, I call it KERT (Kinetic Energy Reduction Thruster) This one produces a net thrust of 2.32Kg's for a power input of 1.12Kw, and a total thruster weight of 24.2Kg's. Having a thrust value this high eliminates measurement errors commonly found with most such devices where the thrust value is in the mN's, such as NASA's EM drive. Quote: It is so common for people to try to change systems in mid analysis and then wonder why things don't add up.) The system or design has not changed at all. Others here had a stab at what they thought maybe going on-not me.

Ok, the ejected matter will last for ever, as the thruster is sealed, and the matter cannot escape. The time period that that matter can do work is subject to the time the electrical power source lasts. If we were to use a nuclear power source, then the thruster would work for years-or as long as electrical power is provided.

Quote: The question still arises how long will the exhaust last ?) That question was answered. The ejected mass is recycled, so it lasts for ever. Quote: The lecturer ignores this, but at the end sets a task to explain how the box fell over by itself during the next four days.). Well one possibility could be that there was a flywheel and prime mover within the box, slowly building up speed over time. A brake is suddenly applied to the flywheel, which would cause the box to rotate if it were not fixed down. There are a few other ways of achieving this effect.

Ok, i think there has been a mix up here. When I say nothing leaves the box, I am referring to the thruster as a whole, which we have been calling the box. The KE converter is not being referred to as the box. Matter does exit the KE converter, and enters the box(thruster) Quote: That, I am afraid, is just not credible. Even if, as I now suspect, the converter carries out some kind of phase change (condenses gas to liquid, converts a stream of electrons to electric current, or even absorbs 3/4 of a beam of "exhaust" light) the momentum of the intercepted exhaust will exert a force on it: F = d(mv)/dt.) First up, i did not say that a phase change was taking place, that was referenced by exchemist when he mentioned condensing steam to liquid. My drive works on the inelastic collision principles. So let me ask you this--Q1-If we have a box (1M x 1M x 1M),that has a mass of 1Kg floating in space stationary, and a ball, also with a mass of 1Kg, traveling at 10m/s, hits that box square on, and the collision is inelastic (the ball sticks to the box) what is the final speed of both !now combined! masses ? Q2- We carry out the same experiment, only this time the ball has a mass of 3Kg, and a velocity of just 3.333m/s. What is the final speed of both combined masses after the inelastic collision ?. Q3- I am floating in space. I have a mass of 100Kg's. I am holding a ball that also has a mass of 100Kg's. I throw that ball so as it reaches a velocity of 10m/s. What will my velocity be in the opposite direction?. Simple questions I know, but relevant to the topic. A rocket works by ejecting mass at velocity, so any mass can be used. I do not use a fuel as such, so no oxygen is needed. The ejected mass is recycled.

Quote: (1) whether or not the exhaust intercepted by the KE converter leaves the box). No, nothing leaves the box except heat, sound, and vibrational energy. Quote: (2) whether, if you put the KE converter on castors, you would expect it to move or not.). No, it would not move, as the forces are at right angles to the matter flow. Quote: If the walls have enough thickness or suitable material so that there is absolutely no interaction with the outside, is the drive still working?). The device would eventually get to hot, and either catch fire, or discontinue to work, due to thermal overload. Quote: Also please have a look at my post regarding Newton above, feel free to ask questions if if is unclear. According to Newton the box motion is described by the equation F=ma where F is an external force acting on the box.) No, i do not agree. The force being applied to the box, comes from within the box. In the case of an open system like a rocket, only the ejected matter leaves the system into the vacuum of space. But no forces are applied to the box from the vacuum of space.

The system, as explained in my first post, is in a sealed box, where no exhaust is expelled from the box. Also explained is the fact that heat and vibrational energy can be dissipated into space through the walls of the drive. This alone means that there are energy conversions happening within the box. This also means in those terms-the system is not isolated from the outside environment. Quote: From your earlier description I am given to understand that the black rectangular boundary in your diagram represents something like a shoe box or packing crate that will spontaneously move sideways when you press the go button.) That is correct, as explained in my first post. Quote: This behaviour would occur where it is currently located in your back yard, garage or whatever. But would also occur if you picked up the box, drove 1,000 miles into the desert.) Yes, as long as there was a source of electrical power available, the device will propel it self along the ground. The second model had an internal battery pack, and so had no need for an external source of energy. That was the model where I found out how well lithium batteries burn, and so put that one down to a failure.

