(http://s14.postimg.org/nfawscd75/image.jpg)
newtons 3rd law states that for every action there is equal and opposite reaction. modern science falsely assumed that it applies to acting against another body only.
many attempts have been made by many inventors to make so called "reactionless drive". you may have heared of dean drive, cook drive etc. these devices do work but they produce very little thurst or weight loss.
one key thing they all missed is an importance of simple inertial impulse. imagine yourself in a small boat. your hands and feet are tied, how do you move? naturally, you will jerk your body forward and come to sudden stops so that moment of inertia transfers to the boat and it moves forward.
modern science will tell you this is due to "friction" which is totally ridiculous as this phenomena is independent of the enviroment.
take a perfectly sealed tube in space and within it a strong spring coil taut from one side to another. when fired the spring transfers it's elastic-potential energy to the tubes inner wall and the tube accelerates forward at a great speed. this can also be demonstrated down here on earth quite easily. what's great about this system is that it has a capability to lift itself against gravity and when two of such springs are incorporated into the same system and fired in succession, first impulse will launch the system off the ground and the second one fired an instant later will make it accelerate IN THE MID AIR. and there you have a simple and undeniable proof of reactionless drive "impossible" according to the scientific dogma. each spring can be fired with a remote radio control. here's a simple diagram of my design.
(http://s8.postimg.org/oiv9jjv1x/impulse_drive.jpg)
this is pure mechanical drive and is not meant to be built into large scale craft as there are more advanced methods based on electrostatic/electromagnetic propulsion, but is a proof of concept of a reactionless drive. how could something so simple have been overlooked for so long escapes me. satellite equipped with such drive could accelerate at 1G by firing pairs of springs in succession reaching moon in 3 hours or mars in 36 hours.
Quoteone key thing they all missed is an importance of simple inertial impulse. imagine yourself in a small boat. your hands and feet are tied, how do you move? naturally, you will jerk your body forward and come to sudden stops so that moment of inertia transfers to the boat and it moves forward.
I boat almost every day, I live on a boat.
You are incorrect in your assessment.
[snip.]
Quote from: Norval on September 26, 2014, 05:58:37 PM
I boat almost every day, I live on a boat.
You are incorrect in your assessment.
I see the point you're making here and I understand the basics of the physics you are describing with it. I just don't see how it relates to or eventually produces propulsion?
A boat is in constant contact with the surface and subsurface water, and you're in constant contact with the boat as the extension of the closed system. I may be all wrong too, but it does seem that your idea could work in a boat for the example you use. If a human could get the reciprocal timing perfect to have each action feed off the last and generate a hair more energy into the end result. It does seem (albeit beyond what I think people could physically do for the precision required) like it would do something in the end.
In space though? This is where I am lost. I imagine a person on I.S.S. and away from any wall or other outside object while totally at rest and a full stop. Just floating mid-compartment and clear of all other things. Now, what could he or she do that would accomplish more than a form of personal exercise in mid-air? Anything done in generating kinetic energy would be missing the outside object to interact with and gain reaction from, wouldn't it?
Quote from: Wrabbit2000 on September 26, 2014, 06:25:20 PM
I see the point you're making here and I understand the basics of the physics you are describing with it. I just don't see how it relates to or eventually produces propulsion?
maybe you should re-read the post.
QuoteA boat is in constant contact with the surface and subsurface water, and you're in constant contact with the boat as the extension of the closed system. I may be all wrong too, but it does seem that your idea could work in a boat for the example you use. If a human could get the reciprocal timing perfect to have each action feed off the last and generate a hair more energy into the end result. It does seem (albeit beyond what I think people could physically do for the precision required) like it would do something in the end.
it's not that it "could work", it works as it is a basic natural phenomena. furthermore, there is no need for "reciprocal timing perfect to have each action feed off the last and generate a hair more energy into the end result". each impulse is separate action and each impulse makes the boat (or cart, or spacecraft) go forward. lengths of the periods between the impulses are irrelevant and are completely arbitrary. (lesser the gaps, smoother the acceleration).
QuoteIn space though? This is where I am lost. I imagine a person on I.S.S. and away from any wall or other outside object while totally at rest and a full stop. Just floating mid-compartment and clear of all other things. Now, what could he or she do that would accomplish more than a form of personal exercise in mid-air? Anything done in generating kinetic energy would be missing the outside object to interact with and gain reaction from, wouldn't it?
that's the whole point, you
don't need to push against anything. wherever you twitch your body and come to sudden stop you will move in that direction, even in free space. in that example, if you didn't come to sudden stop, that twitch would make you rotate around your center of mass, but as you didn't let that happen, inertia is transfered into linear motion. or in the example i gave above, let's say this tube is floating inside ISS and inside it's whole length is a strong taut spring. imagine the force you invested into stretching that spring is now stored as a elastic potential energy inside that spring. tube is freely floating, no movement whatsoever. than, you fire the spring, it hits the inner wall of the tube and it blasts off like a bullet. and that's the answer to your first question.
Sorry but I don't see it working.
Nothing said about the recoil.
Bless
Back
I appreciate the time you took to reply in detail. I suppose I really hadn't understood your point here, and so I'll move along.
It will be interesting to see what the final and functional systems turn out to be, if they come out of development within our lifetimes. I believe we're still stuck on chemical rocket propulsion and derivatives of it, so I'm not holding my breath to see them personally. Who knows tho... My son may see that answer in his lifetime.
[ snip] if by "recoil" you mean fireing back of the spring, that is totally negligible compared to the inertia transformed into forward motion of the system. i gave you explanations and practical examples, anything further is like teaching physics to a mule. now think about it a little, or try it yourself. you should realize you had completely wrong conception about the laws of physics.
