Cheif Operations Director

I am not arguing with the physics of it, I fact this design would not be possible without the three laws of physics. Are you saying the overall thrust would just be reduced by 50%?

I mean, sort of I guess but their a certain point where that is not true, I mean if I ignite a rock engine inside if a building with an open roof the building does not go into the ground. The holes would be act as nozzles and the back end of the plane being hit with that force would cancel out the forward velocity. The difference is that’s I am preemptively slowing the velocity down before that force can cause the equal and opposite reaction of canceling it out. What from an engineering perspective am I proposing? Stop with the sarcastic comments, I am asking in good faith. It does not counteract it solely because of its location in relation to the angle of the thrust

Think in KSP, if I have two of the same engines back to back it goes nowhere right? If I have two engines opposite if each other AND one perpendicular to the two so it forms a T shape it travels in the direction of the tangent of the 3rd engine right? Same principle I take the forward thrust and push it to the sides. I recapture the propellant after the energy has been transferred to the engines that cancel each other out. I’m not sure why people think I am proposing a free energy machine here, nothing is free in this since it is a mono prop system at takes heat from a nuclear reactor and converts that heat into a deep space probe propulsion system.

The magnetic field isn’t just supposed to stop it just slow it Down I just need to take energy out of the system. @steve_v, here is a way of thinking about it. Not the actual figures, 60% of he thrust is canceled out by reflecting and going back into the tubes 40% is taken out by the magnets ( or something)

Look back on page 3 or 4 for a picture of the design with the magnetic fields, I am on mobile so I can not repost it right now. Yes it is page 3 About the center or so

@steve_v I’m not diehard in this idea, I just have yet to see a convincing counter argument. Sure the how do you slow down the particles is the main problem with this. But it seems that you have a problem with the idea of slowing the exhaust down in itself and I m wondering why? Although @sevenperforce got pretty close with that tennis ball example.

What? Again I’m not denying the laws of physics! What exactly do you think I am proposing? No you have not. You have cited the 3rd law of motion and attacked a straw man! I have already dealt with this problem I push the energy out like an RCS thruster on pitch and yaw. The magnets are at 90* to the main nozzle. If all of your RCS thrusters in the Apollo craft fire at once their is no net change since the angles of the nozzles on the RCS cancel out the thrust

Whom are you talking about?

Fine So the universe will explode if I transfer energy to another object? I’m not contesting the laws of physics. I’m asking you for your explanation as to why I am wrong. (I will elaborate later) Yes that is why I said it! The question is how do we transfer the energy out of the cloud of thrust AFTER to ha left the nozzle! If this can be done then it is not magic. When did I say I needed magic? I’m using it to get across a point, one that you do not even disagree with. Fair point, it was the first thing that came to mind I’m sure something else could be done other than magnets. Either way I’m using it as an example for now. What? You have yet to explain why I can not transfer energy out of the exhaust plume (via slowing it down) and then recycle the material in the exhaust plume for a positive thrust.

Word Games Intensifies...

How is this a mechanical rocket?

I’m saying on a theoretical level! I’m talking in an abstract sense. I know the overall energy is equal but if you find a place to dump one of the sides of the equation it is not equal! Eg 10 N = 10 N your agree right? Now if I add -4 N from one I get 10 N = 6 N and that is wrong! It is 10 N > 6 N. If you use Newton’s first law to act upon the object carrying the equal and opposite reaction, in this case 10 and it causes a -4 Change they are no longer equal. I am not contesting the laws of physics. Suppose you could use magic and cause the exhaust from the rocket to slow down before hitting the tarp. We still have a net positive thrust. My proposal is to use magnets and not magic! I’m sorry I do not speak Russian? I’m not sure what else you want me to say I used the information at the time. Fair enough I never disagreed!

Prussians Gloria

No, but they were quoting rosatom

Yea, lol all I’m saying that, that one part of the report is hard to mess up.

