Question |
| Asked by: |
Glenn Hawkins |
| Subject: |
I.P. |
| Question: |
Question: It might be possible to produce inertial propulsion with the use of rotation of any kind affected by electromagnet pulsations. I watch Nova about the ‘Magnetic Monster’ from neutron-star collisions and came upon an idea of something like a pint-sized half explosion of one direction of ejected neutrons which could be incredibly powerful. Even if that would be possible, and I doubt it, my explanation of how it might be achieved is complicated. |
| Date: |
29 April 2021
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Gardner Martin - 30/04/2021 01:05:10
|
| | Hawkins,
why the obsession with rotation? Angular and linear momenta are separately conserved; everyone knows that (except Laithwaite, who wrote an entire article in which he demonstrated his ignorance of this principle ... again). As for ejected particles, that is an old idea (see Project Orion), unless you plan to keep them within the spaceship. If you don't, it is simply not inertial propulsion. Keeping particles within the spaceship is very much the order of the day at the moment, with the Emdrive and related nonsense being funded by the UK Government and by NASA. Interesting philosophical question: when does accepting money, for pursuing impossible ideas, become outright fraud?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 30/04/2021 01:18:39
|
| | Do not reply to this man. You’d be feeding him what he wants. As for my post, no one knows what my design is, or how it would work. I have not explained it.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Gardner Martin - 30/04/2021 01:37:10
|
| | If the idea is inertial propulsion, it will not work; regardless of the design.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Gardner Martin - 30/04/2021 01:45:32
|
| | PS: just as a matter of interest, is there a hierarchy among you IP crackpots? Do you, for instance, laugh at those who think that one can propel a spaceship simply by pushing against the inside? How about those who think that throwing things around inside the hull will propel it? How about those who rotate an eccentric wheel within the hull, will that work? Do you actually believe that precession is some sort of secret weapon; even though it is a result of Newton's third law and therefore cannot contradict it? Just curious.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 30/04/2021 02:11:28
|
| | I am enjoying this. He is cracking.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Gardner Martin - 30/04/2021 03:14:15
|
| | You are enjoying my recitation of all of the stupid ideas that IP crackpots have attempted to patent during the past 120 years? You must be a masochist.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 30/04/2021 04:07:03
|
| | You see? I have busted his cherry.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Gardner Martin - 30/04/2021 12:18:58
|
| | Do you really believe that any normal person sees it that way?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 30/04/2021 15:57:09
|
| | My fun is gone. He gave up and laid down in the corner licking his nuts.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Gardner Martin - 30/04/2021 16:10:22
|
| | Nobody is listening. And I am merely collecting quotes which, when published, will serve to illustrate the low-brow nature of IP 'inventors'.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 30/04/2021 17:09:35
|
| | I have reduced him into trying to justify his purpose with worrisome concerns about who might be listing. He has about had it. Keep licking those sore red balls. I am not finished with you.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy - 30/04/2021 19:14:43
|
| |
Martin/Fisher whoever?
You say everyone knows of the separate conservation of linear and angular momentum
That is probably true but thankfully not all believe it
So In this case that means nobody of consequence i.e. the many numb-nuts who will just not be told, because they all know better..
Some of us have known for tens of years and have also shown that such a condition is in error as the result of an old assumption which was subsequently backed up by misleading and useless mathematics
This is the way over the Newtonian barricade which allows us to develop inertial drive.
I attempted to demonstrate this in my YouTube “Antigravity Part 3” but was not well received by those who could not read printed English.
I think that the device demonstrated a large range of control over the amount of centrifugal force generated on a quickly assembled machine.
This is of course deemed impossible even if I had previously divulged this type of occurrence on this very site as far back as 2004.
This would surely make your precious the laws of motion worthless
C’est la vie.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 30/04/2021 22:41:39
|
| | I am out of it Martin. Have at it. It’s all yours.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Gardner Martin - 01/05/2021 14:59:46
|
| | Hawkins, again I worry for you. Why do you keep using the wrong words? Is it dementia or dyslexia? On that subject, did you know that Tony Cuthbert, another IP crank, is dyslexic? BTW, British Aerospace was on the point of supplying him with a 'vomit-comet' so that he could test his (centrifugal-force) gadget as part of Project Greenglow. But then somebody (the dreaded Fisher?) started to ask questions and the whole project collapsed.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Gardner Martin - 01/05/2021 15:38:11
|
| | Sandy, I can understand your confusion. Like all laymen, you have been taught that Science is a monolith within which everybody is on the same page. Therefore, when you see dissenting views in different parts, you assume that the basic facts are uncertain, or open to discussion ... even correction. That is not what is going on at all. Science is not a monolith; it is full of factions. The only one that matters is the physicists, who know that there are no exceptions to the conservation laws. However, physics is badly taught in schools and it is even possible to obtain a degree without fully understanding the subject. These bad students often become eminent in neighbouring fields, and their ignorance sometimes starts to show up. But it is not seen as ignorance because they are eminent; it is instead seen as genius. That is what happened with Laithwaite. And he is not the only one: at this moment, there are academic papers appearing in engineering journals which tout IP devices and theories and favorably cite notorious patents like that for the Dean Drive. They even build their own gadgets which can skitter wheel-less across shiny floors, and so they believe that Newton's third law has been overcome. They refuse to believe that it is due simply to the well-known 'stiction' phenomenon (which applies to both shiny floors and weighing devices), and therefore think that their machine will work in outer space*. It is all very sad and wasteful. But it does not betoken advances in space-travel, it signals only that there are layabout teachers and that the whole physics-education system needs overhauling.