Quote from: Back on September 26, 2014, 09:36:54 PM
Sorry but I don't see it working.
Nothing said about the recoil.
Bless
Back
you have a pm.
[snip.] look, i am sure you have some kind of spring and a closed container like a bottle. mount the spring inside the bottle and stretch it. then fire the spring and observe what happens. if you are still unable to understand, don't even try. it is pointless.
Quote from: Wrabbit2000 on September 26, 2014, 10:27:53 PM
I appreciate the time you took to reply in detail. I suppose I really hadn't understood your point here, and so I'll move along.
It will be interesting to see what the final and functional systems turn out to be, if they come out of development within our lifetimes. I believe we're still stuck on chemical rocket propulsion and derivatives of it, so I'm not holding my breath to see them personally. Who knows tho... My son may see that answer in his lifetime.
Vril-Ya...While you may have a complete understanding of how this works you do NOT need to resort to insulting remarks when people question you. Providing some EVIDENCE might be more worth while to help aid your explanation. Please try and maintain a respectful presence here so that it might work to your benefit.
Cheers.
Quote from: vril-ya on September 26, 2014, 08:05:18 AM
newtons 3rd law states that for every action there is equal and opposite reaction. modern science falsely assumed that it applies to acting against another body only.
Not so sure about that because back in physics class in high school we were shown that a mere flash light pointed away from an astronaut would eventually propel the astronaut at light speed (given that the flashlight never ran out and the astronaut could live that long. Point was just the cat of shining that light in one direction would have the opposite reaction of pushing the astronaut.
Would take a long time because of the mass difference but on paper given those parameters it works
Quote from: Norval on September 26, 2014, 05:58:37 PM
You are incorrect in your assessment.
Actually he is correct The problem is that the weight of the boat and friction of the water is a large number compared to the amount of force exerted by your step So YES it does move but you cannot notice it
Try standing in the back of a canoe and running to shore. Tell me what happens 8)
Mechanical Space Drive US Patents
( Inertial Drives )
Inertial drives, impulse engines, centrifugal & centripetal propulsion, momentum transfer, motion rectifiers, non-linear propulsion, translational force generators, gyroscopic propulsion, directional force generators, & reaction motors, &c: various names for "bootstrap" methods & apparati that impart motion to a vehicle without reaction with the environment.
http://www.rexresearch.com/inertial/inertial.htm
Quote from: zorgon on September 27, 2014, 12:33:53 AM
Would take a long time because of the mass difference but on paper given those parameters it works
It would take an infinite amount of time. :P
Quote from: zorgon on September 27, 2014, 12:37:37 AM
Actually he is correct The problem is that the weight of the boat and friction of the water is a large number compared to the amount of force exerted by your step So YES it does move but you cannot notice it
Try standing in the back of a canoe and running to shore. Tell me what happens 8)
As I stated, he is incorrect in what he stated.
What happens? That is a given, who ever tries that gets very wet. :P
elirium, you are right, but then again, read these comments, my god, not single one of them is able to understand something so SIMPLE it is bizzar. i gave experimental evidence and explanations.
for the 5th time, stretch a spring coil inside a closed tube. when spring is fired, tube will accelerate independent of the medium in "violation" of the 3rd law.how hard is that to understand?
Quote from: zorgon on September 27, 2014, 12:37:37 AM
Actually he is correct The problem is that the weight of the boat and friction of the water is a large number compared to the amount of force exerted by your step So YES it does move but you cannot notice it
Try standing in the back of a canoe and running to shore. Tell me what happens 8)
zorgon, it's not a "step" nor "running in the canoe", but a jerk. you will notice it indeed. a weight of child would be enough. in practical terms, you are in a small boat let's say 1,5m you are sitting on the floor of the boat. now, you quickly jerk your body forward and come to sudden stop. it will accelerate and
IT WILL MOVE FEW METERS FORWARD
do you mean you wouldn't notice that you have moved few meters? i live by the sea, i tried this countless times. and for the light example, thats true but irrelevant, as we are not talking about classical reaction.
you can also put a tube from the second experiment in the same boat. when spring is fired boat will accelerate.
so, to summerize, spring fired inside a sealed tube makes it accelerate independent of the medium and if you had pairs of springs fired in succession you could make a craft accelerate constantly.
Quote from: Norval on September 27, 2014, 01:18:42 AM
As I stated, he is incorrect in what he stated.
What happens? That is a given, who ever tries that gets very wet. :P
you don't know what you're talking about. you didn't understand the first thing about the discussed phenomena. just keep boating but pls leave laws of physics to others.
What makes this any different if you replace your "spring" with say a guy and a hammer? Every hit on the hull could make the ship move in exactly the same way. One could also replace the hammer with a machine gun. One problem in space is that as the momentum from the spring is going forward and it could be pulling the hull of the ship closer to the point of least tension so in essence you are already suffering a power loss. The springs would also degrade rapidly from fatigue.
Quote from: Ellirium113 on September 27, 2014, 05:51:13 AM
What makes this any different if you replace your "spring" with say a guy and a hammer? Every hit on the hull could make the ship move in exactly the same way. One could also replace the hammer with a machine gun.
true, every kind of non-elastic collision will transfer virtually all of it's momentum into the linear motion of the system but spring makes it effective and repeatable. imagine a cannon ball fired against the elastic wall of the spacecraft, the momenet would first be apsorbed by the elasticity of the wall, than the wall would fire the ball back and the craft would accelerate at that moment, but the ball would have to hit the opposing wall. now, if the opposing wall was covered in thick sponge, moment would be absorbed by the opposing wall and linear motion wouldn't be affected. but this is too complicated and spring makes it simple and very efficient.
