Claim by NASA

November 6, 2015

Many thanks, we have discussed this on the blog as you can see. It appears that the claim has not yet been tested, so it may or may not be an artifact. Until it is confirmed as reproducible and repeatable I am reluctant to apply theory to it. If it does work, conservation of momentum requires a new source of momentum, which could be part of energy momentum from spacetime.”

NASA always reminds us of one of those ‘magic’ defrosting trays. “How can that be?”, says the layman, “it feels so cold to the touch, and yet it defrosts frozen food faster than simply leaving it on my room-temperature counter-top”. The reason of course is that it is not about absolute temperature; it is about relative temperature and conductivity. Get the analogy? NASA looks pretty clever to the layman, but looks very stupid to the physicist (Feynman was too polite to say so, as he demonstrated how NASA had killed seven people, but that is clearly what he was thinking). 

Then, years later, a Russian enamel-paint specialist called Podkletnov claimed, in Physica C (Ron has published a paper about perpetual-motion in Physica B, so standards are clearly pretty poor at Physica) that he had discovered antigravity. This claim was immediately dismissed by physicists, who found his experimental design sloppy. The nonsense would have probably disappeared without trace had a mystery-mongering journalist called Matthews (he also claims to be a physicist) not written an article about it for the Guardian. Again, it was laughed at by physicists but … NASA took it up (having more money than sense) and tried to develop it (even hinting at one point that it could also be a death-ray) but, after wasting an estimated $10,000,000, it could not even replicate the original experiment; nice holiday for Podkletnov though. You might think that that was pretty stupid, but when NASA began its ‘Breakthrough Propulsion Program’ (almost making Project Winterhaven look sensible) one of the devices which was discussed was the 1960s-era Dean Drive (just a couple of eccentric wheels and a solenoid) which could travel over shiny floors with no obvious means of propulsion and even seemed to hover a little. It seems that many ‘experienced’ engineers have never heard of stiction and vibrational flotation. So, NASA’s dalliance with the Em- and Fetta-drives  does not make those boondoggles look good, they make NASA look very very bad. What the over-excitable, over-rated and and over-paid engineers at NASA should be asking is a) if the tapering of the container is the secret, why did Shawyer’s first patent specify a simple tube b) what is so magical about photons? If it works simply due to the differing cross-sections, then why does not any irregular cardboard box propel itself; after all, according to the kinetic theory of gases, it is full of rebounding molecules? It seems to us that certain engineers might have forgotten about a little thing called the hydrostatic paradox, which has been fooling laymen for centuries. Where are NASA’s positive results coming from, then? We suggest vibration. Vibration can produce quite amazing artefacts. Meanwhile, NASA had better slip Shawyer some money pretty quickly: his company currently has assets of minus £183300, and a debt-to-capital ratio of 1300%!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: