NOTICE Notice: This is an old thread and information may be out of date. The last post was 315 days ago. Please consider making a new thread.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28

Thread: [Gameplay] MES as non-reactionless "ballistic jump" FTL

  1. #1
    Registered Kegereneku's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    81

    [Gameplay] MES as non-reactionless "ballistic jump" FTL

    Hello,

    From what I could gather from the current Alpha and this link, it seem that the FTL-Drive is basically a Reactionless-Drive (even using the unproven drive).


    This suggestion is not purely motivated by personal wish or most canonical stardrive would be candidate.

    It concern primarily a FUNDAMENTAL aspect of the Gameplay : Preserving the normal calculation of "RANGE" based on vessels fuel capacity, or in space-nuts dialect : Delta-V capacity.
    Secondarily, it promote "ballistic SPEED" over "brachistochrone SPEED", why ? Because currently the only way to allow the engine to cross Moon-to-Moon in little time is to make them ridiculously overpowered for any shorter transfer.
    Eventually, it would Negate Multiplayer "Desynch problem" entirely as it only skip the distance-traveled without needing to accelerate the universe clocks.
    It can also be kept compatible with SAN for non-trivial reason.


    The concept :
    - You burn fuel as if you did a MTS transfer, requiring targeting a vector and all.
    - Then you activate "MES/WARP" for a "duration-turned-into-distance".
    - A (magical, we can't do otherwise) equations make you appear close to the planet (but still with a large difference of velocity, as it's conserved).
    - You burn to get into orbit.

    Pictured :

    (268794 hours on photoshop 9000)


    Preserving SAN(suspended animation) & spaceship-maintenance aspect planned. Especially for INTERSTELLAR-drive :
    - Although this "WARP" make you cross 10 month worth of travel in a second...
    - ...The ship itself DO SPEND 10 month within the "WARP".
    This idea is lifted directly from the webcomic FREEFALL (which is surprisingly more Hard-SF than it appear).
    I would post the link explaining the idea but the forum seem to have died.


    Point to work on :
    - This technically allow "surprise" arrival during COMBAT, so some sort of "ranged warp inhibitor" is required
    - I don't really know how said "magical equation" would look like mathematically


    That's all,
    Last edited by Kegereneku; 01-09-17 at 02:11 PM. Reason: rewording the explanation

  2. #2
    ISI Staff Staff Michael Juliano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,492
    Hi.

    Something like what you're suggesting above will need to happen for multiplayer, yes (not instantaneous of course, but a VERY shortened travel time); UNLESS multiplayer is strictly limited to all players within the same ship. While multi-crew is definitely going to happen, I don't really want to limit RogSys to JUST that. Regardless though, when interstellar travel is introduced we'll still need something like this....

    The engine that will handle this I'm currently calling the "Dark Drive". It will be another Main Engine System drive that will be used in single-player for system-to-system travel, and in multiplayer as the sole MES type. I've not spent a lot of time yet on how it will work, what sort of time lapse would be involved (for multiplayer there can't be any lapse of time apart from what actually transpires so that everyone stays synced), etc.

    So yes, feel free to talk more about it, make suggestions, etc.
    __________________
    "There is no spoon..."

  3. #3
    Registered Klionheart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    112
    I winced at "magical equation"
    Isn't the whole concept of RogSys having a (99%) realistic future extrapolation of current technologies and theories? Let's not start adding magic please.

    I always thought of the "Dark Drive" as a form of Warp(Alcubierre) drive.
    FTL, but still not instantaneous travel that doesn't actually move any mass at FTL speeds but "folds" the space in-between. That's within the realm of plausibility, and subject to physics as we know it.

    Now we might need gimmicks in multiplayer to account for the travel times...but it should be confined there.

  4. #4
    ISI Staff Staff Michael Juliano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,492
    Now we might need gimmicks in multiplayer to account for the travel times...but it should be confined there.
    And it is. In single player there will be a time advance (similar to time advancing while in SAN). In multiplayer, that time advance could not happen, other than the actual time it takes. Unless, as I mentioned, multiplayer was confined to co-op multi-crew on a single ship, with AI accounting for everything else; but this is not my preferred goal.
    __________________
    "There is no spoon..."