QuoteOne problem in space is that as the momentum from the spring is going forward and it could be pulling the hull of the ship closer to the point of least tension so in essence you are already suffering a power loss. The springs would also degrade rapidly from fatigue.
this is not the case, as the spring hits the wall most of it's momentum is tranfered into the linear motion of the system, you cannot consider the negligible return impulse as "power loss" as return impulse is impossible to completely eliminate. the point being virtually all of the impulse energy is transfered into the motion of the system.
so you see, it creates linear motion pushing against NOTHING.
also, if strained within it's elastic limits, spring will theoretically never lose it's properites.
So... lets say it works...
How big of a spring would be required to push a small space craft like the shuttle?
And how would you reload that spring?
that depends on the mass. if craft was 1t, to accelerate at 1G you would need pairs of springs each providing 500kg of thrust (5000N) fired intermittently providing constant acceleration.
how to reload the spring? motor pulls it back by a mechanic arm, that's quite simple. it could be solar powered.
(http://s2.postimg.org/46qt9brsp/drive.jpg)
Quote from: zorgon on September 27, 2014, 08:07:09 AM
So... lets say it works...
How big of a spring would be required to push a small space craft like the shuttle?
And how would you reload that spring?
Quote from: zorgon on September 27, 2014, 08:07:09 AM
So... lets say it works...
It does not work. There is no violation of the third law in this example.
sorry pimander, but you have no power here. mother nature says you are wrong, and your claim is in vain.
Quote from: Pimander on September 27, 2014, 09:26:21 AM
It does not work. There is no violation of the third law in this example.
Quote from: vril-ya on September 26, 2014, 08:05:18 AM
newtons 3rd law states that for every action there is equal and opposite reaction. modern science falsely assumed that it applies to acting against another body only.
Incorrect.
Modern science recognises mysterious "action at a distance" in quantum theory.
Quoteone key thing they all missed is an importance of simple inertial impulse. imagine yourself in a small boat. your hands and feet are tied, how do you move? naturally, you will jerk your body forward and come to sudden stops so that moment of inertia transfers to the boat and it moves forward.
Do you know what Van der Waal's forces are and how they affect this?
Quotemodern science will tell you this is due to "friction" which is totally ridiculous as this phenomena is independent of the enviroment.
Firstly you say modern science, "science falsely assumed that it applies to acting against another body only." Well if it acts against anything then it is obviously not independent of its environment is it? ::)
Basically this only works in an environment where you can have forces between the object and the environment. At the point where Van der Waal's forces break then the person in the boat moves forward more than back and you can move a little forwards. However this will won't work in a vacuum as there is no forces to "hold you where you are" as you pull back.
Yes preloaded springs would cause some forward momentum but that is inefficient as the energy will be preloaded and you may has well have used the energy loading the spring to propel the device.
Do me a favour before you get it any more wrong. Read up on Van der Waal's forces of attraction. They operate between all atoms.
Quote from: Pimander on September 27, 2014, 10:03:03 AM
Incorrect.
Modern science recognises mysterious "action at a distance" in quantum theory.
"action at the distance" or nonlocal transfer of quantum states of photons, atoms and molecules has absolutely nothing to do with newtons 3rd law of motion and is irrelevant to the subject of matter.
QuoteDo you know what Van der Waal's forces are and how they affect this?
inertia of the particles and (very weak) intermolecular van der waal's forces are two completely separeated phenomena.
QuoteFirstly you say modern science, "science falsely assumed that it applies to acting against another body only." Well if it acts against anything then it is obviously not independent of its environment is it? ::)
whaat? science assumes 3rd law applies to acting against another body only, but they try to explain away movement from inertial impulses as "friction", which is absurd, as friction only downplays the effect.
QuoteBasically this only works in an environment where you can have forces between the object and the environment. At the point where Van der Waal's forces break then the person in the boat moves forward more than back and you can move a little forwards. However this will won't work in a vacuum as there is no forces to "hold you where you are" as you pull back.
you are talking nonsense. this has nothing to do with van der waal's forces which mostly apply to cohesion between very fine microscopic objects like moleculs of powders. when you jerk forward and suddenly stop you create forward inertial impulse, and as you are anchored inside the boat, the inertial impulse transfers to the boat and it moves.
QuoteYes preloaded springs would cause some forward momentum but that is inefficient as the energy will be preloaded and you may has well have used the energy loading the spring to propel the device.
this is one utterly confused sentence. i don't think even you know what you wanted to say here, but if you suggest that loading the spring is causing it drift backwards, you have again showed you absolute ignorance. spring is being loaded against the inner wall of the tube and it has no effect on the momentum of the tube, firing it on the other hand does indeed.
QuoteDo me a favour before you get it any more wrong. Read up on Van der Waal's forces of attraction. They operate between all atoms.
lol, leave poor van der waal alone, you are using term you don't understand where it has no relevance. read through the post, you failed at every single point you made. try thinking twice before answering from now on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s9KzrSr9VA
I am thinking about trying to experiment this, but I have two questions:
1 - is it supposed to work with a spring that compresses when let loose instead of an expanding spring?
2 - does the spring need to be inside a tube or can it be in any kind of support?
Quote from: ArMaP on September 28, 2014, 11:40:27 AM
I am thinking about trying to experiment this, but I have two questions:
1 - is it supposed to work with a spring that compresses when let loose instead of an expanding spring?
one that compresses when loose
Quote2 - does the spring need to be inside a tube or can it be in any kind of support?
it could be outside the tube also, it would also work, but it's more elegant and more to the point when it is inside, a closed system.
My first attempt with a very crude model worked, when I released the spring the model jumped in the same direction as the compressing of the spring.
