NASA engineer's 'helical engine' may violate the laws of physics

YeeHaa

Member
Charter Life Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2016
Messages
6,762
Location
T'ville ~ Trinity
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Designed by David Burns at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama, the “helical engine” exploits mass-altering effects known to occur at near-light speed. Burns has posted a paper describing the concept to NASA’s technical reports server.

Frictionless space
It would also need to be big – some 200 metres long and 12 metres in diameter – and powerful, requiring 165 megawatts of power to generate just 1 newton of thrust, which is about the same force you use to type on a keyboard. For that reason, the engine would only be able to reach meaningful speeds in the frictionless environment of space. “The engine itself would be able to get to 99 per cent the speed of light if you had enough time and power,” says Burns.

“I know that it risks being right up there with the EM drive and cold fusion,” he says. “But you have to be prepared to be embarrassed. It is very difficult to invent something that is new under the sun and actually works.”


Helical Engine
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20190029657.pdf

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ay-violate-the-laws-of-physics/#ixzz62bN5qsBy


EM-drive.jpg


Zefram Cochrane, Father of Warp Drive
 
As described it doesn’t break any laws of physics, it’s just another idea for inertia drive. I’m no rocket scientist, but changing the mass of the ring, or the round particle accelerator, will not change the energy exchange between the ring and the helix, they will simply oscillate at different speeds during different portions of the cycle. Just doesn’t seem like he beats conservation of energy and he doesn’t seem to explain the source of matter for operating the particle accelerator.

He knows more about it than I do, but from a layman’s perspective it looks like a bust.
 
A lot of research has been diving down this road of slowly traveling through space without needing to carry fuel. I think the idea is to put down some out of the box, foundational thoughts to inspire the next person. All these ideas still need rockets to get into space.
 
∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆
If this is a layman's perspective,
I'm a moron.
LOL, to be fair, pops was a rocket scientist. Physicist worked for NASA and McDonnell Douglas. Some of it might be genetic, most is probably just exposure.

Only 50 years or so.
I was not curious enough to do the math, but it’s many tons of mass to get moving 1 newton at a time, even making the assumption that the giant thing isn’t affected by the small bits of debris in space that will be striking it. Think the pressure it takes to press a key on a keyboard, now spread that force across the space of a football field and think how little dust it’d take to entirely offset the force you’re applying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob
I was not curious enough to do the math, but it’s many tons of mass to get moving 1 newton at a time, even making the assumption that the giant thing isn’t affected by the small bits of debris in space that will be striking it. Think the pressure it takes to press a key on a keyboard, now spread that force across the space of a football field and think how little dust it’d take to entirely offset the force you’re applying.

Indeed. Just accelerating to LS at 1G takes a looooooong . time.
 
Designed by David Burns at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama, the “helical engine” exploits mass-altering effects known to occur at near-light speed. Burns has posted a paper describing the concept to NASA’s technical reports server.

Frictionless space
It would also need to be big – some 200 metres long and 12 metres in diameter – and powerful, requiring 165 megawatts of power to generate just 1 newton of thrust, which is about the same force you use to type on a keyboard. For that reason, the engine would only be able to reach meaningful speeds in the frictionless environment of space. “The engine itself would be able to get to 99 per cent the speed of light if you had enough time and power,” says Burns.

“I know that it risks being right up there with the EM drive and cold fusion,” he says. “But you have to be prepared to be embarrassed. It is very difficult to invent something that is new under the sun and actually works.”


Helical Engine
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20190029657.pdf

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ay-violate-the-laws-of-physics/#ixzz62bN5qsBy


View attachment 161717


Zefram Cochrane, Father of Warp Drive



Well.... yeah. But there is this......
https://arstechnica.com/science/201...e-would-provide-thrust-in-different-universe/
 
Last edited:
If they want unlimited thrust using hot air, they should try to tether members of congress to space vehicles. That would solve at least one major problem if not provide some thrust with low cost to humanity
 
It just makes me wonder again.....
If you fire a bullet from a rifle in a space vacuum, will it travel ad infinitum?
Since there is no gravity to slow it down, would it continue to accelerate?
Would it remain at it's exit velocity of 3000fps since there is no atmosphere to slow it down?
What would happen to this bullet?
 
It just makes me wonder again.....
If you fire a bullet from a rifle in a space vacuum, will it travel ad infinitum?
Since there is no gravity to slow it down, would it continue to accelerate?
Would it remain at it's exit velocity of 3000fps since there is no atmosphere to slow it down?
What would happen to this bullet?

without oxygen I don't think the powder will ignite. That's why rocket engines use liquid oxygen
 
I was not curious enough to do the math, but it’s many tons of mass to get moving 1 newton at a time, even making the assumption that the giant thing isn’t affected by the small bits of debris in space that will be striking it. Think the pressure it takes to press a key on a keyboard, now spread that force across the space of a football field and think how little dust it’d take to entirely offset the force you’re applying.

That being the case, I imagine solar "wind" will render it useless. Unless they can use that to help initialize start up.
 
50 years ago the bullet would travel forever....

25 years ago... account for dust particle friction and deceleration (minus any gravitational force that can be meaured)

Now? String Theory - Gravitational/Connective forces with an emphasis on Dark Matter and the binding effect (not proven but speculated heavily) of Universal Constants being changed as Dark Matter slowly pulls the Universe back to the another single point.... the bullet is not traveling enough to account for the mass introduced in momentum..... That's a stupid Question...


Me: upload_2019-10-17_19-21-26.jpeg
 
Reading that article actually made me rather sad, because the description of this "drive" seems to show a serious lack of understanding of relativity. (although I'll grant the possibility that it's the writing and not the idea) Action would exceed reaction and the box would accelerate forwards - there seems to be no accounting for time dilation and foreshortening, which go right along with the relative mass changes, and frankly it seems to forget that the mass is changing relative to an outside observer, not relative to the object itself. This is where science is today? Feynman would have had a field day tearing this apart.

So far, the most realistic proposal for a NLS drive that I've heard is the Bussard ramjet, that Niven popularized in his Known Space stories. A massive magnetic field that scoops up interstellar hydrogen and compresses it into a fusion reaction that propels the ship. You launch it by falling into the sun to capture the solar wind as fuel.
 
So far, the most realistic proposal for a NLS drive that I've heard is the Bussard ramjet, that Niven popularized in his Known Space stories. A massive magnetic field that scoops up interstellar hydrogen and compresses it into a fusion reaction that propels the ship. You launch it by falling into the sun to capture the solar wind as fuel.
Beat me to it!

I know naught aboot physics, but I read me some sci-fi...
 
If they want unlimited thrust using hot air, they should try to tether members of congress to space vehicles. That would solve at least one major problem if not provide some thrust with low cost to humanity
They just lost one of the biggest thrusters
 
The powder supplies the oxygen, like a waterproof fuse burns underwater.
Roger dodger! In, e.g. black powder, potassium nitrate is the oxidizer. Smokeless powder contains other oxidizers.
 
Back
Top Bottom