Comment Skepticism != Refusing to review evidence (Score 1) 150
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I have worked on an inertial drive for a while. Made multiple experiments. The video I just shared starts with experiments which look a lot like ones I've done, but I was clear that this would not be considered solid evidence. When the link starts playing is near where my ideal was before seeing this video. Evidencing a 20ft-lb "consistent" acceleration via two 180 degree shifted separate systems each producing thrust in a 0-20ft-lb sine wave is EXACTLY the goal I've been working toward. For 30 glorious seconds before a recent experiment broke, my unit turned on and accelerated in a linear fashion. The unit in this video could easily have been put on a battery, loaded onto wheels and accelerated to probably about 15 mph (20 ft-lb can only overcome so much air resistence)
I created a couple experiments with rollers and pendulums that evidenced a state change within a closed system could cause the overall system to accelerate nearly 10 years ago. Those simple experiments evidenced to me that people assuming that conservation of momentum required an external object may be mistaken. Newton's original law simply said equal and opposite force. He said nothing about them having to be 180 degrees from each other.
What I find consistently frustrating that the assumption that these technologies won't work causes good, smart and educated people to refuse to review evidence that they might. The claims that "All inertial propulsion systems -- to my knowledge -- never worked in a friction-free environment" are very interesting. Does that mean that someone has sent a unit that works as well as the one in the video above into space? I would love to review evidence of a solidly producing experiment on earth like the one in the video, failing in space.
I have worked on an inertial drive for a while. Made multiple experiments. The video I just shared starts with experiments which look a lot like ones I've done, but I was clear that this would not be considered solid evidence. When the link starts playing is near where my ideal was before seeing this video. Evidencing a 20ft-lb "consistent" acceleration via two 180 degree shifted separate systems each producing thrust in a 0-20ft-lb sine wave is EXACTLY the goal I've been working toward. For 30 glorious seconds before a recent experiment broke, my unit turned on and accelerated in a linear fashion. The unit in this video could easily have been put on a battery, loaded onto wheels and accelerated to probably about 15 mph (20 ft-lb can only overcome so much air resistence)
I created a couple experiments with rollers and pendulums that evidenced a state change within a closed system could cause the overall system to accelerate nearly 10 years ago. Those simple experiments evidenced to me that people assuming that conservation of momentum required an external object may be mistaken. Newton's original law simply said equal and opposite force. He said nothing about them having to be 180 degrees from each other.
What I find consistently frustrating that the assumption that these technologies won't work causes good, smart and educated people to refuse to review evidence that they might. The claims that "All inertial propulsion systems -- to my knowledge -- never worked in a friction-free environment" are very interesting. Does that mean that someone has sent a unit that works as well as the one in the video above into space? I would love to review evidence of a solidly producing experiment on earth like the one in the video, failing in space.