As I don't know the forces involved or even the science behind it I cannot comment further. :)
PS: my sister took my camera to a concert, so I cannot show the results of my experiment, I will probably show it tomorrow.
Quote from: vril-ya on September 27, 2014, 11:15:37 AM
lol, leave poor van der waal alone, you are using term you don't understand where it has no relevance. read through the post, you failed at every single point you made. try thinking twice before answering from now on.
I don't understand it ::)
Van der Waals forces exist between all atoms/molecules. Not only ones you want them to. I was going to attempt to explain why your drive is pointless but I'll save it for another day. :P
I think you are intolerably ignorant and exceptionally rude and I will not waste any more time communicating with you except to say that if I spot you being as rude and insulting to staff or members again then I'll hit the ban button. Take heed.
Bad news, I couldn't make my test work a second time. :(
I don't know why (probably because something is not in the same position as it was originally, my model is made of small piece of tinplate), but now it doesn't move, it looks like the force of the release of the spring is being directed slightly upwards.
I will try again next weekend, when I have the time. :)
PS: if anyone wants I can post my failed attempts.
Quote from: Pimander on September 28, 2014, 11:02:22 PM
I don't understand it ::)
Van der Waals forces exist between all atoms/molecules. Not only ones you want them to. I was going to attempt to explain why your drive is pointless but I'll save it for another day. :P
I think you are intolerably ignorant and exceptionally rude and I will not waste any more time communicating with you except to say that if I spot you being as rude and insulting to staff or members again then I'll hit the ban button. Take heed.
Van der Waals forces are not related to this phenomena.
I think you are "intolerably ignorant and exceptionally rude" for attacking me instead of my post, and moreover for denying the basic laws of physics.
i ask you to do the experiment yourself and then come back and say if it works or not.
Quote from: vril-ya on October 01, 2014, 09:54:50 AM
Van der Waals forces are not related to this phenomena.
Yes they are.
QuoteI think you are "intolerably ignorant and exceptionally rude" for attacking me instead of my post, and moreover for denying the basic laws of physics.
Apologies for making my opinion on you public. I agree this is not the place for such comments.
Please explain to us all what laws of physics I have denied in this thread.
van der waals forces are weak forces occuring in absence of other stronger force caused by short lived uneven distribution of electrons around one molecule inducing a corresponding opposite distribution in the other molecule and then the opposite charges attract. they usually become dominant for collections of very small particles such as very fine-grained dry powders, making them cohesive. once again, they are not relevant to inertial impulse propulsion.
i will now quote galileo.. Eppur si muove!
and here is a video of an experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw2KJEbamN4
Quote from: vril-ya on October 01, 2014, 11:06:56 PM
once again, they {Van der Waals forces} are not relevant to inertial impulse propulsion.
Are you trying to say that friction has no relevance to propulsion?
QuoteFor a car to accelerate there has to be friction between the tire and the surface of the road. The amount of friction generated depends on numerous factors, including the minute intermolecular forces acting between the two surfaces in contact – so-called van der Waals forces. The importance of these intermolecular interactions in generating friction has long been known, but has now been demonstrated experimentally for the first time.
Matthias Lessel, Peter Loskill, Florian Hausen, Nitya Nand Gosvami, Roland Bennewitz, Karin Jacobs. Impact of van der Waals Interactions on Single Asperity Friction. Physical Review Letters, 2013; 111 (3) DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.035502 (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130719083906.htm)
Friction has an important role to play in all propulsion. It is less important in space which is significant regarding your opening post.
You have accused me of:
Quote from: vril-ya on October 01, 2014, 09:54:50 AM
denying the basic laws of physics.
Could you do the readers the courtesy of explaining where I have done that?
Rereading your opening post to this thread you stated:
Quote from: vril-ya on September 26, 2014, 08:05:18 AM
modern science will tell you this is due to "friction" which is totally ridiculous as this phenomena is independent of the enviroment.
Really? That looks like a denial of Newton's first Law to me. ::)
QuoteApplying Newton's Three Laws
Frictional Forces
Another quite common force is frictional force. Like the normal force, it is caused by direct contact between surfaces. However, while the normal force is always perpendicular to the surface, the frictional force is always parallel to the surface. To fully describe the cause of friction requires knowledge beyond the scope of classical mechanics. For our purposes, it is enough to know that friction is caused by electrical interactions between the two surfaces on a microscopic level. These interactions always serve to resist motion, and differ in nature according to whether or not the surfaces are moving relative to each other. We shall examine each of these cases separately.
Just in case anyone thinks that I am a trained research scientist but still not aware of the Laws of Physics:
Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it.
- Newton's First Law of Motion, translated from the Principia's Latin This can also be called the
law of inertia. That would be a law of physics. The only place where there is almost no inertia is space. Therefore you deny the law of inertia or Newtons First Law. Friction is inertia caused by Van der Waal's forces.
Is that clear enough for you?
So, do you still insult me by making the completely falsely claim that I deny the laws of physics when you are clearly not fully cognisant of them? Or would you like to retract the accusation?
Quote from: Pimander on October 02, 2014, 09:45:21 AMAre you trying to say that friction has no relevance to propulsion?
in which propulsion? for cars it is crucial as without it they couldn't move an inch. in field/inertial propulsion it is useless.
QuoteFriction has an important role to play in all propulsion. It is less important in space which is significant regarding your opening post.
no it doesn't, it is completely irrelevant in all advanced propulsion methods like:
- electrostatic (electrogravitic)
- inertial
- pulsed magnetic (pushing against planetary magnetic fields)
..etc.
QuoteYou have accused me of:Could you do the readers the courtesy of explaining where I have done that?
just because you proclaimed inertial proulsion "impossible" while it is a simple and real phenomena.
