Inertial impulse space drive

[ArMaP]

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?

[Pimander]

First of all I am going to ban you if you insult me even a single time more.  There is no confusion from me.

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.

[Pimander]

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.



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.

[Glaucon]

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 

[vril-ya]

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.

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.

[vril-ya]

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?

Like the man who pulled himself up by his bootstraps 

[Pimander]

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.

[Pimander]

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

[Glaucon]

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.

[vril-ya]

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.

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.

[Pimander]

You're neglecting to recognize the Law of the conservation of momentum [/i]

Among other things. 

Yeah, 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).

[Glaucon]

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.

[vril-ya]

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.

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).

[vril-ya]

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.

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.

[ArMaP]

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".


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)


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?