  5. #5
    Registered karacho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    90
    I really like your approach here!

  6. #6
    Registered Psypher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Brasil
    Posts
    173
    Unfortunately I haven't the knowledge that is needed to create a realistic approach about those voyages, but I have some suggestions anyway :P

    I always liked the Homeworld approach, it's more like the drives creating a hole that engulf the ship, it's virtually a instant trip, but in Rogue System this could have some caveats like:

    • Time demanding, you can't use it with frequency.
    • Requires high amount of energy, maybe the ship needs to stay in low energy operation for 3 to 5 minutes as the drive charges, no radio, no navigation or vms active, just vital systems operating (more sytems operating = more heat, less charge for the drive and more time vulnerable in space.
    • Safe zones, the system can be sensible to gravity wells, the pilot can't use this close to other bodies.
    • Cooldown: another 3 to 5 minutes until the ship is safe to fly (you could skip this, but there is a high risk of fry everything).
    • This could be a risky maneuver for poorly maintained vessels.

    I know that this isn't a realistic approach, but can solve the multiplayer issue, at the same time, safe zones are there to assure you that we still have some distances to cover with MES or MTS.
    I apologize in advance for any grammatical error or misuse of words, unfortunately my english is not good, but I've been working to improve it. Thank you all.

  7. #7
    Registered Kegereneku's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Juliano View Post
    Hi.

    Something like what you're suggesting above will need to happen for multiplayer, yes (not instantaneous of course, but a VERY shortened travel time); UNLESS multiplayer is strictly limited to all players within the same ship. While multi-crew is definitely going to happen, I don't really want to limit RogSys to JUST that. Regardless though, when interstellar travel is introduced we'll still need something like this....

    The engine that will handle this I'm currently calling the "Dark Drive". It will be another Main Engine System drive that will be used in single-player for system-to-system travel, and in multiplayer as the sole MES type. I've not spent a lot of time yet on how it will work, what sort of time lapse would be involved (for multiplayer there can't be any lapse of time apart from what actually transpires so that everyone stays synced), etc.

    So yes, feel free to talk more about it, make suggestions, etc.
    Things is : Why an idea good for multiplayer can't feel more realistic in single players as well ?
    Correct me if I'm assuming too much or wrongly, but it feel like you are dismissing this concept of "ballistic jump" because of its near instantaneity ?

    To me, pursuing "proportional travel time" would prove counter-productive to the pursuit of global realism.
    You can justify Wear&Tear and SAN without sacrificing Conservation of Mass/Energy, same for instantaneous travel.

    As I suggested, you can force all the TIME you didn't spend within the universal-reference, within a MES-generated bubble of ship-reference.
    Travel time should have taken 10 month ? -> The spaceship actually generated a field during 10 month, but moved instantly for everybody outside.


    Quote Originally Posted by Klionheart View Post
    I winced at "magical equation"
    Isn't the whole concept of RogSys having a (99%) realistic future extrapolation of current technologies and theories? Let's not start adding magic please.

    I always thought of the "Dark Drive" as a form of Warp(Alcubierre) drive.
    FTL, but still not instantaneous travel that doesn't actually move any mass at FTL speeds but "folds" the space in-between. That's within the realm of plausibility, and subject to physics as we know it.

    Now we might need gimmicks in multiplayer to account for the travel times...but it should be confined there.
    I know your feeling, but I insist this suggestion is actually meant to preserve even more realism (explanation below).
    Myself I wince MORE at the idea of "Reactionless Drive" than at the idea of "near instantaneous travel requiring the same/more effort than a conventional transfer"
    Neither the ALCUBIERRE drive (which require exotic matter/the energy of several STARS) or the EM-Drive (which have yet to be tested above sensor tolerance) are any less magic.

