Talk:Reactionless drive

message: It seems to me that this article could mention Mach's Principle and the Woodward effect.  If Woodward is right, after all, then perhaps there is a way to build a reactonless drive.  Personally, I suspect his device will actually prove to be a special kind of reaction drive, in which the "reactant" is gravity waves --but that's WP:OR and of course not permissible in the article here.  Still, until something like that gets proved, it wouldn't hurt to include something in the article about the Woodward effect. V (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Woodward effect

message: Some years ago NASA hosted a "Breakthrough Propulsion Physics" initiative that attracted a number of wild ideas.  I do not know to what extent any of the ideas/papers presented at this Conference http://www.integrityresearchinstitute.org/Propulsion/JPCReport.htm could be considered to have been published.  At least one of them is available on the web at the big Archive site: http://web.archive.org/web/20030608095941/www.tdimension.com/documents/AIAA+2001+Manuscript.pdf  It is to be noted that if this physics is valid, then even though a device is described that uses no propellant, it is nevertheless not a reactionless drive.  Per the document, it claims to generate a kind of beam of gravitational waves; it should be obvious to anyone here that if such waves can be artificially generated and do move off in one direction, carrying momentum, then the device that generates them must move in the opposite direction, per Momentum Conservation.  The cool thing, and the reason I'm posting this, is that if such a device existed and you saw it flitting about, you would not be able to easily detect the "exhaust" associated with its motion --you would need a gravitational-wave-detector!  It would look like a reactionless drive!!! V (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Propellantless Propulsion

message: I think some clarification, or at least a reference, is needed here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.53.36.90 (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ultra High Vacuum Gyroscope

message: According to that paper by Alcubierre (I think that is the name), warp drive is possible under general relativity...and it does not act like a rocket. There is no momentum exchange. What say you guys to that? 68.186.48.171 (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has any idea how to build one, and if you did build one, it's possible to build a time machine using it, so it's theoretically extremely dubious.- Wolfkeeper 05:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Warp Drive (albuierre and star trek), wormholes etc. 

message: The article should probably explain that these also are not reactionless drives in a similar way to the tethers. anyone else agree? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beam-powered propulsion 

message: Interesting discussion. The greatest hindrance to discovery and invention is MENTAL INERTIA, and the treatment of science as though it is a dogmatic religion.
 
Can anyone cite an authority that made the ridiculous statement that angular accelerations and momentum can NOT be exchanged for linear accelerations and momentum?
Yes, read the works of Emmy Noether - the genius-level mathematician much admired by Einstein. She proved that the conservation-laws of physics are directly linked to basic symmetries of time and space. 
One of the results is that linear and angular momenta are separately conserved, and therefore cannot be inter-converted. The only problem is that those of low intellect are unable to understand the proofs and thus continue to waste their lives on trying to achieve the impossible. They should learn to take instruction from their betters.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.156.175 (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yo, Cowlishaw, stop adding these unsourced or poorly cited personal conclusions of yours to the article. Per WP:NOR, Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, theories or findings. The self-promotional soapboxing you added here just makes it that much worse. Binksternet (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a version of the gyroscope text that might be suitable for the article.
===Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster (GIT)===   
   
The Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster is a proposed reactionless engine which uses a principle can best be described as "rectified angular accelerations to produce a linear result".  This proposed reactionless thruster that was discussed during the late 90's and early 2000's via public internet communications (newsgroups), which encouraged several "garage inventors" to work toward the goal of reactionless thrust.  Enthusiasts attempted building and testing a wide range of machines, based on the principle, of "rectified angular accelerations".Does the Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster (GIT) Work?  
I actually like this definition, it's more succinct in it's description, and NOT a derivation of Eric Laithwaite's work (torque against torque on an obtuse angle).  Any attempt to bring my actual work into this discussion is soon shot down by Zealots that claim expertice, without doing the math, or the experiments.  WHAT?  DO I HAVE TO DIE FIRST, to be recognized for my work?
davide.cowlishaw (facebook profile name, where I CAN share without adverse reactions!
The links to the experiments and actual work are there, and not here (by some design, that I can't fathom in hiding reality, in favor of flat-earth fantasies). David Eugene Cowlishaw 10:07 pm, Thursday, 28 July 2011  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.134.173.13 (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "DO I HAVE TO DIE FIRST, to be recognized for my work?" No. You have to get it published in reputable scientific journals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Fill in the fact tags with reliable or even marginally reliable sources and we're in business.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm not so sure that "Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion: Tesla, UFOs, and Classified Aerospace Technology" (currently reference number 13) is a reliable reference.  For more about its author, and his many earth-shattering discoveries, see here.    Cardamon (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gyroscopic Inertial Thrusters 

