MPMin

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    71
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About MPMin

  • Rank
    Meson

Recent Profile Visitors

322 profile views
  1. If my system can generate enough thrust, 1, 2 and 3 wont be a problem.
  2. I did look It up: Mine doesn’t interact with external fields However, if the ultimate defining feature of a reactionless drive is that a reactionless drive violates Newton’s third law by definition then mine isnt reaction less for that definition alone, my system isn’t breaking Newton’s third law.
  3. I’m pretty sure I’m not trying to break the law
  4. I’m trying to but It’s hard to learn when explanations aren’t provided with the statements given
  5. If you read back you’ll see that I did ask
  6. Are you saying I’m not allowed to ask for clarity on statements made with no explanation?
  7. You’ve said what you think it is but you still haven’t explained how It’s irrelevant? That doesn’t mean it has moving parts thought so this comment is just meaningless in context. You provided just one other drawing as a deliberately vague reference and asked me to do an efficiency comparison? Why would you do this? Can you provide a reference for this? (Anything can be more than a bogus number ) Have you considered that my system could potentially produce more thrust than those other systems? It could possibly generate a gazallion times more thrust. What facts are you basing this on when the system I’m proposing didn’t even exist to your knowledge a few days ago?
  8. Please tell me what defines a reactionless drive or please tell me how idea isn’t a reactionless drive?
  9. Yes but ionised plasma is still a propellant which will eventually be used up, my proposal doesn’t require a propellant and could potentially have an endless supply of thrust from solar power.
  10. I thought you said it was irrelevant? Can you even justify this against what I said? Perhaps you’ve missed the point of my concept, mine has no moving parts either. Are you still talking about the same thing? Based on what exactly? Are you able to give this statement some tangible reasoning beyond supposition? I’m not sure this statement supports your argument as ‘gazillion’ isn’t a real number. This is the correct context to use the word a bogus. I haven’t crunched the numbers yet, have you? I believe this is your low estimate, but I don’t believe it applies to every possible application in space. Are you saying that all satellites are over 10 tons in mass because the space shuttle has a greater mass? I think the amount of energy it takes to get a satellite would put pressure on engineers to keep satellites as light as possible. Actually searching for the answer on google reveals that a lot of satellites weigh a lot less then 10 tons.
  11. If the force on the wire is irrelevant, what’s going to move the craft? If an intermittent force is collectively greater than a really weak continuous force of you know like a laser then it is better. And the multiplication factor is not fake, what the total product of force ends up being is yet to be determined but certainly not fake. If the system can gather endless energy from the sun to power itself and produce thrust over time, perhaps you could explain why ‘efficiency’ would be a failure point? The wind blowing a rock on the ground is hardly a relative comparison to moving a craft in space and without a complete design how can you assume the mass of the craft?
  12. I’m pretty sure efficiency, or lack there of, doesn’t prevent a force from moving something in space. I understand each cycle would only produce a tiny amount of force but keep in mind that that’s only a tiny amount of force per cycle. Im not saying the wires should be 0.1m apart; but if they were, and light travels 300 million meters per second, and each cycle occurs in the time it takes one pulse to reach the other wire, even if each pulse only produces a tiny amount of force, that force would be multiplied 3 billion (3x10^9) times per second, in one week of gathering momentum that tiny force will be multiplied by 1.8x10^15.
  13. I haven’t been given a model, I’ve been the one proposing a model this whole time. The reference you have kindly provided does not refer to my ‘rig’, your reference talks about ejecting mass for propulsion but thank you all the same. Weak or not it would seem that my idea at least has merit and the potential to work as a reactionless propulsion system. Requiring only solar power to generate propulsion (if it actually works) efficiency and power aren’t so much of a concern because even a weak propulsion system that can continually refuel itself from the sun will have the ability to gather momentum over time.
  14. At t Yes, and as I already described, the -p momentum is counteracted by p at time t=0, p then interacts with the system again when it arrives at B and -p does not work means the system will generate momentum to the left