    Btw : please note that my suggestion's concept is nowhere close the Alcubierre drive, in fact I've yet to see more than one unknown webcomic use it

    Concession have to be done for speculative fiction, I'm just trying to brainwa...sel...give to Michael Juliano a method that will give him a CAKE, that he can EAT and even SHARE more, multiplayer & singleplayer alike.

    CURRENTLY :
    - MES produce thrust magically from energy (just as the EM-drive is supposed to do)
    - Meaning that distance doesn't matter, in fact you have to wonder why there's MTS thruster at all unless you invent SF-ish rules to limit MES.
    - Meaning that realistic management of Mass and Delta-V capacity is basically lost (As it barely matter if you are MESing 1tons or 1000tons)
    - Despite that, minimizing travel time require LUDICROUS SPEED (know your reference).
    - SAN is clearly being considered to relate to the very Hard-SF concept of "cold sleep".

    SUGGESTED :
    - MTS and fuel is the only way to produce thrust and actually move.
    - MES would NOT product thrust anymore, simply "warp", along a ballistic trajectory equivalent to if you had made a real transfer.
    - Meaning that your vessel Mass and Delta-V capacity once again become relevant.
    The only change is :
    - SAN usage become slightly trickier to justify (I can suggest two ways, one was already given above)

    My specific "Ballistic-Jump" might be magical, but it produce less unexpected consequences (for instance, right now the MES reactionless-drive allow easy planet-buster Kinetic projectiles)


    EDIT : Did my first post disappeared because (first) edit must be approved by moderator as well ?
    Last edited by Kegereneku; 05-31-16 at 04:22 PM. Reason: What the hell happened ?

  8. #8
    Registered rayx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Germany, Hamburg
    Posts
    44
    I have to think more about your idea. At the moment it feels like you want to replace a handwavey, super optimistic extrapolation of current science and technology by a completely new idea. Or are you suggesting a kind of 4th wall breaking thing, like "you would have travelled like that but in multiplayer we can't skip forwards so we'll put you right here directly"?

  9. #9
    ISI Staff Staff Michael Juliano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,492
    Yes, your first post included a link, so it had to be moderated. Back now...
    __________________
    "There is no spoon..."

  10. #10
    Registered NovusNecrontyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by Kegereneku View Post
    Things is : [B]Why ... planet-buster Kinetic projectiles)
    The "Reactionless drive" is something that is baffling everyone, but it works. The energy requirement for the "Warp drive" (I believe it's the Alcubierre drive you mention) has had an improvement in it's theory. Using a taurus, instead of a bubble, the power requirement was brought down that that of a large scale nuclear reactor. Not viable yet, but progress nonetheless. Side note, upon exiting an Alcubierre drive's bubble, it is theorized that it generates a gravitational wave that could do some serious damage.

    As for the EM-Drive, it doesn't need physical fuel, but it does require energy. Vast amounts of power. To use it as an RCS system would not be worth it due to the size of it. Remember, mass and inertia are still present and your acceleration is relative to that.

    Rogue System has been pushed from the beginning as something as close to reality as we can get, extrapolating current technology as it currently stands. The EM drive exists. Your drive however, does not. I find it to be too much of a handwavium solution to help with instantaneous travel.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kegereneku View Post
    CURRENTLY :
    - MES produce thrust magically from energy (just as the EM-drive is supposed to do)
    - Meaning that distance doesn't matter, in fact you have to wonder why there's MTS thruster at all unless you invent SF-ish rules to limit MES.
    - Meaning that realistic management of Mass and Delta-V capacity is basically lost (As it barely matter if you are MESing 1tons or 1000tons)
    - Despite that, minimizing travel time require LUDICROUS SPEED (know your reference).
    - SAN is clearly being considered to relate to the very Hard-SF concept of "cold sleep".

