A NEW KIND OF PROPULSION SYSTEM

The three links below reveal ABSOLUTELY FREE the secret of the principle of operation of a new kind of propulsion system, which is cheap, safe, reliable and with strongly reduced (or even zero) pollution.

(AND VERY IMPORTANT -- THE NEW TECHNOLOGY BELOW MUST BE EVALUATED ONLY BY HIGHLY QUALIFIED EXPERTS IN THEORETICAL AND APPLIED MECHANICS!)

And here are the three links.

1) 

2) 

3) 

The first link contains the text, and the second link contains the related Figs.1-6. The two links form one united whole.

The third link is a very important addition to the first link and to the second link. 

Besides WITH THE ONLY PURPOSE TO GAIN POPULARITY we used the links (a)  deleted  and 

the related post of   July 21, 2018, 02:11:37 PM and (b)   deleted   and the related post of   May 16, 2019, 09:35:12 AM.    

(AND VERY IMPORTANT -- THE NEW TECHNOLOGY ABOVE MUST BE EVALUATED ONLY BY HIGHLY QUALIFIED EXPERTS IN THEORETICAL AND APPLIED MECHANICS!)

Looking forward to your answers and comments.

Regards,

Sven Svenson, a member of a team of inventors

8 minutes ago, Sven said:

AND VERY IMPORTANT -- THE NEW TECHNOLOGY ABOVE MUST BE EVALUATED ONLY BY HIGHLY QUALIFIED EXPERTS IN THEORETICAL AND APPLIED MECHANICS!

Most likely they will not be interested, but post the details here on the forum and I will have a look. 

The details can be found in the three links 1, 2 and 3 as it is written in the text. Please have a look at the text again. 

9 minutes ago, Sven said:

The details can be found in the three links 1, 2 and 3 as it is written in the text. Please have a look at the text again. 

I just read the first 3 words on page one... Nope...

to dimreepr

----------------------------

It's ok. Nobody presses you to agree with us. You are free to have your own opinion and protect it.

Regards,

Sven

to dimreepr

---------------------------------

But I wonder what would you say about our experimental device related to link 3. Your scepticism would quickly evaporate, I guess.:) 

18 minutes ago, Sven said:

But I wonder what would you say about our experimental device related to link 3. Your scepticism would quickly evaporate, I guess.:) 

There is always friction, much like there is never absolute zero, so nope...

!

Moderator Note

One of the rules you agreed to when you signed up is that people must be able to take part in the discussion without having to click any links. 

Therefore, would you kindly post some details of your ideas as just posting the links is against the rules. 

 

But dimreepr, you haven't read the text at all! PLEASE READ CAREFULLY THE TEXT OF ALL THREE LINKS! 

5 minutes ago, Sven said:

But dimreepr, you haven't read the text at all! PLEASE READ CAREFULLY THE TEXT OF ALL THREE LINKS! 

Not going to waste my time, please read the mod note. 

!

Moderator Note

Even if the links weren’t in violation of the rules, they are hand-written in an image file, you can’t copy-paste anything for a response.

Having the images in a separate document means I have to do extra work to read through this. And both reactionless motion and perpetual motion violate well-established physics. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This looks quite ordinary.

Hard pass.

 

 

24 minutes ago, Sven said:

But dimreepr, you haven't read the text at all! PLEASE READ CAREFULLY THE TEXT OF ALL THREE LINKS! 

!

Moderator Note

No. That is not how it works. The rules you agreed to when you joined said that you need to present the information on the forum.

 

!

Moderator Note

Moved to speculations.

 

OK. Two links that remain and they can be read by you as well as by the audience.

11 minutes ago, Sven said:

OK. Two links that remain and they can be read by you as well as by the audience.

!

Moderator Note

If you do not wish to discuss your claims, this thread will be closed.

 

47 minutes ago, Sven said:

OK. Two links that remain and they can be read by you as well as by the audience.

!

Moderator Note

Not anymore.

That was not the appropriate response to being told that the approach is unacceptable.

Do you wish to discuss your idea, here, on this site? 

 

Why does the evaluation require "highly qualified experts" when the author can't be bothered to convert their handwriting to text? And I've NEVER known a scientist (who knew what they were talking about) that would restrict who could review their hypotheses. If it's a good one, it survives even bad criticism. If it's bad, it doesn't matter who points it out.

Also, historically, those who call for only experts to look at their idea usually reject criticism by claiming those folks aren't expert enough, or that they obviously can't see the genius behind the concept. IIRC, swansont has even had people claim his criticisms of their idea were invalid because he's just an atomic physicist, not a theoretical physicist. 

On 7/28/2019 at 8:15 AM, Sven said:

A NEW KIND OF PROPULSION SYSTEM

What is the principle that this system is based on?