2d • Prototypes
Why Ask Why? What happened to HOW?
We all want to understand the mechanisms that are in play in a system. But if a Workshop project is showing results, as soon as we as experimenters report any results the common response always used to be something like “wow, that’s great, how does it do that?”. Recently the response has been “why do you thing it works”.
A major component of science is supposed to be “observation”. Why do I think it works, because I can see it, touch it, feel it, duplicate it, and test it. When did that become not good enough to move forward?
So I had a bit of a “brain dump” that I wanted to share with all of you… The video is me brain dumping, and the transcript is here too…
Hi everyone.
So it seems like people are really getting hung up on the whys, when honestly, what does it matter why? If a device is making something move, and that movement is strong enough to make a difference, it's not just an artifact, it's actually a thrust.
No, I'm definitely not saying that everything being reported as creating inertial propulsion is the real deal.
There are definitely some that are simply being measured incorrectly, and maybe even some that aren't quite as honest as they should be. The problem is, they're not all being measured incorrectly, but the critics of this technology say that they are, or that they're being faked.
Here's part of the problem.
A rocket engine, or a jet engine, lying on a workbench gets fired up, and it will immediately take off to the side, wherever it's pointed. An inertial propulsion thrust device might not. Many times, it requires a certain amount of mass attached to it, sort of to act like a buffer, or like a stabilizer.
That doesn't mean that it's doing some oddball trick. It simply means that alone, it might not do the job we want it to.
I can tell you firsthand that engines for large machinery can sometimes be removed from that large machinery, and still be made to run unrestrained, and separate from any chassis. The problem is, that if it's uncontrolled, and it's torqued in any way, such as opening the throttle, and bringing the RPMs up quickly it will generally flip over and damage itself. It requires a chassis with mass to control it. In fact, many common everyday devices that only run because of their support systems, or add-on components.
Many of us have used a push lawnmower, and some of us know that the engine won't start and run well without the blade. This is because the blade adds extra mass that the flywheel is lacking. That doesn't mean that it's not an effective power source to turn that blade, and cut the grass.
So I guess if we're going to take any one thing away from this little jumble of thoughts that I had, it's not to count a design out, just because a quick test on the workbench didn't do exactly what you wanted it to.
Of course, on the flip side, also don't take for granted that something works just because it wiggles on the workbench. There are just so many contributing factors that need to be weighed in that it would be very, (well, at least somewhat) negligent to ignore them, and jump to conclusions.
I just thought I wanted to mention this, and I would really like to hear your thoughts and comments. How many times have you actually built something that wouldn't work without an external add-on? I know I have.
So until later, be good to each other, be good to yourself, and I'll see you in the workshop.
3:31
0
2 comments
Why Ask Why? What happened to HOW?
powered by
skool.com/inertial-propulsion-workshop-9027
We build electric engines that generate real thrust with no propellant.
Suggested communities
Powered by