QuoteRereading your opening post to this thread you stated:Really? That looks like a denial of Newton's first Law to me. ::)
nope, there is action and reaction, just not against the outside system.
Quote....This can also be called the law of inertia. That would be a law of physics. The only place where there is almost no inertia is space.
"almost no inertia in space"? are you kidding? inertia is a tendency of matter to keep moving or remain still, it is the SAME everywhere. it is caused by interaction between quarks and the zero-point field.
QuoteTherefore you deny the law of inertia or Newtons First Law.
nope
QuoteFriction is inertia caused by Van der Waal's forces.
no it isn't. (that's like saying rain is potato caused by space junk). van der waal's forces are just one of the factors in generating friction and friction is not the cause (nor effect) of the inertial propulsion.
QuoteIs that clear enough for you?
you made a number of wrong claims, i hope i clearified them for you.
QuoteSo, do you still insult me by making the completely falsely claim that I deny the laws of physics when you are clearly not fully cognisant of them? Or would you like to retract the accusation?
i am well versed in laws of physics, but are you? i think i already answered the rest of your question.
So no retraction? Even though you are the only person in this thread who has denied a law of physics you accuse others of doing so.
If you can't accept the truth that is your business I guess. Just don't throw false accusations at people.
Quote from: vril-ya on October 02, 2014, 12:05:06 PM
i am well versed in laws of physics, but are you? i think i already answered the rest of your question.
It is obvious from reading my post who is not versed. ::)
Friction is relevant to all forms of propulsion (the only possible exception being a body propelled by no moving parts in a frictionless environment - like space) precisely because of the FIRST LAW OF PHYSICS (the law of inertia) which you are incapable of acknowledging.
Quote from: Pimander on October 02, 2014, 02:22:36 PMSo no retraction? Even though you are the only person in this thread who has denied a law of physics you accuse others of doing so.
i never denied any law of physics.
QuoteIt is obvious from reading my post who is not versed. ::)
indeed 8 ) let me quote you:
- "The only place where there is almost no inertia is space."
- "Friction is inertia caused by Van der Waal's forces."QuoteFriction is relevant to all forms of propulsion (the only possible exception being a body propelled by no moving parts in a frictionless environment - like space) precisely because of the FIRST LAW OF PHYSICS (the law of inertia)..
yes, it will slow you down when moving through a liquid or gaseous medium, but is irrelevant to the propulsion itself. i gave you 3 methods of propulsion where friction is useless and can only be a slow-down factor. that's why ufos can operate at speed of light or higher in space, up to 100,000km/h in atmosphere and up to 2000km/h undersea/water.
Quote..which you are incapable of acknowledging.
and how you came up with that is truly beyond me.
For more of a push why not add weight on the spring? or 2 springs firing a heavy rod against the hull like a slingshot design?
good point, i thought of that. the goal for now should be to make a two stage model. first spring lifts it off the ground, second accelerates it in the MID-AIR. i am contemplating how to make this without complicated motors and radio controls.
Quote from: Ellirium113 on October 02, 2014, 11:59:59 PM
For more of a push why not add weight on the spring? or 2 springs firing a heavy rod against the hull like a slingshot design?
Are you suggesting this force can be isolated and utilized outside the time interval for which this systems net forces return to zero? Achieving some relative linear net displacement?
no, i am suggesting firing the spring inside a closed system will cause a linear motion due to a differential in inertial impulses.
Quote from: Glaucon on October 03, 2014, 01:26:30 AM
Are you suggesting this force can be isolated and utilized outside the time interval for which this systems net forces return to zero? Achieving some relative linear net displacement?
Quote from: vril-ya on October 02, 2014, 04:18:12 PM
yes, it will slow you down when moving through a liquid or gaseous medium, but is irrelevant to the propulsion itself.
Friction is also relevant to your example about the person in the rowing boat in your opening post. ::)
As you used that example to explain how the type of propulsion proposed is possible then friction must also be relevant to it. Unless your explanation in the opening post is nonsense.
Can the fact that the spring is fixed to the "craft" be considered friction or is that something else?
Quote from: ArMaP on October 03, 2014, 09:21:30 AM
Can the fact that the spring is fixed to the "craft" be considered friction or is that something else?
The bonds between atoms in a metal are stronger than frictional forces and are metallic bonds. If the spring is fixed by a screw then the matallic bonds would hold the spring in place not frictional forces.
However the moving parts in an object/device are definitely subject to friction. There is friction between the air and spring and if the spring touches anything inside the object then there are other frictional forces at work. Those forces are of course important to any propulsion which relies on moving parts (like this one).
NOTE: Frictional forces operate between a solid and fluids including air and water.The reason the example in the opening post is nonsense is based on the frictional forces with the water and also to a lesser degree the air. Those forces are the reason this drive has limited success on Earth but Vril-Ya's proposition that the effect is independent of the environment ignores/denies several physical laws (mine does not). In fact it even ignores the first law of physics before I start on other laws like thermodynamics (the object will be subject to thermodynamic irreversibility) and Newtons other laws.
If you take the rowing boat example (I think I explained it badly earlier), when the person moves their weight slowly the Van der Waals frictional forces are not broken (or fewer of the atoms bonds with the water are broken as the force is not strong enough to break them) and the boat does not move much. When the momentum suddenly changes a larger force is exerted against the frictional forces and the Wan der Waal's bonds are broken (friction is overcome) and the boat moves.
The reason the example will not work in space is that there are not enough fricional forces to hold the "boat" in position while momentum is built up. This type of drive will not work in space because it disregards one of the consequences of the first law of motion (or law of inertia) as friction is an inertial force.