Quote: Unless I suppose the exhaust is steam and you condense it in the converter, in which case you can buy yourself some time before it fills up with water, Ah, a phase change of the matter stream 👌, where kinetic energy is lost due to that phase change. In your example, would there be any reason that the thruster could not be shut down for a short period of time while the water is dumped ?, as the space ship would continue on at the speed it was going at the time of thruster switch off. Of course, out in space, heat is easily dissipated through radiation processes. This makes it very easy to cool the steam, and the water is then recycled. Once this process is complete, you start the engine back up for another cycle. Thing is, this time you are already moving, so you just continue to accelerate until the next shut down cycle. Quote:You don't tell us how this KE converter works. If i did that, then it would no longer be my invention, but all those that are reading this thread. But i am happy to discuss how physics says this can happen, through the transformation of energy within a closed system.

(Work is not force. Force is directly related to momentum, not KE) Quote: Perhaps the most important property of kinetic energy is its ability to do work. Work is defined as force acting on an object in the direction of motion. Work and energy are so closely related as to be interchangeable. So if we reduce the KE of a moving mass, then we reduce the work that is done, or we reduce the force over time acting upon a mass. The mass being in this case the sealed box. (How do you slow it down? Where does the momentum go? What you’ve described is magic, not physics.) The fact is, physics allows this to work, and no magic is involved. So as i said in my first post-Quote: But no laws are being broken here, as there is an equal and opposite reaction to the action. The conservation of momentum also still applies. The name !reactionless drive! would assume that there is no reaction to the action, and we all know that that would not produce any thrust at all. But what else could you call a fully enclosed system that creates thrust without any form of exhaust that exits the enclosed system?. So the physics behind the working principle is as follows. The action in the device is the mass being ejected from a nozzle. The reaction is imparted on the sealed housing, which is equal to, and opposite of the action. The ejected mass now has a KE value equal to that of the sealed housing. The problem is, when that ejected mass hits the back wall of the sealed housing, all masses reset back to there original starting point, and no motion takes place( assuming ideal conditions). So to make this thruster work, the ejected mass must have it's KE value reduced before the ejected mass hits the back wall of the thruster. This results in a reduction of the work the ejected mass can do on the rear wall of the thruster, which results in a net forward motion. The laws of physics clearly states this can happen. What we have here( as has been the case many times before in history) is not the laws of physics saying it can't happen, but more so man unable to work out how to make it happen. It is much like the story of the Wright brothers, and there first heavier than air flight. The laws of physics was always there that supported heavier than air flight, but man did not know how to make it work. Through years of research, trial and error, two brothers finally worked it out, and the rest is history. We all know the law that clearly states this can work, and that law is- Energy can neither be created nor destroyed , but can be transformed from one state to another in a closed system. This law tells us that the KE value in the moving mass can be transformed into another form of energy. Those other forms of energy can be heat energy, sound energy, vibrational energy, and deformation energy. We also know that this transformation can happen through inelastic collisions, which is also a well know science, in which case the conservation of momentum remains but the total KE value decreases. If we look at the diagram below, you can get an idea as to what I am saying. The end result is less force over time is being applied to the rear wall of the thruster due to the decrease in KE in the matter stream than that which is being applied to the front wall of the thruster. So you see, the laws of physics says this is possible, and it is only mans inability to work out how to make it happen-until now that is.

I would disagree with that statement, as it is the KE value that determines the amount of work that can be done, or force that can be applied by that moving mass. For example, we shoot a ball out of a cannon, and the ball weighs 1kg, and is now traveling at a speed of 10m/s. This ball now has a kinetic energy value of 50 joules while it is sailing through the air. If this ball hits a box that weighs say 10Kg, which is sitting on the ground, the box will move x amount as the kinetic energy of the ball is imparted on the box. This time we shoot the same ball out of the cannon, and it is traveling at the same speed (10m/s). But half way through it's journey we slow the balls speed down by half. The ball now has a KE value of just 12.5 joules. So when the ball hits that same box, with it's greatly reduced KE, when it impacts the box, it does so with 1/4 the impact energy, and so the box moves only 1/4 the distance it did in the first test. So a thought experiment--we put this whole setup in a box which is on free wheeling wheels. The cannon is fixed to the box, and we shoot this ball out of the cannon. For a brief second the box will jump forward as the ball is shot out of the cannon (equal and opposite forces). But when the ball hits the back wall of the box, the box will move backward to it's original position, assuming an ideal system without friction. We do the same thing again, but this time, at the mid point of the balls journey to the back wall, we reduce the speed of the ball by half. which reduces it's KE value by a factor of 4. What do you suppose the outcome would be then ?.