    SUGGESTED :
    - MTS and fuel is the only way to produce thrust and actually move.
    - MES would NOT product thrust anymore, simply "warp", along a ballistic trajectory equivalent to if you had made a real transfer.
    - Meaning that your vessel Mass and Delta-V capacity once again become relevant.
    The only change is :
    - SAN usage become slightly trickier to justify (I can suggest two ways, one was already given above)
    Yes, the current MES produces delta-v from energy. Magically makes it sound as if it 's made up. It's not. That's like saying a light bulb magically makes light with energy, not consuming any flammables.
    Distance does matter. Your LENR is constantly consuming fuel to produce that energy that the MES uses. It's not appearing out of thin air. If you run out of fuel, you run out of delta-v.
    Realistic management does exist. an EM drive gives a set delta-v. With the current size and mass of the Flying Fox, that gives you 1.02 G of acceleration. If you were to put the same size engines one a much much larger object, your thrust would be negligible.

  11. #11
    Registered Kegereneku's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Juliano View Post
    Yes, your first post included a link, so it had to be moderated. Back now...
    Thank you,
    I just have to post link with moderation then.

    Quote Originally Posted by rayx View Post
    I have to think more about your idea. At the moment it feels like you want to replace a handwavey, super optimistic extrapolation of current science and technology by a completely new idea. Or are you suggesting a kind of 4th wall breaking thing, like "you would have travelled like that but in multiplayer we can't skip forwards so we'll put you right here directly"?
    Technically the current way is MORE handwavey and 4th wall breaking than what I'm suggesting (see my answer to Necrontyr).

    I would describe it more as "You will travel like that, but the warp-drive change how the trajectory of your ship only is calculated in a way that can be predicted to reach your destination faster, but only if you used the right amount of propellant"
    ex: If the equation that calculate your movement said {X' = X*t}, warp-space would transform that part into {X' = X*t/2 & Y'=Y*t-100} ".
    Said equation-transform is obviously made up but hopefully less destructive than ignoring a part of the equation F=M*A) like the current-MES do. Ideally you would also balance-it to fake the wear & tear of the travel.

    My main doubt is wether or not exist an equation-transform that can preserve/emulate the delta-V cost of the real maneuvers and modify T like we want it to.


    Quote Originally Posted by NovusNecrontyr View Post
    The "Reactionless drive" is something that is baffling everyone, but it works.
    [...]
    It doesn't, and that's worth another making topic.
    The web is full of Tabloid that voluntarily misinterpret actual peer-reviewed reports so they can make people dream and link to their page about the "nearly working future engine".
    For example : deliberately misinterpreting NASA article explaining why the EM-drive give false-positive result, yet why despite not producing any measurable thrust the way it doesn't is unexplainable.
    You might as well argue that Tesla already "nearly invented" magneto-gravitic levitation powered by energy stored in the magnetosphere by its tower.

    On the topic of "Producing thrust magically",
    No, this isn't "Delta-V management" and it is violating the laws of conservation of energy as you gain more speed than the mass expelled/turned into energy should allow.
    Delta-V is a concept entirely dependent on MASS, THRUST...but also the laws that say : 1 MW of energy can't allow you to accelerate a block of metal in a way that would allow you to retrieve 2MW if you caught it in a magnetic track. Meaning that it would give you INFINITE ENERGY if the game had the features to demonstrate it.

    Anyway I am getting out of topic.
    The game will need magic anyways, one that give you the best illusion of flying a realistic spaceship.

    The current-MES break the fundamental F=M*A equation & the Delta-V at the core of all rocket-science. You might as well ditch MTS and propellant.
    My suggested-MES aim to preserve both, and still achieve instantaneous travel (Singleplayer & multiplayer alike for coherence).

    The question is whether or not it is possible, and can it be achieved (in game logic) the way I hope to.