I never said it’s free, I’m saying you convert the energy from the nuclear reactor into force that a rocket can use, that is the whole point of it. The Problem is that the fuel you expel with be used up before the nuclear reactor has used its fuel. I’m not trying to create a free energy machine. My example excluded that part. My point is supposing you could create a tarp that would reduce the force hitting the tarp (again not possible in this scenario) you would still go slower than without the tarp but it would still be a net gain. This all supposes that the force hitting the tarp can be reduced. If it can not be reduced I agree with you. From Wikipedia First law: In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body. If the tarp uses the first law to close the constant velocity of the equal Andy opposite reaction you get a net positive thrust You would gain force if the tennis ball did not touch the box car again, ie if you lost propellant. You would also gain speed if the equal and opposite reaction could be turn in equal via the 1st law. Second law: In an inertial frame of reference, the vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration a of the object: F = ma. (It is assumed here that the mass m is constant. If the reduce the acceleration of the equal and opposite reaction the force it less.

@steve_v Ok fine I can end of the conversation if you would like, I’m still going to post my response however. Ok? Why is this a bad thing assuming it has already done its intended job, that intended job is to accelerate the craft via going through the nozzle. It still has its 0* angle at some point giving forward velocity a long that axis. “Making the exhaust go forward —> you don't go.” Suppose I have a centaur upper stage. I in tow have a small tarp above 200 feet away from the craft. Excluding the fact the propellant is hot and will melt the tarp and the fact that propellant will building up on the tarp. Do you agree that you can still have forward thrust? With the same exclusions if I close the connecting wires to make it into an faring like structure do you still agree I can have thrust? If so the idea of a closed rocket could work (with those restrictions) “You'll get some miniscule thrust from the propellant moving rearward in relation to the craft, but once that propellant is jettisoned out the side it's gone - what you have is just an incredibly inefficient rocket.” Like I said the propellant will not be jettisoned out the side. I have to go I will reply to the rest later

I find it strange for how every job everyone always wants five years of experience. How can anyone get a job if they all need five years of experience? This really only affects entry level jobs but still it is odd.

Here is what this does. Imagine in KSP if I fired an engine at 100 percent throttle. Then I had another back to back at 90% thrust. That has a +10% net thrust? That is what we need to achieve in the rocket. Now imagine if I I have rcs thurst on the side of a tank in a + configuration. If all of the RCS Thrusters move it would be a NET movement of 0. Right? Now if I slow down the exhaust via the magnets (remember it is still goin gat extremely high speeds) and I thrust that energy toward the side of the rocket the NET thrust in the pitch and Yaw is 0 (think about this like KSP RCS) Still the fuel is slowed down. Since I slowed down the fuel as long as it does not re-accelerate I am can re-direct it and still get a net positive thrust. When you say " This is still essentially what you're doing. That "NOT EQUAL" doesn't account for the change in craft momentum produced by slowing the exhaust to begin with. Slowing the exhaust creates a force on the vehicle." I agree with you BUT that force is not being exerted on the bow or aft of the rocket, but rather on the pitch and yaw (IN RCS TERMS) of the rocket. Since there are four of these magnets and they are in a good configuration the forces do not cause the craft to tumble out of control but rather just cause the forces to cancel each other out in the NET movement since. (Although the movement is still happening)

I gtg I will finish this tommorow

Can I order python to run a c++ file? I mean if I tell python to open a .exe c++ file it could run right? I think I may take a shot a c++ for the robotics end of things and then use python for the software part. Idk it is just an idea since python robotics seems to be lacking

Sure but they seem pretty calm, I mean one of them scratched their neck

Ok stand by making a new diagram @steve_v ok now that the thrust has been reduced on the other side the thrust goes into the tubes. Now this causes an opposite reaction BUT NOT EQUAL since the thrust has been slowed. The return thrust my be 10 Kilo Newtons while the output at 11 Kn but it is still +1 Kn. Thus forward thrust Do you get my point now? You can get a net positive thrust. Off of this contraption. While it is in-efficient you can have 30 years or so of constant thrust. This would be great for space probes.

If the gases are allowed to escape all I have done is slow down the thrust after it left the internal nozzle. We agree on that right?

I wonder what the Soviet Officers were thinking