I cannot write those equations, as calculating forces from fluid dynamics is above my pay grade. I am nothing but a mere mechanic who is a back yard tinkerer. But I will give you a simplified example. If we throw a ball of say peanut butter at a wall, that ball of peanut butter will have a kinetic energy value of say 100 J. When it hits the wall, that 100 J of energy is dissipated, some into the wall, some through deformation, some through heat, and some through sound and vibration. This is the result of inelastic collision- the kinetic energy is dissipated. Now, if we have two balls of peanut butter of the same weight, traveling at the same speed, but at right angles to each other, and those two ball collide before they hit the wall, then the total kinetic energy after the collision will be less than the original total kinetic energy. We also get a change in direction, which will be at a 45* angle to that of both the balls original direction. We also get a reduction in speed of what is now 1 mass. So although the conservation of momentum remains, the now combined mass now hits the wall with less kinetic energy. There is no need for any external forces, as all the produced and dissipated forces can happen within the box.

There is no new physics. The physics being used is well know. It was just a matter of combining two know effects to achieve what has been achieved. Those two well known laws of physics are in simple terms-rocket science, where a rocket engine ejects mass at velocity to provide thrust. The matter stream ejected from the rocket engine has a given value of kinetic energy. So so far we abide by Newtons 3rd laws. The second know laws used are those of inelastic collisions, where kinetic energy is not conserved, but the laws of the conservation of momentum are.

As stated, it is not reactionless for a period of time. So let me explain a little how this is achieved. For simplistic terms, we will say that a rocket engine is that which ejects mass at velocity, regardless of what that mass is in the form of matter. So a matter stream is ejected from a nozzle in an enclosed box. As the matter stream contains the same amount of kinetic energy as the energy that propels the rocket forward (equal and opposite), the matter stream impacts the rear of the box, and out box go's no where--equal and opposite forces. So what i have done is reduce the matter streams kinetic energy after the jets nozzle but before it impacts the rear of the box. This results in a net force propelling the box forward. So when the matter stream leaves the nozzle, the energy from that ejection is both equal to and opposite that of the action, which is the force pushing the box forward.

Hello all. Ok, well as this is my first post, i will start with my name, which is Brad. As always, I know there will be very strong opposition to any such device that seems to break the laws of physics. But no laws are being broken here, as there is an equal and opposite reaction to the action. The conservation of momentum also still applies--so on we go. I will confirm that this is not a theoretical experiment. This is an actual working device. Anyway, over the past 6 years, I have been developing a reactionless drive. The name !reactionless drive! would assume that there is no reaction to the action, and we all know that that would not produce any thrust at all. But what else could you call a fully enclosed system that creates thrust without any form of exhaust that exits the enclosed system?. My first working model was completed in 2017, and showed a thrust value of just 242 grams, for a thruster that weighed 14.6 Kg's, and an electrical input of 1.42Kw. 5 weeks ago, I finished the 4th thruster. Oh,BTW, I call it KERT (Kinetic Energy Reduction Thruster) This one produces a net thrust of 2.32Kg's for a power input of 1.12Kw, and a total thruster weight of 24.2Kg's. Having a thrust value this high eliminates measurement errors commonly found with most such devices where the thrust value is in the mN's, such as NASA's EM drive. Tests have been carried out on suspended cables and by placing the thruster on a trolley with free wheeling wheels, where the trolley/thruster will propel it self along the ground in a straight line or CW and CCW circle. The pull force was measured during the suspended cable test, where a pull force of 2.32Kg's was achieved. The pull force test on the trolley showed a slight decrease in value, at just 2.11Kg's. I have put that down to friction losses through the wheels and bearings in the wheels. So far, i have had 2 engineers and 1 science teacher look at and test the device. The 2 engineers said that it was pretty cool, but i am not sure they actually knew what they were looking at, and how it seems to break known laws of physics. The science teacher was a different story though. He is the head science teacher a the science college near my area. He was there for 6 hours the fist day, carrying out all sorts of tests. He ended up leaving saying something was going on that we could not see. He then returned the next day-unannounced, and carry out more tests for another 4 hours. At the end of that time, he just said--I don't know how it is doing what it is doing. He said-an enclosed box should not produce any thrust at all, let alone enough to make it travel along the ground on a trolley, which also is dragging the power cable along with it. So i guess i would like your input on what to do next with this thruster?. I can't afford to patent it, as that is like 32K over here in Australia. But i would like something for all my years of hard work. Thanks. Brad