I have spent many hours designing 3 different conceptual drawings for a device which is using hydrodynamics, Aerodynamics, Mechanics, and Physics to produce a large relative lifting force without requiring any external medium. In essence you could enclose the battery, motor, and this device in a sealed box, turn the switch to the motor on and the device would provide a sizable force in a vector. I like most of us, do not have the money to spend on CFD or multiphysics software nor the time to learn them nor the analytical skills to interpret the results. But I do believe the device will work as described above. I am looking for a qualified hydrodynamicist engineer/scientist to sign an NDA and see if we can solidify a design and build out a prototype to test the theory. I can fund the prototype build and test, but will not do so until the device is reviewed, virtually tested, and theoretically "ready". Anyone care to change world with me for some off hours charity work? Thanks. mirequest@yahoo.com

Excuse my ignorance but if the device works without an external medium then why would you need to do a cfd analysis? Come to think of it - how can you utilise aerodynamics in the absence of air?

Maybe I missed the point...

Internal Medium is used primarily. Aerodynamics comes into play for one of the versions that is not enclosed in a box. Intrigued?

Sounds like unscientific bullshit looking for money from suckers.

Are you (A Multiphysics Engineer) familiar with the Second law of Thermodynamics?

Hehehhe concisely put Leo

I wanted to go with a more tactful approach ;o)

You don't want to give snake-oil salesmen too much oxygen here, or next thing they'll be lining up for advice (and $$$$) on how to prove Intelligent Design using CFD.

So the theory is proven then. Dogma over physical testing, is the only acceptable answer I am hearing. Does anyone wonder why we have not built a craft or propulsion mechanism attached to a craft that can operate under water, in air and in space within the same trip? Or have not been told of technology if it is developed? Yet you have access to all the tools but care not to explore or test an idea that may spawn one technological breakthrough which may lead to a new idea or field of propulsion upon which to build further. Nice, funny comments and satire for someone with good will and intentions. Glad I posted.

You have posted a whole lot of nebulous, twaddle and expect the scientists here not only to take you seriously, but to invest their time to help you refine what you won't define.

> Yet you have access to all the tools but care not to explore or test an idea
: that may spawn one technological breakthrough which may lead to a new
: idea or field of propulsion upon which to build further.

Can I suggest you take a deep breath and look up "scientific method" in google. Pay attention to how scientific knowledge grows and why scientists have a pretty good idea where the holes are in their knowledge and where everything seems to fit rather nicely.

Because you do not seem to understand the basics and appear to be making absurd claims (although it is not clear what your claims are) people here have quite reasonably assumed you are an idiot. The web, particularly usenet, is awash with such postings. In the very unlikely event that you are not an idiot, can I suggest you post something intelligible based on school level physics describing your interest.

So let me get this straight, you have invented a closed system that doesn't require external media (i.e. fuel), operates in water air and vacuum....and provides a directional force. Is it a flying carpet?

Yeah, sounds like a sky hook invention!!

While I accept that this particular world-changing breakthrough sounds like a load of nonsense I did read about a novel concept for propulsion that didn't seem to require any form of external medium.

I think it was an article in new scientist or other science magazine (but a reputable one - not like "creation science monthly" or somesuch nonsense). The idea seemed to involve some kind of microwave generator housed in a mettalic enclosure. If memory serves - the propulsive force was generated using some kind of relativistic effect.

There was some issue with velocity - the force produced in one direction dropped rapidly as the velocity increased - this made it useless for propulsion. The idea seemed to be to use these devices pointing vertically thus creating a lifting force. This didn't seem to require any external medium to operate and generated its force via the electrical energy needed to power the microwave generator.

I'm sorry if I'm a bit sketchy on the details - it's been a long time since reading the article and I have a poor memory at the best of times. If it sounds familiar to anyone I'd love to know where exactly I read the original; I'd really like to read it again.

I do think though that anyone who is smart enough to construct a machine that generates force in the absence of external medium is also smart enough to know that cfd analysis is of precisely bugger all use to his design; and that you can't have aerodynamics without having some "aero" to operate in )

This was popular a few years ago but does not quite fit your description:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/main.htm

I've seen these before - I've always fancied trying to build one. Thanks for the link!

The device I was talking about is different - it perhaps uses the same physical effect though to generate its force.

I've seen these before - I've always fancied trying to build one. Thanks for the link!

The device I was talking about is different - it perhaps uses the same physical effect though to generate its force.

You do not need to start constructing your wailing wall, as I explained in my previous posting, take a pencil and a sheet of paper, prove that whatever you have in mind, does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, then you can (using the same pencil) estimate its efficiency After that there will be people ready to invest time and money in whatever you are talking about