Yes, NASA actually referred the guy because he called NASA first. Sorry.
As to 70,000 RPM being a well-explored regime, you're absolutely correct.
The problem is there are a lot of variables other than frequency that go
into system behavior. I'll see if I can contact his relatives and find out
if he left any drawings around, if not actual devices.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 11:27 PM Ben Brockert <wikkit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
70,000 RPM is a fairly trivial speed, often exceeded by COTS
turbomachinery, electric motors, etc. If there was magic there it
would have been accidentally found. Nasa is not a regulatory body and
does not grant permits to launch things into space.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 8:00 AM James Bowery <jabowery@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
apocryphal reactionless drive, and the connection with Harry Stine's
Erratum: Make that 70,000/60 Hz ~ 1200 Hz.
He said the drive motor was about 70,000 RPM.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 9:56 AM James Bowery <jabowery@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Keith may recall my "Weird Fun With Propulsion" saga involving an
fascination with "The Fourth Law of Motion" dependent on asymmetric "Jerk"
(a=m/s^3).
recent paper on high frequency gravity waves mentioning "third time
I pretty much forgot about this guy until I ran across a relatively
derivative of mass motion":
gravitational waves (HFGWs) between pairs of force–producing elements by
Abstract
An apparatus or structure is proposed for generating high-frequency
means of the simultaneous production of a third time derivative of mass
motion of the pair of force–producing elements.
unambiguously accelerated vertically, to the point that he wanted to apply
Unfortunately, the guy is now dead whose purported "reactionless drive"
to NASA for a permit to launch it into space.
in a relatively small device -- which I never saw let alone saw operate.
I will say that the frequency he was operating at was about 70,000 Hz
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 10:45 AM Keith Henson <hkeithhenson@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 10:07 PM Henry Spencer <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
beyond-all-possible-measurement-errors
On Sun, 3 Feb 2019, Henry Vanderbilt wrote:
Harry was really nice about it - but I learned a proper skepticism.
Absent demonstrated unambiguous
thinking.no-exhaust net thrust, it's all just hand-waving and wishful
flagExactly. The late lamented Jordin Kare once observed that one red
nobodyindicating that people are kidding themselves (or worse) is that
hints ofcan devise an experiment that converts the marginally-detectable
an effect into something blindingly obvious and inarguable.
You can't argue with the obvious, but the wider consequences of a
working reactionless drive on our concept of physics are staggering.
It's a trivial thought experiment to convert a reactionless drive
(where the force/kW is not modulated by velocity) into a free energy
source.
People have waxed lyrical about how a reactionless drive would cut the
cost of power satellites without realizing that such a drive
repurposed for energy production would eliminate the need for power
satellites entirely.
BTW, if you want a target, the cost to GEO per kg times the kg/kW for
power satellites can't exceed about half of the cost per kW. LCOE
limits that to around $2400/kW, $1200kW/6kg/kW gives $200/kg. There
are tricks with beamed energy and arcjets that will get the LEO to GEO
multiplier down to 2, so a lift cost to LEO of ~$100/kg is where
6kg/kW power satellites would break even. The specific power is not
certain but is very likely to be between 3.5 and 7 kg/kW.
Keith