From: Michael Lorrey (retroman@tpk.net)
Date: Sat Nov 30 1996 - 15:14:29 MST
Hal Finney wrote:
>
> The notion that you are going to be able to come up with a
> mechanical system which arranges moving weights "just so" and leads to
> non-conservation of momentum is just so terribly unlikely as not to be
> worth seriously considering.
>
> Hal
As stated previously, this system relies on conservation of momentum.
Here's a good analogy: conservation of momentum is what prevents solid
rings from forming around planets. All rings are congregations of small
objects, from ion size up to a few meters in dia. A solid ring would be
unstable because at one point or another, perturbations will shift it so
that its center of geometry separates from its center of angular
velocity, causing the same sort of phenomena as occurs within this
mechanism. THe thrust generated would cause it to get further out of
whack, creating even more thrust, until it eventually hits the planet.
This scenaario is what led to the mathematical proof for Keplers Law.
-- TANSTAAFL!!! Michael Lorrey --------------------------------------------------- President retroman@tpk.net Northstar Technologies Agent Lorrey@ThePentagon.com Inventor of the Lorrey Drive Silo_1013@ThePentagon.com --------------------------------------------------- Anything I say can and should be used against me.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:52 MST