• Registered: 2005-03-17

Topic: Inertial Thrust & it's applications

Upon reading Montalk's writings on action without equal and opposite reaction, I was most impressed by his insightful and free-thinking observations.  Most insightful was his off-the cuff design of a device that even a novice could decipher, and which illustrated the concept in easy to understand terms.

As on who has surfed the web for years looking for more info on the above subject, I find montalk's explaination the most lucid, even if the math is over my head. The basic observations provide the explaination of why inertial thrust is possible without violating basic laws of motion. I would be interested in going a step further, and seeing how montalk might explain how inertial thrust would (or would not) violate the laws of gravity.

As for practical applications for inertial thrust, I have given this much thought. The few conversations I've had with engineers (informally, usually over a beer or few) have envisioned applications in robotics, and as small scale thrusters for boats, and underwater devices.

I envision, on a larger scale, propulsion systems for a new type of low-ceiling aircraft,  used as mass transit and emergency response vehicles (think trains, buses and ambulances) as well as heavy-haul and lift vehicles (think barges)

It's fun to think of the Jetson's Flying car, but fender-benders in mid air make that concept unlikely (although not impossible)  Are there any other followers of the inertial thrust concept out there???

  • montalk
  • montalk
  • forum-keeper-upper
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2004-03-24

Re: Inertial Thrust & it's applications

Thanks for the feedback. I've emailed with a couple people over the months who differ in opinion over whether my article's reasoning and math is legit. I still stand by the article because it explains several inertial thrusters that actually work, and the more conventional ways of working out the problem are based on erroneous assumptions. The basic concept is that linear momentum can impart angular momentum without invoking an equal and opposite linear reaction, and so confined to linear motion this system will have action greater than reaction. Mechanical means are crude and clumsy. There's gotta be a solid state method of achieving this, perhaps something that changes the electron spin-orbit coupling between different parts of the orbit. Or maybe this idea really is faulty...only way to know is to build something so incredibly effective that no doubt is left as to whether the inertial thrust principle is legit or not.

Acquiring fringe knowledge is like digging for diamonds in a mine field.

montalk's Website

3 Reply by zonabi (edited by zonabi 2005-03-18 07:59:29)

  • From: zerone
  • Registered: 2004-08-16

Re: Inertial Thrust & it's applications

okay, so heres my (unprofessional) idea:

im thinking something similar to Dams, and how they catch water to rotate the thingie to make electricity. (great terms eh, 'thingie' )

but of course nothing that big, what i am picturing can also be similar to one of those Party Toys / that rattle as u spin it around- AND one of those Toys that has 2 Balls connected to one stick that u can spin around and the balls >clack< back and forth

okay, now that u have those two ideas in mind, heres what im trying to contemplate:

something like that, 2 swinging (poles?) parts attached to a center pole(ground?)

now, maybe we could use those 2 little balls that are attached on the ends, perhaps these get charged as they spin (one positive, one negative)

now, im not sure, what happens when the opposite poles swing near each other theres two possiblities of the setup:
1) the 2 swinging poles are equal meaning that the balls can touch/collide (not really feeling this one)

2) the 2 poles are different, one is smaller than other, allowed to pass within the other one, and they can swing around endlessly without contact.

i still dunno if there would be any problems/situations as the 2 charged balls pass each other.

i dont really know where im going with this idea, its just some visual that came to mind after reading these posts and remembering montalk's article.

perhaps somehow when one ball passes its opposite, it repels it (ahh, magnets!!) and the ball shoots around again, repels again, etc... infinite loop.

so, maybe one of the balls/poles would have to be stationary, so that the other one loops around. the idea is that the rotational energy generates electricity (which is sent down the center (ground) poles out to wherever)

final thought, the only way i see this working is if the balls are like this:
the ball will have to be allowed to PASS the stationary ball before they "repel" each other, else the ball won't pass it, it would bounce back in the reverse direction.

so, maybe there would be a way to setup the stationary ball, so that it is null (not charged, or something) up until the swinging ball passes it. at that point, something like i said earlier, the swinging ball must trigger the stationary ball to take a charge, or ENABLE the Magnet inside of it, and THEN repelling the swinging ball, which has just passed it.

hmmm, other things im thinking of now after saying all that are that:
-it looks like these two balls will have to be switching polarities/ turning on/off magnetism constantly, in order for this to loop.

*edit - oh, i know, the Magnet can be enabled for just a split second, enough to repel the swinging ball, then turned off.. this way, the balls wouldnt have to be switching polarity, and u actually save energy cuz you turn it off for a bit, until the swinging ball comes back around and triggers it again.

let me know if any of this makes any sense or if its flawed please share your ideas on it/ add onto it. im thinking of perhaps trying to sketch out the idea.

"...i was taken by the hand, from the ocean to the sand..."
nitin sawhney - 'eastern eyes'

zonabi's Website