Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
Followers 1

# Space drives

## 6 posts in this topic

William B Stoecker: Getting into space is an incredibly difficult, expensive, and (for manned flights) dangerous operation. We are at the bottom of a deep gravity “well,” and merely getting into low Earth orbit requires accelerating a payload to a height of over one hundred miles and a speed of about 18,000 miles per hour. To escape Earth altogether we must exceed escape velocity, over 25,000 miles per hour. Up until now this has been accomplished by a particular type of reaction engine known as the chemical rocket. A reaction engine accelerates by propelling a reaction mass to the rear, and, literally, pushing off against that mass. A chemical rocket does this by burning chemical fuels like liquid oxygen and kerosene, or, for higher efficiency, liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. But even such powerful fuels as these have limited energy, and the rocket must burn fuel to lift the remaining fuel as well as the tanks, engine, pumps, etc., and fuel to lift fuel to lift fuel. The remaining payload is, proportionately, quite small.

##### Share on other sites

I had a thought on the subject once. And here is how I thought it should work.

Starting with the physical laws in question.

In a closed system for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The trick is then apparently, How do you break it? Which is just what you are attempting to do with a reaction less drive. You simply want to create an oscillation that when complete creates more force in one direction than another. Creating motion. So how would you do that?

Use Newton's law of energy on that. While energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can be transformed. So what you are trying to create is a system that takes energy and creates a kinetic push in direction A (action) but but is lesser in direction B (reaction) by transforming some or all of it by some process.

A simple thought on that would be to take a doorbell solenoid which is a magnetized bar inside a conductive coil with a stop at either end of the range of it's travel. You would then get said bar oscillating by applying power to the coil creating the standard action/reaction process. The bar bouncing between the stops. Creating something called a machine gun slam in a old job I had once.

Then here is how you would change it. Apply power in one direction only to create the action. Then on the reaction cycle have a second coil in the solenoid siphon off some of the reaction as electricity. Creating a energy conversion of some of the reaction. And then the reaction becomes less and you accomplish your objective.

The 2nd coil could simply be hooked up to a diode and a resistor. And you simply transformed some of the reaction into heat. Simple eh?

The aliens must be laughing their @#%\$& off at us.

Edited by ntech

##### Share on other sites

Bill, I see where you're going with trying to make the case for the number 33. A similar case could be made for the number 19. The Stephenville TX UFO sightings started on 1/8/2008. These numbers add up to 19! Kennedy was shot in 1963. These numbers add up to 19! The Federal Reserve started in 1913 and according to an article on this website called "2012 and the Economy" could come to an end on the Mayan end date of 12/21/2012. 1913 and 2012 add up to 19! The number 19 is a magical number for Islam much as the numbers 7 and 11 are for Christianity. I think it deserves some investigation.

##### Share on other sites

The only thing that matters to a rocket is the momentum of the rocket and the momentum of the fuel. The energy given to the fuel doesn't matter except that it causes the fuel to expand enormously and blast out the engine. The change of momentum of the moving fuel is what drives the rocket forward.

In the examples posted here, the kinetic energy of a moving object is dissipated in some way, slowing the object relative to the ship. The change of energy doesn't matter. It's only the change of momentum. When a weight is flung inside a stationary ship in vaccum in one direction, the ship moves in the opposite direction. When the weight comes to a halt inside the ship, the ship stops moving. There is no net change in momentum.

##### Share on other sites

I enjoy your thoughts on this matter and I pose a few questions to ponder.

Can you create a device capable of handling that kind of operation?

Given that electrons also have momentum, is the allotted time enough to give the magnet sufficient strength?

What about the electrons in the wire? If the system is tuned off while there is a surge still in the wire, what direction would the electrons flow?

Perhaps if we ever crack quantum entanglement, this might have a shot.

##### Share on other sites

Sadly, a reactionless drive is impossible.

Conservation of energy is not the only thing you have to worry about. Conservation of MOMENTUM also matters. For complicated reasons that would take WAY too long to explain here, it comes from very VERY basic symmetries of spacetime. If you are not throwing out any exhaust, the momentum of your ship must remain the same. You can't just transmute electrical or whatever energy into kinetic, no matter what kind of cycles you use - the total momentum of your system (ship plus exhaust) must remain zero. The best way to get around this is to throw very small amounts of fuel out the back at very high velocities - hence ideas of nuclear rockets, VASIMR magnetoplasma rockets, and ion engines.

## Create an account

Register a new account