* Optimization of Configuration of Inertial Propulsion System for Future Space Application
Anand G et al., American International Journal of Research in Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics, 7[2] 2014, 95. (This is of course a 'predatory' journal).
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy - 01/05/2021 15:48:39
|
| | Seems to me that you are the only one who is confused
You jump from one insignificant fact to another, dispensing useless information, as if you were forced to.
What is your problem?.
You are not going to change anyone's mind so why bother .
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy - 01/05/2021 16:03:45
|
| | You said and to that I heartily agree that the whole physics-education system needs overhauling.
That said why did you not confront me with your version of Newton's fables as far as the momentum conservation laws were concerned?
You would surely lose that one, and consequently your whole raison d'etre
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Gardner Martin - 01/05/2021 17:06:49
|
| | Sandy, no fact is insignificant to the scientist, and there are SO many of them that I can only offer a sample of their range. I would have expected you to be pleased that IP is being mentioned in engineering journals. Or are you jealous that you never got that far? You do not seem to realize that you are on the back foot in all of this. The physicists have all of the evidence, but you are in the same position as someone trying to prove that ghosts exist. You are irrelevant, except as a horrible exemplar of human gullibility.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy - 01/05/2021 17:40:51
|
| | Is your knowledge so shallow that you refuse to engage in any discussion of anything of a technical nature
I do believe that you are away out of your depth.
You still have not engaged me in a discussion with respect to the conservation of angular momentum
I am waiting on you trying to prove me wrong,
Maybe the 1st and 3rd laws are still valid without it?
I do not think so.,they cannot be?.
On the face of it, it really is a pity that Newton had ever existed.
His presence is currently the biggest stumbling block to the human advance into space.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 01/05/2021 19:13:36
|
| |
I let you off the canvas you puny little nit-shit with arms I imagine the size of carrots who hides behinds a screen.
I told you, “I am out of it Martin. Have at it. It’s all yours.” And then you insult me again. I would just like to beat the hell out of your soft peanut ass. That fits you. You are a fool with no life. I doubt that you have one single friend and that you have to walk softly down the corridor for fear of being smacked by a 13-year-old kid. Of all the people in the world, I would not have your life. What's it like, weasel, not to be a man.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Gardner Martin - 01/05/2021 21:14:42
|
| | Sandy, what do you mean, 'prove you wrong'? You have no experimental evidence that cannot be explained conventionally (even your hero, Laithwaite, did not believe it) and you cannot pick a fight at the theoretical level as you lack the mathematical nous. As I tried to explain re ghosts: the scientific view is that you are the one making an extraordinary claim and it is up to you to provide extraordinary evidence.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Gardner Martin - 01/05/2021 21:21:34
|
| | Hawkins, puzzling over your strange texts is not overtly insulting; after all, I did not suggest that you were writing while drunk. You can imagine what you like, but I would not advise counting on it in real life.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 02/05/2021 04:43:22
|
| | Only for Martin
I tire of explanations to you but I never use the wrong word, not ever. My spell checker sometimes makes a mistake and I don’t care. It is a casual conversation. It is the content of my message that is meaningful and unmistakable.
If I am to publish a piece, story, novel, play, or script, I edit it repeatedly, use the grammatical checker, and then forward it to my editor, a misplaced English lady living in Alabama and my friend. It always irks me to see some incompetent with no talent concern himself with the first draft and where the spellings and little commas should appear in none professionally publishable script. The educated idiot who understands not the meat of the content, yet who prides himself as a little Lord Fauntleroy spelling bee champion—talentless brainless idiot who could not write himself out of a paper bag.
Martin, you said you worry about me. You do not worry about me. (What a belittling lie) Now, will you ignore this message as you have the meat of all others and divert to some UNRELATED HATEFUL REPLY?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
