Can the Pseudo-Reactionless Engine Truly Revolutionize Technology?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SkepticJ
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Engine
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the potential of the Pseudo-Reactionless Engine as a revolutionary technology, as detailed in a New Scientist article. Participants express skepticism about the engine's feasibility, citing concerns over the publication's reliability compared to more reputable sources like Scientific American. The concept suggests achieving net thrust without violating established physics, but doubts remain regarding the validity of the claims and the underlying research.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of propulsion systems and thrust generation
  • Familiarity with the principles of relativity
  • Knowledge of scientific publication credibility and peer review
  • Basic grasp of theoretical physics concepts
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the principles of propulsion in theoretical physics
  • Explore peer-reviewed articles on reactionless drives
  • Study the implications of relativity on propulsion technologies
  • Investigate the credibility of scientific publications and their impact on technology discourse
USEFUL FOR

Engineers, physicists, and technology enthusiasts interested in advanced propulsion concepts and the evaluation of emerging scientific theories.

SkepticJ
Messages
243
Reaction score
1
Heard about this a few days ago : http://www.newscientist.com/channel...ivity-drive-the-end-of-wings-and-wheels.html"
If it actually works, this is, well, revolutionary to say the least. I'm highly doubtful, but a lot hopeful. Anyhoo, New Scientist isn't exactly known for their reliability to get things right, so that dampens things a lot. I'd take it a lot more seriously if it were in say Scientific American. All this aside, does anybody know if this could actually work? The full article explains how it should have a net thrust in one direction without violating known physics, but I'm not knowledgeable in this area to know if they actually did their homework right (again, not a whole lot of confidence in New Scientist).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
It certainly looks like the intro to a crackpot theory, but I'm not about to pay in order to find out for sure.
 

Similar threads

Python Unsolvable python code bug? (finding the difference between two input strings)
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Schools Choosing a potential major for college?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Studying How to truly UNDERSTAND physics and not just memorising?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Engineering Is Aerospace Engineering for me?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Engineering Engineering major having physics difficulty
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
10K
The Scientist as Hero - or not
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Science, engineering or maths? >.<
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
Appl. Phys: I love everything about her.... but her Math(s)
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Meet Ryan_m_b: A Lifelong Love of Science & Nanomedicine
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
Programs Math minor, double major, and elective classes advice
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K