message: The Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster is a proposed reactionless engine which uses a principle can best be described as "rectified angular accelerations to produce a linear result".  This proposed reactionless thruster that was discussed during the late 90's and early 2000's via public internet communications (newsgroups), which encouraged several "garage inventors" to work toward the goal of reactionless thrust.  Enthusiasts attempted building and testing a wide range of machines, based on the principle, of "rectified angular accelerations".Does the Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster (GIT) Work?  
I actually like this definition, it's more succinct in it's description, and NOT a derivation of Eric Laithwaite's work (torque against torque on an obtuse angle).  Any attempt to bring my actual work into this discussion is soon shot down by Zealots that claim expertice, without doing the math, or the experiments.  WHAT?  DO I HAVE TO DIE FIRST, to be recognized for my work?
davide.cowlishaw (facebook profile name, where I CAN share without adverse reactions!
The links to the experiments and actual work are there, and not here (by some design, that I can't fathom in hiding reality, in favor of flat-earth fantasies). David Eugene Cowlishaw 10:07 pm, Thursday, 28 July 2011  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.134.173.13 (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "DO I HAVE TO DIE FIRST, to be recognized for my work?" No. You have to get it published in reputable scientific journals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fill in the fact tags with reliable or even marginally reliable sources and we're in business.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm not so sure that "Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion: Tesla, UFOs, and Classified Aerospace Technology" (currently reference number 13) is a reliable reference.  For more about its author, and his many earth-shattering discoveries, see here.    Cardamon (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster (GIT)

message: Should this be added? JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantum Vacuum Plasma Thruster 

message: I see a problem with the opening line, and subsequently with the structure of the article which follows, stemming from the definition of "reactionless drive."  The WP:LEAD currently starts:
"A reactionless drive (also known by many other names, including as an inertial propulsion engine, a reactionless thruster, a reactionless engine, a bootstrap drive or an inertia drive)[citation needed] is a device to generate thrust without a propellant, presumably in contradiction to the law of conservation of momentum.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionless_drive#cite_note-1"
This is an improper use of the word "thrust" which is by conventional physics understanding and its mathematical definition an expression of momentum difference.  NASA defines thrust in this mannerhttp://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/thrust1.html:
"Thrust is a mechanical force, so the propulsion system must be in physical contact with a working fluid to produce thrust. Thrust is generated most often through the reaction of accelerating a mass of gas. Since thrust is a force, it is a vector quantity having both a magnitude and a direction. The engine does work on the gas and accelerates the gas to the rear of the engine; the thrust is generated in the opposite direction from the accelerated gas."
"The thrust equationhttp://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/thrsteq.html describes how the acceleration of the gas produces a force."
F = ((m * V)2 - (m * V)1) / (t2 - t1)
Thrust is the application of Newton's third law.  Therefore defining "reactionless drive" in terms of "thrust" (which by definition equates to "reaction drive") is contradictory:
Thrust is a reaction force described quantitatively by Newton's second and third laws. When a system expels or accelerates mass in one direction, the accelerated mass will cause a force of equal magnitude but opposite direction on that system.
Simply put, a "reactionless drive" is better defined as "any hypothetical or theoretical propulsion mechanism that does not employ the thrust principle."  David Darling's alternative definition of "reactionless drive" conveys this point clearly:
"Reactionless drive
A hypothetical means of propulsion that does not depend on Newton’s third law (action and reaction are always equal and opposite) and the ejection of reaction mass.  Some types of reactionless drive have been proposed as a means of faster-than-light travel.  In science fiction, such a system is often referred to as a ‘space-drive’ or ‘star drive.'"http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Complete_Book_of_Spaceflight.html?id=dt7ow1Af86YC
:Sounds good. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell the term "reactionless drive" *is* used by some to specifically apply to what I would call "attempts to create an efficient rocket by violating Newton's third law", and by others for solar sails and other scientifically reasonable devices that don't use standard rocket principles but are otherwise kind of rocket-ish. The problem with the second category is that it's extremely broad, to the point where we can't much about them as a group. It's also vague and arbitrary, which makes it hard for us to categorize; an airplane propeller or a space elevator could be called a "reactionless drive" if you squint right, which is why I had to use the word "rocket-ish" above. The current article calls this second category "quasi-reactionless", which isn't even really a word. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

text: Per WP:WEIGHT, since the dean drive has gotten a lot of media coverage, it gets more space in Wikipedia. Spacetime propulsion will need to get either a lot of academic cites, or more media attention, to be featured more prominently. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section / Definition of "Reactionless drive" / Article structure 

message: :Reactionless drive →  – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. Tokamac (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the facts are worse, since the "propellantless propulsion" page already exists: it is Field propulsion. So I guess we have to clean this existing page instead. — Tokamac (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: So I removed the WP:MOVE notice and instead reworded the whole article in terms of open vs closed systems that completely addresses the difference between propellantless and reactionless drives. The article is now scientifically correct. — Tokamac (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 11 December 2016 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Reactionless drive. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/spgroup/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There's very little to share at this moment, mainly this video and its lengthy description..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhpHWI5Mwhc
Centrifugal balancers (LeBlanc Balance) have been around for almost a hundred years using the "outside acceleration" of the centrifugal force to dynamically balance rotating loads.
We've known since Newton that the first two laws of motion and Conservation of Momentum don't behave as expected/apply in non-inertial systems(having "outside sources of acceleration").
And we've known just as long that an inertial release from a spinning object has a reaction caused by the sudden change in mass distribution relative to the axis of rotation, which looks similar to, but is different from, a rotating wheel perimeter impacting a stationary mass and spontaneously accelerating it.
This novel arrangement uses the above to generate a Net Force that is unbalanced.
Dave Whitlock (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New type of "Reactionless" Thruster 

message: I removed the positive result on the RF resonant cavity thruster, because it is not referenced in a reliable science journal, but rather in a business magazing, and that result is two years old, and no reputable physics lab has been able to replicate these results in the following two years though several have tried. I removed it under the Wikipedia editing dictum of not giving undo prominence to fringe theories. Nick Beeson (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe theory