Inertial impulse space drive

[vril-ya]

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.

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.

[Pimander]

Van der Waals forces are not related to this phenomena.

Yes they are.

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.

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.

[vril-ya]

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:

[Pimander]

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?

For 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

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:

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:

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.

Applying 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?

[vril-ya]

Are 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.

Friction 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.

You 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.

Rereading 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.

....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.

Therefore you deny the law of inertia or Newtons First Law.

nope

Friction 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.

Is that clear enough for you?

you made a number of wrong claims, i hope i clearified them 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?

i am well versed in laws of physics, but are you? i think i already answered the rest of your question.

[Pimander]

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.

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.

[vril-ya]

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.

i never denied any law of physics.

It 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."

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)..

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.

..which you are incapable of acknowledging.

and how you came up with that is truly beyond me.

[Ellirium113]

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?

[vril-ya]

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.

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?

[Glaucon]

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?

[vril-ya]

no, i am suggesting firing the spring inside a closed system will cause a linear motion due to a differential in inertial impulses.

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?

[Pimander]

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.

[ArMaP]

Can the fact that the spring is fixed to the "craft" be considered friction or is that something else?

[Pimander]

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."  

[vril-ya]

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.

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.