Inertial impulse space drive

[vril-ya]

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?

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   

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.

As I stated, he is incorrect in what he stated.

What happens? That is a given, who ever tries that gets very wet.   

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.

[Ellirium113]

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. 

[vril-ya]

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.

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.

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.

[zorgon]

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?

[vril-ya]

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.

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?

[Pimander]

So... lets say it works...

It does not work.  There is no violation of the third law in this example.

[vril-ya]

sorry pimander, but you have no power here. mother nature says you are wrong, and your claim is in vain.

It does not work.  There is no violation of the third law in this example.

[Pimander]

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.

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.

Do you know what Van der Waal's forces are and how they affect this?

modern 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.

[vril-ya]

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.

Do 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[vril-ya]

[ArMaP]

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?

[vril-ya]

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

2 - 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.

[ArMaP]

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.

[Pimander]

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.


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.

[ArMaP]

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.