Jump to content

Helical Engine Component


Edgard Neuman

Recommended Posts

Hi,

Here is a article that explain how the engine would work :
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2218685-nasa-engineers-helical-engine-may-violate-the-laws-of-physics/

 

It relies on a component whose mass is alternatively changing between two values(by changing the energy of the system) 
This topic is not about the question of the engine working or not
(I suppose there could be some relativistic effects associated with the mass changes  that could cancel the whole thing : what is the derivative of acceleration ? and the derivative of curvature ?
In fact when I think about it :
-  It wouldn't work maybe because a device whose mass would be decreasing would accelerate, and decelerate when the mass increase (with the whole conservation of momentum)
- and ...can we change the mass/energy of the system.. as it says in the article ?). 

I'm just wondering : what would be the most effective mass alternating device ? 

What we would need is a thing that could change mass the most while using the smallest space..  we would need to optimize the mass difference by unit of space (kg / m^3).. I suppose we could make a very small atomic component with a rotating thing or charge, and vary the rotation..  or maybe some atom with two energetic state the furthest apart. 

Edited by Edgard Neuman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think this should be in Speculations. Unless you are going to insist that this poor deluded man is right?

It is rather worrying that an engineer working for NASA should come up with this tosh. But no doubt someone will point out why it doesn't;t work. I am disappointed, but not surprised, that New Scientist published it uncritically. They could have written an educational article explaining why it doesn't work (they employ writers with a background in science, or they used to). But they decided to fall back to their default position of being the Daily Mail of science.

Edited by Strange
boring -> working
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Strange said:

I don't think this should be in Speculations. Unless you are going to insist that this poor deluded man is right?

It is rather worrying that an engineer boring for NASA should come up with this tosh. But no doubt someone will point out why it doesn't;t work. I am disappointed, but not surprised, that New Scientist published it uncritically. They could have written an educational article explaining why it doesn't work (they employ writers with a background in science, or they used to). But they decided to fall back to their default position of being the Daily Mail of science.

I believed it for ten minutes

I found a more accurate description :
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/10/nasa-inertial-drive-with-a-helical-engine-using-a-particle-accelerator.html

Edited by Edgard Neuman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Strange said:

It is rather worrying that an engineer working for NASA should come up with this tosh.

It's probably no big deal. I'm sure he's only responsible for really unimportant things like converting units from imperial to metric

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ooh ! that gave me some other idea :

Instead of this, what we could use some einstein-rosen-bridge.. picture this : 
We create a loop of particles (that we accelerate) except the loop goes into the bridge, from one end to the other.. so in our universe, we would have only one half of the loop..
Can we then just use the particle speed to accelerate the ship ?
Imagine we could here on earth accelerate the particles, and then somehow release the ship that would use the particles to accelerate. 
I suppose that it wouldn't work either but the reason would be weirder : when we accelerate the particles into the loop, the two bridge would accelerate in the opposite direction and transfer a force to the thing that keep it open.

 

Edited by Edgard Neuman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've a better idea about it : if you played the game "portal".. (it all depends of the laws of bridge orientation if they exist, you would probably have to flip one entry of the bridge to make it face the other one).. you can imagine a ship having two ends of the bridge, facing each other (like in the game). In the middle, you put a particle accelerator.
When you accelerate the particle in one direction, the local reaction push the accelerator and the ship in the other direction, and when you decelerate the particles, the opposite happens. You would have some sort of inertia wheel, but linear thanks the topological inversion of the bridge. (I even suppose the parity of the particle would alternate each time they pass the bridge, the whole being the equivalent of a mobius strip)

Edited by Edgard Neuman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and what about the idea it inspired me ?  somebody please tell me it's a good idea ! ? :)

You put two ends of a einstein-rosen-bridge face to face in a ship (Portal style), and you put a very simple (linear) particle accelerator between the two.. (you could also just put a rope, and pull it, but I figured a particle sized ER bridge would be easier).. I don't see any flaw in this idea..
Relative to space the mass going flowing the bridge would have some momentum/kinetic energy in a direction and the ship would have the opposite (so the laws won't be broken).. it's really a linear inertia wheel (a straight wheel)..


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Edgard Neuman said:

and what about the idea it inspired me ?  somebody please tell me it's a good idea ! ? :)

You put two ends of a einstein-rosen-bridge face to face in a ship (Portal style), and you put a very simple (linear) particle accelerator between the two.. (you could also just put a rope, and pull it, but I figured a particle sized ER bridge would be easier).. I don't see any flaw in this idea..
Relative to space the mass going flowing the bridge would have some momentum/kinetic energy in a direction and the ship would have the opposite (so the laws won't be broken).. it's really a linear inertia wheel (a straight wheel)..

If you are going to invoke science-fiction then you can do anything. Perhaps best to stick to science. (And if you are going to say "but an Einstein-Rosen bridge is science", then I require you to show the full mathematical analysis that your idea works.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Strange said:

If you are going to invoke science-fiction then you can do anything. Perhaps best to stick to science. (And if you are going to say "but an Einstein-Rosen bridge is science", then I require you to show the full mathematical analysis that your idea works.)

... now that's just absurd sadism. 
(of course I know we can't make a einstein rosen bridge)..
From now on, I won't even answer to you, and only to people who have a brain. I wonder how many good ideas you throw to the bin because of your abusive self-importance. Learn about objectivity, it will do good to you.