  12. #12
    Registered socaire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Kegereneku View Post
    Thank you,
    On the topic of "Producing thrust magically",
    No, this isn't "Delta-V management" and it is violating the laws of conservation of energy as you gain more speed than the mass expelled/turned into energy should allow.
    Delta-V is a concept entirely dependent on MASS, THRUST...but also the laws that say : 1 MW of energy can't allow you to accelerate a block of metal in a way that would allow you to retrieve 2MW if you caught it in a magnetic track. Meaning that it would give you INFINITE ENERGY if the game had the features to demonstrate it.
    This got me thinking. Does the MES violate the laws of conservation of energy? Let's see if we can find out:

    * We know that the LENR produces a little less than 0.6 MW. Let's round it up to 0.6 MW
    * We know that the MES at full throttle produces a little bit more than 1g. Let's round it up to 10 m/s^2

    Now suppose we set the MES at full throttle for 1 hour. During that time the LENR should produce about:

    ELENR=P*t=0.6MW * 3600=2100 MJ

    That's 2160 Mega Joules or 2,160,000,000,000 Joules

    During that time, the total Delta-V:

    v0 - v3600 = a * t = 10 m/s^2 * 3600 s = 36000 m/s

    Now we plug in the kinetic energy:

    Ek=1/2 * m * v2

    If we suppose that ALL the LENR power goes to the MES and the MES converts energy to thrust with 100% eficiency then:

    ELENR = Ek = 2160 MJ

    We know Ek, and v. So what's the mass that the Flying Fox needs to have so we don't violate the conservation of energy? In other words if Ek > ELENR then we have a problem.

    m = 2*E / v2 = 2*(2160 * 10^6 J) / (36000 m/s)^2 = 3.33 kg

    (note that 1 J = 1Kg * 1m/s so the units square up nicely to kg)

    It seems that if the FF has a mass greater than 3.33 kg then yes, the MES is violating the laws of conservation of energy.

    Unless I made a mistake above, I think that either the FF need a more powerfull LENR or the MES should generate less thrust. Or the MES works by other mysterious set of equations?

  13. #13
    ISI Staff Staff Michael Juliano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,492
    Based on information I read from NASA Eagleworks--I'd have to find the source--if the resonant cavity is superconducted the thrust is FAR greater than it otherwise would be. Dr. White, from Eagleworks, seems to be predicting ~1300 newtons per 100 kilowatts. I used something similar to these values in the first iteration of our current MES drive and reduced the required power allowing for some advancement in tech. Really though, yes, the LENR should be producing more power based on these numbers (or a second LENR should be installed)....

    The EM Drive at least appears to violate the laws on conservation of energy, and yet in multiple tests it is producing thrust, seemingly from nothing, in total vacuums. And, computer code is now modeling predicted output. What I really wish is that someone would put it on a satellite and launch it into space for testing (easier said than done, I know). Then we'd know for sure it actually works. It wouldn't be the first time we'd be using a technology that we didn't fully understand

    I made a best guess for the first iteration based on what information I could find
    __________________
    "There is no spoon..."

  14. #14
    Registered Kegereneku's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    81
    Socaire,
    I can' formulate it but I would say you have a mistake in that mathematic simply break if you don't have an opposite reaction.
    The closest you have to preserve energy conversion would be to consider it like a photonic-drive, which isn't reactionless (as photon are expelled) and ask for 300MW per joules at 100% efficiency. No need to say that a solar sail would work better.

    You'll find better explications here :
    http://www.projectrho.com/public_htm...r_Requirements


    Michael Juliano,
    I question where you got this data because the way their reports read, they don't know if any measured thrust during all experiments is real, because (1) there is no theoretical basis compatible with current physics to estimate what we should be looking for (2) we can't differentiate whatever is happening from the fluctuation of pouring >700 W into a metal frame, especially since it is at the limit of accuracy of the sensors, (3) The experimental setup are controversial, removing parts of the device seemed to make no difference and "produce thrust" when it shouldn't.

    In short it doesn't merit to be treated as a prototype or even a concept since its theoretical basis is contested.

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ou...ce-drive-word/
    http://www.projectrho.com/public_htm...hp#id--EmDrive


    Back to Rogue System, I understand its use as a placeholder and the need for a facilitator for gameplay, making REAL system work first is also a priority. But, for later, as magical-drive go this one will really detract from managing fuel and economic transfer.

    ps : an acronym idea for the DarkDrive, "Dangerous And RecKless Drive"

  15. #15
    Registered socaire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Juliano View Post
    What I really wish is that someone would put it on a satellite and launch it into space for testing (easier said than done, I know). Then we'd know for sure it actually works. It wouldn't be the first time we'd be using a technology that we didn't fully understand
    I guess it's hard to justify a budget for a project when success depends on breaking the conservation of momentum and conservation of energy laws.

