Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 82008
  • *Latest: jojo500

  • *Total Posts: 493070
  • *Total Topics: 14499
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 101
  • *Total: 105

Facebook

Author Topic: Inertia Drive project. RFDD.  (Read 39710 times)

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4880
Re: Inertia Drive project. RFDD.
« Reply #30 on: August 25, 2014, 12:03:38 AM »
Those two video's are fantastic,and yes-same basic principle.

Quote Mark:  If you start getting results that look like they defy presently understood physics.
How dose a device that provides it's own thrust defy physics? I think it's more that most dont really understand how to interpret those law's.And to what value would the plumb bob be?.If you are refering to twisting of the box the device is housed in,well that is the very reason for the 3 lines behind the wires above the box,that are marked on the bench.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Inertia Drive project. RFDD.
« Reply #30 on: August 25, 2014, 12:03:38 AM »

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6831
Re: Inertia Drive project. RFDD.
« Reply #31 on: August 25, 2014, 03:39:14 AM »
Those two video's are fantastic,and yes-same basic principle.

Quote Mark:  If you start getting results that look like they defy presently understood physics.
How dose a device that provides it's own thrust defy physics? I think it's more that most dont really understand how to interpret those law's.And to what value would the plumb bob be?.If you are refering to twisting of the box the device is housed in,well that is the very reason for the 3 lines behind the wires above the box,that are marked on the bench.
The idea of a reactionless drive is one that violates N3.  N3 requires either pushing against something, which is how stiction drives work, or getting a reaction force via N2 by ejecting mass which is how space vehicles that don't have anything to push against work.  A single cable suspension such as in the Italian video can only transmit significant force through its length, IE up and down.  As a consequence, in the Italian video we do not see any displacement in the horizontal plane.

Your set-up varies from that in that it has two suspension cables that form a couple that can transmit torque between the box and the suspending beam about the couple central axis.  Near 5:50 in the video we can see the box twisting about the central axis which transmits force to the beam via the couple.  Since the pointer is not located on the couple central axis the pointer deflects in the horizontal plane.  If you rig with a single suspension cable,  you will eliminate the couple.  The box will still be able to twist around, but it will no longer be able to maintain a static angular displacement.  Now the pointer will oscillate on either side of the rest line.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4880
Re: Inertia Drive project. RFDD.
« Reply #32 on: August 25, 2014, 05:03:37 AM »
I am glad you bought up the rockets working in a vacume and N2
When I get home, I will show you why that is not correct.


Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6831
Re: Inertia Drive project. RFDD.
« Reply #33 on: August 25, 2014, 05:09:32 AM »
I am glad you bought up the rockets working in a vacume and N2
When I get home, I will show you why that is not correct.
NASA, and Elon Musk will be very interested if you have a way to accelerate objects in space without propellant, other than of course just letting them accelerate under the force of gravity.


Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4880
Re: Inertia Drive project. RFDD.
« Reply #34 on: August 25, 2014, 04:19:55 PM »
NASA, and Elon Musk will be very interested if you have a way to accelerate objects in space without propellant, other than of course just letting them accelerate under the force of gravity.
NASA is not so smart,infact they cant even agree on how exactly a rocket engine produces thrust in the vacume of space. Some think it is N3,and some think it is N2.If my design dose indeed produce a thrust via inertial force (which i believe very strongly it dose),then in space,the speed would be infinite. Of course at these small forces,it would take a life time to get to any sort of reasonable speed.

You will have to give me some time on this Mark(in regards to how a rocket produces thrust in a vacume),as i have only just got home from work(now 9.45pm),and my run sheet for the week looks like 15 hour days all week.

But first,lets eliminate the 3rd law-for every force there is an equal and opposite force.
After this is out of the way,we will look at Newtons’s 2nd Law : Force = Mass x Acceleration,and of course the conservation of energy.

N3*
A rocket’s propellant does not generate force in a vacuum according to the laws of physics and chemistry. And as N3 state's that every force has an equal and opposite force,but a force cannot be produced against the vacume of space,then the 3rd cannot account for the thrust produced by the rocket engine in space. For further information on this,you can look up Free Expansion” or the “Joule-Thomson” effect.

