Low cost access to space? Phase three.

Hello HS, All:

Answers inline as follows.
Most, with more detail were in the uploaded files if HS had bothered to actually READ them.

In any event, I invite all group members to study the information for themselves.

Comments?

Best,

HS wrote,
" >
> Another link to that application for patent:
> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2008/0168862.html
> "

*** Actually, I put the entire patent including the figures into the WIP drive folder on this group's files section.

HW sent,
" >
> "If there is no momentum transfer, the postulated device is classified as a "reactionless" drive and labelled a fraud."
> "

*** HS, as you know from the "Low cost to space" group where you also are, I JUST had to prove that this device works and HAS momentum transfer to the USPTO. You can see detailed results of this in the WIP SIM program in the WIP dirve folder in this group's files section.

AS you can see,
with 1 mass, it IS a "Slip/Stick" device just as ALL of the units NASA's BPP program tested.
With 2 masses, It eliminates the reverse vector but falls to zero thrust at 90 and 270 degrees.
With 4 masses, it generates a nearly steady thrust.

The negative vedtors are still there but cancelled by larger positive force. NO violations of Wewton's laws are presented.

Of ypi sto;; think so then SHOW ME...

The momentum F=Mv^2/R IS transferred from the tips of the rotating telescopic arms, which if not constrained by the case/ path, would fly off in a tangent to the rotation. READ the information and DO the math. This has been independently confirmed.
Note that the author of the WIPCraft article was an instructor of aerospace engineering at the AF acadamy, Ret. and he did his own study before writing the article. 1 of 3 besides the USPTO.

Nothing "fraudulent" or "crackpot" about it.about it.
Carefully TESTING the device before spending the money to do the patent work was what phase 1 and 2 were for.

HS included,
" >
> "QUESTION #7 :
>
> Perpetual Motion.
> 0 = violates the first and third laws of thermodynamics "

*** It does neither.
More input is required than out put created.
Simply figure out how much power is required to spin the unit, then realize that only about 1/2 the force is radial, the other part being torque.

Then integrate all of the radial forces.
Get a single vector result.

NOT ANY SORT of perpetual motion... it is a simple machine.

> 1 = could exist, you never know.

Obviously it exists as I pointed out this is the THIRD model of the working unit.

The other numbered points 2 - 4 do not apply.
point 5 Obviously, if it was "top secret", I would not have had the patent application published and would NOT be telling you or this group about it would I?