  16. #16
    Registered draeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    361
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Juliano View Post
    What I really wish is that someone would put it on a satellite and launch it into space for testing (easier said than done, I know). Then we'd know for sure it actually works.
    Hey, if you can build one small enough to fit in a cubesat, it's actually within reach for Normal People to get something up in LEO. Just don't tell them it's got propulsion

    Many CubeSats are used to demonstrate spacecraft technologies that are targeted for use in small satellites or that present questionable feasibility and are unlikely to justify the cost of a larger satellite. Scientific experiments with questionable underlying theory may also find themselves aboard CubeSats as their low cost could justify riskier experiments.
    Volunteer Rogue System Wiki Moderator
    Come visit the Rogue System Discord Server!

  17. #17
    Registered socaire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Juliano View Post
    What I really wish is that someone would put it on a satellite and launch it into space for testing (easier said than done, I know). Then we'd know for sure it actually works. It wouldn't be the first time we'd be using a technology that we didn't fully understand
    Look that you might get your wish after all:

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...-reactionless/

    "On August 17, Cannae announced plans to launch its thruster on a 6U cubesat. Each unit is a 10-centimeter cube, so a 6U satellite is the size of a small shoebox. Approximately one quarter of this will be taken up by the drive. Fetta intends the satellite to stay on station for at least six months, rather than the six weeks that would be typical for a satellite this size at a altitude of 150 miles. The longer it stays in orbit, the more the satellite will show that it must be producing thrust without propellant."

  18. #18
    Registered Kegereneku's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    81
    I don't think this cubesat initiative will answer the problem.

    The problem is that no scientific test have been able to distinguish any "force" it is supposed to generate from random fluctuation due to other constraint.
    Despite what we could think, this won't disappear in space, we might still be unable to distinguish it's supposedly "reaction-less thrust" from newer imperfection of the experimental build like -say- the sun, or the energy boiling off away some materials and generating "thrust" in the physically-correct but not wanted way.

    Problem worsened as it would be miniaturized into a cube sat, we can't put the most precise sensors/equipments that would prevent errors.


    Ps: aside, I just reworded my Original post about the "Ballistic Jump" FTL, I hope it explain better the goals and the method suggested.

  19. #19
    Registered draeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    361
    Quote Originally Posted by Kegereneku View Post
    The problem is that no scientific test have been able to distinguish any "force" it is supposed to generate from random fluctuation due to other constraint.
    Despite what we could think, this won't disappear in space, we might still be unable to distinguish it's supposedly "reaction-less thrust" from newer imperfection of the experimental build like -say- the sun, or the energy boiling off away some materials and generating "thrust" in the physically-correct but not wanted way.
    True, but all that said, external effects that could be to blame such as convection are orders of magnitude larger than the minor perturbations/drag you'd experience in LEO (which, knowing the cubesat mass and dimensions, are accountable even then)

    ... and you do not have to rely on sensors on the satellite. Orbital mechanics in LEO are well understood. Any small consistent output from the prototype would become apparent over time with (externally) measurable differences in keplerian elements.
    Volunteer Rogue System Wiki Moderator
    Come visit the Rogue System Discord Server!

  20. #20
    Registered Kegereneku's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    81
    We can have consistent drift just because of the irregular gravity of the potatoid we live on (our Earth isn't a perfect sphere), also not forgetting the magnetic field interacting with magnetized metal (in a way we already know), plus I wouldn't be surprised if the experiment produced so little (pseudo)thrust that even the irregularity in the gravity of the moon would have to be taken into account to notice it.

    To me if the experimental setup on the ground didn't produced enough thrust to detect, the solution isn't to make it even smaller ! It would have been to make it bigger, more powerful or link several side to side.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •