NASA Veteran's Propellantless Propulsion Drive That Physics Says Shouldn't Work Just Produced Enough Thrust to Overcome Earth's Gravity

The Debrief ^ | APRIL 19, 2024 | Christopher Plain

[Rockingham]

I did not refer to NASA. When a credentialed physicist claims that he and his colleagues have experimental proof and working devices, I am inclined to take him seriously enough to give him a hearing. After all, it is not as if they are brothers who are bicycle mechanics in Ohio claiming that they have invented a flying machine.

[oldbill]

Reminds me of those old Popular Mechanics ads where you could get 153 miles per gallon with some little plastic device.

[Chickensoup]

My God! I miss the old Popular Mechanics of my Dad’s.

I read and loved every one

[Jeff Chandler]

They could use it to propel the Dale car.

[Olog-hai]

False dilemma now, and repeat of ad verecundiam. College credentials do not raise credibility any more than being part of NASA does.

The Wright Brothers had a working model that actually flew, versus Buhler’s claim (unverified independently) of a mere 0.0022 pounds force that can bespeak interference from external forces and absolutely does not match what the article headline claims.

[marktwain]

.0022 lbs of force is fairly easily measured.

It is not a 1/100,000 of G. It is gravity exerted on one gram of matter. Easy to measure.

Making absolutely sure there is no electrostatic or magnetic or atmospheric or ionic force should not be too difficult with this level of force.

[Rockingham]

The reports of the Wright brothers' initial flight were unimpressive and little better than what Buhler has claimed. As for the logical fallacy known as argument ad verecundiam, it refers to argument based on inappropriate authority, not argument that refers to appropriate authority. In other words, call a plumber to fix your pipes, not an electrician.

Moreover, there are times when nay-saying experts are wrong about new things. When the New York Times famously (and wrongly) debunked Robert Goddard's work and asserted that space flight using rockets was impossible, they did so in reliance on the views of scientific authorities in that era. As it was, Goddard had the better understanding of physics -- as did the German scientists and technicians who developed and extended his work.

With degrees in physics, work records in the nation's aeronautics agency, and a claim of a device that apparently works on a test rig, Buhler and his colleagues merit a hearing. In practical terms, that requires not a trip from Dayton to the dunes in North Carolina, but millions of dollars in outside funding to build a device and put it into orbit. Otherwise, as happened with Goddard and his rockets, a hostile nation may first reap the benefit of pioneering work by Americans.

[Olog-hai]

If not for my metrology professor saying at the beginning of the semester “All measurements are wrong”, I would not be as skeptical. Then there’s actual metrology to contend with, as well as the lack of independent verification ad nauseam.

At the end of the day, this measurement, whatever it is of, proves nothing.

[Olog-hai]

Ad verecundiam refers to claims made, not actual real services performed. Like the metrology professor I referred to in another post said, “verify your witchcraft”—and since this is science he was talking about, I always seek a second opinion.

Interesting to bring up the NY Slimes as if they were themselves an authority. Goddard’s principles were independently verified by several of his peers, in fact; never mind the fact that solid-fuel (gunpowder) rockets were used as ballistic weapons dating back to 13^th century China, so it was already proven technology.

I am not saying Buhler must be denied a hearing (by whom?)—certainly I would be the first to ask for independent verification; it’s just that the numbers are so questionable as to wonder whether it really is a basis, but certainly go ahead and try but on a reasonable scale.

[marktwain]

It is good to be skeptical.

If this is real, it should be replicable.

[sauropod]

.

[kosciusko51]

Photons, while massless, have momentum, and are absorbed or reflected in different proportions on the light and dark sides of the Crookes radiometer. This difference leads to a net torque on the radiometer, causing it to spin.

[marktwain]

Why would you need to put it in orbit?

As much thrust as he is talking bout should be easily detectable here on earth.

[Rockingham]

The thrust has been measured in test rigs on earth. The point of putting a working device in orbit is to prove it in that environment.

There is a valuable immediate market for even a small thruster to maneuver satellites and keep them properly oriented. If it did not use propellant and lasted indefinitely, it would radically simplify satellites and make them last much longer.

The revenue and experience in that market could then facilitate the development of better and more powerful thrusters that could be used in manned spaceflight.

[Rockingham]

I am surprised that you are unfamiliar with the NY Times' editorial blast against Goddard. Published on January 13, 1920, the editorial insisted that a rocket couldn't possibly work in space:

That professor Goddard, with his 'chair' in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution [from which Goddard held a grant to research rocket flight], does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react -- to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.

Goddard scrupulously refuted the editorial in the Scientific American based on Newton's Third Law, but the Times nevertheless damaged his reputation. That prompted him to retreat from public life and from engagement with scientific colleagues. This impaired Goddard's ability to pursue his work, to the considerable detriment of America's scientific and technical base in rocketry.

Buhler and his team deserve a hearing. They have made a bold claim, assert that they have experimental proof, and are soliciting interest and funding to pursue it. Notably, a key benefit of capitalism is that innovators can solicit private risk capital. That requires though that innovators not be reflexively denounced as fools and frauds because they say something that contradicts current scientific thinking.

Why insist that Buhler and his associates limit themselves to work "on a reasonable scale." Just who is to determine and enforce such a limit? The SEC? The Smithsonian? The US Department of Commerce? Why not instead let investors make their own assessments and take the risk?

[House Atreides]

Excellent and thoughtful comment.

[Olog-hai]

With all due respect, why would I be familiar with very much of the NY Slimes on the scientific end? Certainly is to find out how the enemy thinks on a political basis, but in terms of other subjects they literally belch profound ignorance; once the pattern is established, it becomes a weariness to read. This rag has of course destroyed many people’s lives with their incessant mendacity and unpunished libel over the decades; it took them 49 years to “apologize” to Goddard (07/17/1969):

Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17^th Century and it is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error. …

By “on a reasonable scale”, I meant in the case of Buhler actually securing taxpayer money, i.e. like people such as Solyndra did. Private capital, if he can get it, would know the risks and the way to mitigate that is of course via as much knowledge as possible of the subject soliciting the money.

[minnesota_bound]

Is this right there with a pill you put in the gas tank for increased mileage? Or anti-gravity? Perpetual motion?

[Rockingham]

The NY Times episode of editorial bullying against Goddard is quite famous. Note that the Times appealed to scientific authority, as did Goddard. On the edge of scientific innovation, appeals to authority as a bludgeon against new ideas are quite common. As the great German physicist Max Planck observed, “Science progresses funeral by funeral.”

Your explanation that "reasonable scale" means only no recourse to taxpayer funds seems a bit late. In any event, the US government has legions of scientists on the payroll who are capable of assessing whether new ideas merit public funding. DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) is especially good at it.

I see no reason in principle why the Department of Defense ought to be barred from investing in Buhler's project if they think it has potential. After all, considering the billions of dollars we have invested in defense satellites, Buhler's device would be highly valuable to the DoD right out of the box. If it works, it could actually save quite a bit of money for them. Notably, China is pursuing such technology.

For what it's worth, a late friend of mine worked with the DoD finding, evaluating, and financing new technologies. He was at Sandia National Labs on such business when the Phoenix Lights UFO flap was underway. The assessment of their scientists was that the objects seen were real, which means that some form of electro-gravitic or electrostatic craft are already flying in our skies -- their craft, not ours.

[OHPatriot]

So if electric fields alone can generate a sustainable force do they work with Solar Panels?

Can we use big giant solar farms on Earth to generate enough force to push the Earth farther from the sun and thus SOLVING GLOBAL WARMING????