I am posting this so that the readers can understand now as my points are being ignored by the OP. I am also still waiting for an explanation about what physical laws I have denied.
I'll admit that these "laws" governing the movement of objects are not that easy to explain in words. However they should not be too challenging to understand for someone qualified to promote or debunk a novel propulsion system. They are definitely easier to teach in a classroom or lecture theatre using props and simple experiments but I should not have to go down to teaching 15 year old level school physics education to someone "fully conversant with the laws of physics." ::) ;)
in the boat example, friction is only a slow-down factor. here, i'll go slow so you may catch up. read slowly so you don't get confused.
jerking your body forward does create backward momentum for an instant, of course, but once you come to a sudden stop this momentum is transfered to the boat and it moves forward.
friction counters movement of the boat in BOTH directions. it resist the drifting backwards AND forward. now, since in reality boat moves forward, it is clear that forward moment infinitely surpasses the backward moment, otherwise boat would oscillate in one place, not move forward like it does.
and for the tube example, if tube in (frictionless) space moves due to inertial impulse from withing the system, please illuminate me how is friction relevant to this kind of propulsion?
let me remind you of your previous pearls: "The only place where there is almost no inertia is space." & "Friction is inertia caused by Van der Waal's forces." you gotta love 'em.
if there is anything else confusing you, i'll be glad to help.
Quote from: Pimander on October 03, 2014, 08:43:20 AM
Friction is also relevant to your example about the person in the rowing boat in your opening post. ::)
As you used that example to explain how the type of propulsion proposed is possible then friction must also be relevant to it. Unless your explanation in the opening post is nonsense.
Quote from: vril-ya on October 03, 2014, 01:08:31 PM
jerking your body forward does create backward momentum for an instant, of course, but once you come to a sudden stop this momentum is transfered to the boat and it moves forward.
Isn't that because the sudden stop happens in a shorter time than the starting of the movement?
Would the energy used to start the movement be the same as the energy used to stop the movement, but with different durations?
First of all I am going to ban you if you insult me even a single time more. There is no confusion from me.
Quote from: vril-ya on October 03, 2014, 01:08:31 PM
friction counters movement of the boat in BOTH directions. it resist the drifting backwards AND forward. now, since in reality boat moves forward, it is clear that forward moment infinitely surpasses the backward moment, otherwise boat would oscillate in one place, not move forward like it does.
Again you are ignoring the effects of Van der Waal's forces. The reason the boat does not move much at first is many of the Van der Waal's bonds are not broken between the boat and air/water. The sudden change of momentum at the end of the movement is what supplies the energy for the bonds to be broken allowing the boat to move forwards. In space that can't happen because there are no Van der Waal's forces with space. It is that simple.
If you ignore my warning not to insult me I will ban you the second I read the insult. No more warnings.
Quote from: ArMaP on October 03, 2014, 01:53:24 PM
Isn't that because the sudden stop happens in a shorter time than the starting of the movement?
Yes.
The rapid change in momentum means there is a greater force at that point in time and the frictional forces are overcome. When the frictional forces are overcome (Van der Waal's bonds are broken) the boat or whatever can move.
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/images/add_aqa_equa_force.gif)
In space there is no friction with the environment (which the object is obviously not independent of ::) ) so the object will move before that point.
Even Vril-Ya's last post mentions friction which would not exist if the object was independent of the environment. No object in the Universe ever discovered by science is independent of the environment.
Quote from: Pimander on October 03, 2014, 02:12:12 PM
Even Vril-Ya's last post mentions friction which would not exist if the object was independent of the environment. No object in the Universe ever discovered by science is independent of the environment.
Like the man who pulled himself up by his bootstraps :P
i am not ignoring van der waal forces. these forces are one of the causes generating friction between boat and water. friction is acting both ways resisting the movement of the boat.
when you swing forward, this action "breaks the bonds" of friction making the boat drift backwards, but an instant later as you come to a sudden stop, inertia is transfered from your body to the boat making the boat move forward, as the forward moment has now overcame the backward momentum.
in space, the effect would be stronger without friction to slow it down. experiment with a spring in a tube confirms that.
EDIT: Discussion of Pimander removed.
Quote from: Pimander on October 03, 2014, 02:08:19 PMAgain you are ignoring the effects of Van der Waal's forces. The reason the boat does not move much at first is many of the Van der Waal's bonds are not broken between the boat and air/water. The sudden change of momentum at the end of the movement is what supplies the energy for the bonds to be broken allowing the boat to move forwards. In space that can't happen because there are no Van der Waal's forces with space. It is that simple.
pulling yourself by your bootstraps won't get you anywhere, but if you jerk your body forward and come to a sudden stop, it will make you move. what do you think why do all these jumpers in the very last moment pull their hands back and jerk their body forward?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS6NTz3qXNw
Quote from: Glaucon on October 03, 2014, 04:09:22 PM
Like the man who pulled himself up by his bootstraps :P
Quote from: vril-ya on October 03, 2014, 04:20:09 PM
in space, the effect would be stronger without friction to slow it down. experiment with a spring in a tube confirms that.
LOL
In space the spring would push backwards as much as forwards as there are no frictional forces to hold the object still while forward momentum builds. Momentum would be equal in both directions of movement.
The reason forward momentum can build on the boat (or anywhere not in a vacuum) is the frictional forces acting on the object. In space there are no frictional forces and therefore there would be no forward momentum released in one direction at the end.
Quote from: vril-ya on October 03, 2014, 04:25:03 PM
pulling yourself by your bootstraps won't get you anywhere, but if you jerk your body forward and come to a sudden stop, it will make you move.
