NASA's suicide missions

About a year ago Robert Cook had a mechanical inertial device tested at Boeing that was suspended by wire and showed a net thrust, this is the second time he has had a positive result over many years. Contrary to what is said this kind of thing definitely does not become front page news in the engineering field because they "know" its impossible.

Jeremy,

Interesting. I had not heard of this before. You say he has done this (only) twice in about a year, so I infer that there are problems with duplicating this result. Correct?

Any details would be appreciated. I really would like to be excited by something like this.

And I <b>am</b> good for the nickel ...

Regards,
LB


PS - I don't know, Jeremy. I just got back from his Web page, where he has a link to his patent.

www.americanantigravity.com/cook.html

A quick scan was not encouraging (just another mechanical oscillator touching something - no mention of the pendulum test you referred to) but I'll look more closely when I get some more time. Is there anything in particular that convinces you?

Here is a "silly" thought. Is magnetism a focussing or channeling of gravitons? (Not all of them, just a minute fraction of them.) The various isotopes of hydrogen and helium exhibit distinctly different behaviors in magnetic fields. No change in electrons or protons, just neutrons. Atomic hydrogen has a very interesting response.

Do some of your devices, which exhibit momentum, have magnets or induced magnetic fields?

If fully understood, can magnetism be harnessed as a propulsion system?

I'm just a chemical engineer, way out of my depth.


Gregg Wilson

LB,

The short link I gave doesn't make it clear but the full manuscript does. I would imagine they will send you one if yu were to ask. In it they distinctly point out that it can by repeated "Bang-Bang" change orbits of a space vehicle.

Also if you are not familiar with Townsend Brown I suggeest you view some of his work.

The interesting correlation has now been asked about magnetisim. It just happens that my view is that magnetisism, Townsend Brown and inertial drives have a common underlying principle. I believe that magnetisim is the aligning of orbits and at an atomic level creating minature inertial drives.

That is magnetisim isn't attracting it is producing this net force which pushes toward other tuned material.

As far as Newton goes, this is equivelent to Relativity try9ing to place an absolute limit on velocity as being v = c when it denies any absolute "0" velocity. V = c is not an absolute limit of velocity.

Likewise the "Equal and Opposite Forrces dictum" is being miss applied here. In the case of rotary motion that counter force is in the form of torque but cancels itself via 360 degrees rotation and you are left with net centrifugal force or impulses as a result.

If you follow the mathematics you will find that energy is conserved by the vehicle being accelerated.

Rotary power in vs linear power delivered.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Interesting. I had not heard of this before. You say he has done this (only) twice in about a year, so I infer that there are problems with duplicating this result. Correct?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

By doing it a couple times I mean being independently tested by two aircraft manufacturers. He has done informal tests of his own many times. Part of the problem is that he is a private citizen and doesn't have thousands of dollars for the machining of a prototype that will get up to the kinds of rpm necessary to make definitive results. He claims to have achieved movement on both an ice surface and on an air cushion to remove doubts about the momentary use of friction.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Is there anything in particular that convinces you?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Both Boeing and the other company determined that there was a net thrust, I assume they know how to test for this kind of thing. I think the guy deserves a chance.

Once you get past the knee jerk reaction of "Oh that defies NEwtons Law (which it doesn't) then lokk at the math there is a lot possible.

However, the problem seems to be the limitation of mechanical shock, high local stress and vibration. Those things have limited the aplication to toys like mine.

But Townsend Brown has actually flown disc shaped craft, in a vacuum chamber as tested by the French Government.

While these devices are not practical, their efficiency is outstanding compared to rocket technology. If you run the numbers you will find that it should take 2,000 gallons of gasoline (at 100%) to put a 10,000 pound craft in orbit at 12,500 Mph. Instead we use 1,000,000 of high energy rocket fuels.

The problem is low efficiency (less than 3%) of rockets and it therefore takes fuel to lift fuel and it compounds to the point that on the average you need 9.995 gallons of fuel to lift 10 gallons of fuel, etc, etc; hence 1,000,000 gallons to do the job of 2,000 gallons.