And the idea that i can't submit some idea without doing the math. That's absurd. A idea is a idea. Math is math. I'm not here for a medal in math. I don't do math, I hate math. I submit a idea. You need the math ? YOU DO the math, you seem to like it. I just submit the idea. The idea isn't wrong because I didn't do the math. You need math, I don't. It's just a very simple idea rightfully written in the "speculation part" of the forum. Contrary to you, I'm here to "share", not to make myself believe i'm important.
The math here is as simple as the idea ER-brigde math + linear particle accelerator math, so you can figure it out.

Edited by Edgard Neuman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

You can submit what you call an idea but it ain't science, it is uniformed idle speculation.  

I'm sick and tired of all your peremptive general answers :
- "math or it's nothing"
- "you're not a genius"
- "it's not math." 
- "you know nothing"
bla bla 
I've heard it all. I won't waste another full day talking about "my/your legitimity"  "the importance of math", "the rules of the forum". I have a life. I'll make a list of people who are not objective, try to waste my time and discourage me of having ideas (what a absurd thing to do really) and who I will answer only once.
Who care "who I am" ? You do, because you don't know what "science" is about (obviously)
This idea is very simple. So spare me the b*llshit, and criticize the idea or leave me alone.


Your next answer can only be one of those  :
a) "It wouldn't work because .... XXX (math if you want)"
b) "that's a good idea, I don't see why it won't work"
c) "I don't know, but it's worth thinking about it"

The rest is absurdity, misplaced ego and noise.
 

Edited by Edgard Neuman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

I'm sick of tired of all your peremptive general answers :
- "math or it's nothing"
- "you're not a genius"
- "it's not math." 
- "you know nothing"
bla bla 
I've heard it all. Who care "who I am" .. you do, because you don't know what "science" is about (obviously)
This idea is very simple. So spare me the b*llshit, and criticize the idea or leave me alone.

Sorry, but math is the language of science.  You can read and learn about science in general without math, but you will never achieve an understand to the depth where you can develop a new hypothesis without math.

If you really want to be left alone don't present bullshit.  Very simple.

Edited by Bufofrog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

I'm sick and tired of all your peremptive general answers :
- "math or it's nothing"
- "you're not a genius"
- "it's not math." 
- "you know nothing"
bla bla 
I've heard it all. Who care "who I am" ? You do, because you don't know what "science" is about (obviously)
This idea is very simple. So spare me the b*llshit, and criticize the idea or leave me alone.

Your next answer can only be one of those  :
a) "It wouldn't work because .... XXX (math if you want)"
b) "that's a good idea, I don't see why it won't work"
c) "I don't know, but it's worth thinking about it"

The rest is absurdity, misplaced ego and noise.
 

My maths is equivolent to yours, but it won't work because "so in our universe, we would have only one half of the loop.." that's like trying to dig half a hole or trying to make half a sandwhich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

My maths is equivolent to yours, but it won't work because "so in our universe, we would have only one half of the loop.." that's like trying to dig half a hole or trying to make half a sandwhich.

First : thanks for taking the time to actually think. 

Allow me to answer and disagree (because I can)
No but, when I wrote this, I supposed the bridge had some internal length.. (and half of the loop would be in it). I admit I don't exactly know the topology of a einstein rosen bridge.
But it's not necessary. The rope (or the particle loop) can just be straight, go from left to right.. (it would be a loop but straight)..

I don't know either if you can make some ER Brigde with entries face to face.. (if you can't that would ruin everything.. that why I supposed you would have to make a topological inversion of one end)..
It's a very simple and stupid idea really.. If you played portal , you'll understand instantly the topology of the room. (Somebody probably had it before, but i've never heard of it)

(sorry for the poor quality of the schematic, i don't have photoshop)

scheme.png

Edited by Edgard Neuman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even assuming you could create an Einstein Rosen bridge without destroying your ship the amount of energy needed would be sufficient to drive the ship to near light speed without the use of the bridge without the stresses involved nor the problematic radiation that would result from the bridge.

 We have never discovered any wormholes so other than the mathematics we have no way of knowing if such a thing is even viable beyond the mathematics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Edgard Neuman said:

I'm sick and tired of all your peremptive general answers :
- "math or it's nothing"
- "you're not a genius"
- "it's not math." 
- "you know nothing"
bla bla 
I've heard it all. I won't waste another full day talking about "my/your legitimity"  "the importance of math", "the rules of the forum". I have a life. I'll make a list of people who are not objective, try to waste my time and discourage me of having ideas (what a absurd thing to do really) and who I will answer only once.
Who care "who I am" ? You do, because you don't know what "science" is about (obviously)
This idea is very simple. So spare me the b*llshit, and criticize the idea or leave me alone.


Your next answer can only be one of those  :
a) "It wouldn't work because .... XXX (math if you want)"
b) "that's a good idea, I don't see why it won't work"
c) "I don't know, but it's worth thinking about it"

The rest is absurdity, misplaced ego and noise.
 

!

Moderator Note

The problem here is that you own the burden of proof. It’s not up to others to develop the idea in order to debunk it. “a” only works if you’ve already provided the mathematical framework. And you haven’t.

Since you’ve declared your intent to not comply with our rules, we’re done.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.