But you are held still by friction while you "jerk your body forward". In space you would not move because there is no friction to hold you still while you build up momentum. LOL ::)
Quote from: vril-ya on October 03, 2014, 02:29:12 AM
no, i am suggesting firing the spring inside a closed system will cause a linear motion due to a differential in inertial impulses.
You're talking about an arbitrary period of time, in a closed system, in
space. It would resemble a sinusoidal waveform, and therefore your integral equals zero under the time interval for which an impulse is defined.
In this case, releasing the spring is an unavoidable requirement to achieve your desired "impulse". You're neglecting to recognize the Law of the conservation of momentum Yeah, it will accelerate forward...after it accelerates backwards first. It doesn't have any
net displacement in space.
lol, i don't know why you insist on friction when it clearly just downplays the effect. here is a simple experiment to prove it.
tube is hang from a ceiling on a thin wire. if what you says was true, once the spring is fired inside the tube, tube would just oscilate back n forth, but that is not the case, it accelerates unidirectionally.
if there is still something confusing you, i will try to help.
Quote from: Pimander on October 03, 2014, 04:31:37 PM
LOL
In space the spring would push backwards as much as forwards as there are no frictional forces to hold the object still while forward momentum builds. Momentum would be equal in both directions of movement.
The reason forward momentum can build on the boat (or anywhere not in a vacuum) is the frictional forces acting on the object. In space there are no frictional forces and therefore there would be no forward momentum released in one direction at the end.
Quote from: Glaucon on October 03, 2014, 04:41:39 PM
You're neglecting to recognize the Law of the conservation of momentum [/i]
Among other things. ;)
QuoteYeah, it will accelerate forward...after it accelerates backwards first. It doesn't have any net displacement in space.
I'm glad somebody else here has some clue what is happening. Gold for you, Glaucon.
Vri-Ya, we aren't confused. You are.
The mass of the spring builds up momentum under friction then the change of momentum (remember the equation above) increases the amount of energy and breaks the frictional forces. Also the wire adds to the forces holding the tube while the spring builds momentum exaggerating the effect of friction.
In space the tube would not move (i.e. zero net motion).
Quote from: vril-ya on October 03, 2014, 04:56:58 PM
tube is hang from a ceiling on a thin wire. if what you says was true, once the spring is fired inside the tube, tube would just oscilate back n forth, but that is not the case, it accelerates unidirectionally.
That is incorrect.
if what you claim was the case, in no way should the tube move unidirectionally, it should oscillate back and forth. your theory about the phenomena shows you are still confused with the forces at play.
"spring builds up momentum under friction then the change of momentum (remember the equation above) increases the amount of energy and breaks the frictional forces."
only friction present is that of a surrounding air and it doesnt affect the direction in which the tube moves. wire holding the tube is attached at the middle, so if there existed this backward motion you suggest, tube would necessarily OSCILLATE, not accelerate in one direction.
wire doesn't "add to the forces holding the tube while the spring builds momentum exaggerating the effect of friction." wire is only holding the tube from falling and once the tube accelerates forward, wire is not letting it move in a straight line like it would on water or wheels, changing the y component of it's velocity, but otherwise not affecting the direction of it's movement.
QuoteThe mass of the spring builds up momentum under friction then the change of momentum (remember the equation above) increases the amount of energy and breaks the frictional forces. Also the wire adds to the forces holding the tube while the spring builds momentum exaggerating the effect of friction.
In space the tube would not move (i.e. zero net motion).
it would resemble a sinusoidal waveform, but a irregular one, with forward impulses being much higher than backward impulses. so, no, it doesn't equal zero, there is differential that expresses as a unidirectional force.
law of conservation of momentum is why this kind of propulsion is possible in the first place. if momentum wasn't conserved, this inertial differential wouldn't exist due to a impact of a spring against the inner wall of the tube, transfering it's kinetic energy into linear motion of the system.
Quote from: Glaucon on October 03, 2014, 04:41:39 PM
You're talking about an arbitrary period of time, in a closed system, in space. It would resemble a sinusoidal waveform, and therefore your integral equals zero under the time interval for which an impulse is defined. In this case, releasing the spring is an unavoidable requirement to achieve your desired "impulse". You're neglecting to recognize the Law of the conservation of momentum
Yeah, it will accelerate forward...after it accelerates backwards first. It doesn't have any net displacement in space.
Let me see if I'm understanding it right. :)
If the spring was released from both sides at exactly the same time both halves would move to the centre, resulting in no movement at all.
If the spring is fixed to something that weighs more than the spring itself and is released from, for example, the right side, the mass of the spring moving from right to left would not be enough to compensate the weight (inertia?) of the rest of the "craft", so the spring moves more in the direction of the fixed side (right to left) than the "craft" on the direction from where the spring was released (left to right), but I think both would try to move.
Now that I looked at my first video I saw that it wasn't as big a failure as I thought, as we can see some movement.
First, here's my "craft". ;D
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Sam_6128_1.jpg)
As the spring was held on one side by a sewing thread, I just had to burn it to release instantly the spring with no risk of having something interfering with the spring (like we see on the bottle video).
On my first video we can see that, although the "craft" didn't move as much as it did on my first experiment, it really move on the direction the released side of the spring was moving.
(The video was resized to 200% because the smaller size was the only one allowing for 60 frames per second. This video was slowed down to 2 frames per second)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP20NjliuIw
What I think we can see on the video is that the momentum of the moving spring was bigger than the inertia of the whole "craft", so the "craft" moved in that direction, in the same way a moving billiard ball will make another move when it hits it.
Am I wrong in what I'm thinking? :)
Quote from: vril-ya on October 03, 2014, 06:01:58 PM
it would resemble a sinusoidal waveform, but a irregular one, with forward impulses being much higher than backward impulses. so, no, it doesn't equal zero, there is differential that expresses as a unidirectional force.
law of conservation of momentum is why this kind of propulsion is possible in the first place. if momentum wasn't conserved, this inertial differential wouldn't exist due to a impact of a spring against the inner wall of the tube, transfering it's kinetic energy into linear motion of the system.
That is most definitely incorrect.
no it's not, there is a net force producing linear accleration. you are most definitely wrong.
Quote from: Glaucon on October 03, 2014, 09:36:00 PM
That is most definitely incorrect.
not bad. you are thinking in the right direction and using a lighter to release the spring was a great idea. it definetely moves in the direction of the contracting spring. you just need to make it go in a straight line.
Quote from: ArMaP on October 03, 2014, 09:31:01 PM
Let me see if I'm understanding it right. :)
If the spring was released from both sides at exactly the same time both halves would move to the centre, resulting in no movement at all.
If the spring is fixed to something that weighs more than the spring itself and is released from, for example, the right side, the mass of the spring moving from right to left would not be enough to compensate the weight (inertia?) of the rest of the "craft", so the spring moves more in the direction of the fixed side (right to left) than the "craft" on the direction from where the spring was released (left to right), but I think both would try to move.
Now that I looked at my first video I saw that it wasn't as big a failure as I thought, as we can see some movement.
First, here's my "craft". ;D
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Sam_6128_1.jpg)
As the spring was held on one side by a sewing thread, I just had to burn it to release instantly the spring with no risk of having something interfering with the spring (like we see on the bottle video).
On my first video we can see that, although the "craft" didn't move as much as it did on my first experiment, it really move on the direction the released side of the spring was moving.
(The video was resized to 200% because the smaller size was the only one allowing for 60 frames per second. This video was slowed down to 2 frames per second)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP20NjliuIw
What I think we can see on the video is that the momentum of the moving spring was bigger than the inertia of the whole "craft", so the "craft" moved in that direction, in the same way a moving billiard ball will make another move when it hits it.
Am I wrong in what I'm thinking? :)
Now is there any particular reason you need use a spring? I got to thinking that an electric solenoid could achieve the same results with significantly more generated force, especially if the plunger end of the solenoid is attached to a ram. This could be affixed to a wheeled cart for testing. This drive system I don't foresee as being practical for takeoff so I wouldn't waste my efforts with vertical tests as you can't achieve any significant power vs. gravity and atmospheric resistance. The electric solenoid would be spring return vs. applied so a higher wattage coil would likely be used and generate a considerable amount of force.
Quote from: vril-ya on October 03, 2014, 10:42:22 PM
no it's not, there is a net force producing linear accleration. you are most definitely wrong.
I don't know what to say, you're absolutely incorrect. The terms you're using don't make any sense...
Proof of concept has already been documented on a 'non-propellent' impulse propulsion system utilizing microwaves. It only works because they phase out the microwave before it exerts a force of opposite magnitude.
It is simply impossible using a mechanical design.
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive)
terms make perfect sense, indeed, there is a differential between forward and backward moment, forward moment greatly overcoming the backward one, resulting in linear motion.
it is not "impossible", you have misunderstood classical mechanics. subsequent experiments will further prove you wrong.
Quote from: Glaucon on October 04, 2014, 02:43:44 AM
I don't know what to say, you're absolutely incorrect. The terms you're using don't make any sense...
Proof of concept has already been documented on a 'non-propellent' impulse propulsion system utilizing microwaves. It only works because they phase out the microwave before it exerts a force of opposite magnitude.
It is simply impossible using a mechanical design.
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive)
Quote from: Glaucon on October 04, 2014, 02:43:44 AM
I don't know what to say, you're absolutely incorrect. The terms you're using don't make any sense...
This is becoming embarrassing. At the moment I am just trying to understand whether we are being trolled or this is genuinely a denial of basic physics.
Quote
It is simply impossible using a mechanical design.
Does anyone else disagree with this point?
Quote from: vril-ya on October 04, 2014, 10:27:32 AM
terms make perfect sense, indeed, there is a differential between forward and backward moment, forward moment greatly overcoming the backward one, resulting in linear motion.
The difference between "forward" and "backward" is one you will not find in space with this type of design. The reason the backward forces would not cause motion is friction. It is impossible for the spring not to exert an equal and opposite force in a backward direction.
I'll concede this might not be trolling and a genuine misunderstanding of mechanics so I'll ask this simple question. What could stop the spring from causing a force to be exerted equally in both directions other than friction? What impact does that have on the design of an impulse drive?
That is what I would ask a 15 year old in a science class. I was hoping it would not come to this. ;D
Quoteit is not "impossible", you have misunderstood classical mechanics. subsequent experiments will further prove you wrong.
I think if you don't believe NASA then you need to take a trip into a frictionless environment to test this design LOL. You won't be getting to MArs for quite some time. ::)
There are lots of potential designs with more merit than this. I'd think along the lines of something without moving parts for an impulse drive. Some of the inventors on here will be able to help you and the design will not ignore basic physical laws then. :)
Quote from: Pimander on October 04, 2014, 12:04:49 PMThis is becoming embarrassing.
indeed, more so longer you claim reactionless propulsion is "Impossible".
here's is an example of an osciallating pendulum on a cart causing unidirectional motion. in this design action is used maximum and reaction is canceled. this would work even better on a frictionless surface.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuTMYgQDUzs
this system is overunity, as small energy is needed to keep the weight oscillating and the rest of the energy is provided by gravity. similar system was patented by robert cook.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4QsDKww5AI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Ri_HjLWR4
so, before you claim something is "impossible", make sure it really is so, cause you are wrong.