Now N2 needs a lot more explaining,and for this i will need time to get it all in the correct order.
But i want you to think about this,as far as ejecting mass creates thrust. Saturn's moon Enceladus, for example, shoots a jet of water ice 500 KM+ into space. Enceladus has ejected enough material to make up most of saturn's E ring-and yet it hasnt propelled itself through space. A very large mass to move-yes,but also a very large amount of ejected mass over time. There is a lot more to N2,and this will come in time-when i get some.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Inertia Drive project. RFDD.
« Reply #34 on: August 25, 2014, 04:19:55 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3025
Re: Inertia Drive project. RFDD.
« Reply #35 on: August 25, 2014, 05:49:18 PM »
Your satellites are going through a constant state of acceleration on one side and deceleration on the other and it is the transition on the close orbit side that makes the funny orbit path,, it is the tension in the wire that is transferring the force of acceleration and deceleration,, so that angle from the wire to the pulleys changes.  There is also the CF within the system that moves the satellites outward.

In my view there is more going on than just spinning some weights,, and that might even suggest that you mount your testbed by the sides as such that you can rotate the testbed to see if there is a direction of greater force than the one straight out in line with the peak of the long orbit.

P.S. I am no brainiac,, but I have played with very similar systems.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6831
Re: Inertia Drive project. RFDD.
« Reply #36 on: August 25, 2014, 05:58:25 PM »
NASA is not so smart,infact they cant even agree on how exactly a rocket engine produces thrust in the vacume of space. Some think it is N3,and some think it is N2.
It is both.  N2 states that accelerating mass exerts force.  N3 states that an equal and opposite force accelerates the ejecting vehicle in the opposite direction.
Quote
If my design dose indeed produce a thrust via inertial force (which i believe very strongly it dose),then in space,the speed would be infinite. Of course at these small forces,it would take a life time to get to any sort of reasonable speed.
That's the idea of any reactionless space drive.  Accelerate, even if at a low rate without having to toss propellant mass behind you.  That way you don't have to carry mostly propellant up with the launch.
Quote

You will have to give me some time on this Mark(in regards to how a rocket produces thrust in a vacume),as i have only just got home from work(now 9.45pm),and my run sheet for the week looks like 15 hour days all week.
Take your time.  I am in no hurry.
Quote

But first,lets eliminate the 3rd law-for every force there is an equal and opposite force.
After this is out of the way,we will look at Newtons’s 2nd Law : Force = Mass x Acceleration,and of course the conservation of energy.

N3*
A rocket’s propellant does not generate force in a vacuum according to the laws of physics and chemistry.
Sir Isaac beg to differ and points to his second law.
Quote
And as N3 state's that every force has an equal and opposite force,but a force cannot be produced against the vacume of space,then the 3rd cannot account for the thrust produced by the rocket engine in space. For further information on this,you can look up Free Expansion” or the “Joule-Thomson” effect.
We know rockets work and we know why they work:  N2 AND N3.
Quote

Now N2 needs a lot more explaining,and for this i will need time to get it all in the correct order.
But i want you to think about this,as far as ejecting mass creates thrust. Saturn's moon Enceladus, for example, shoots a jet of water ice 500 KM+ into space. Enceladus has ejected enough material to make up most of saturn's E ring-and yet it hasnt propelled itself through space. A very large mass to move-yes,but also a very large amount of ejected mass over time. There is a lot more to N2,and this will come in time-when i get some.
N2 has been tested millions of times.  It really does work.
Quote

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Inertia Drive project. RFDD.
« Reply #36 on: August 25, 2014, 05:58:25 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6831
Re: Inertia Drive project. RFDD.
« Reply #37 on: August 25, 2014, 06:08:49 PM »
Your satellites are going through a constant state of acceleration on one side and deceleration on the other and it is the transition on the close orbit side that makes the funny orbit path,, it is the tension in the wire that is transferring the force of acceleration and deceleration,, so that angle from the wire to the pulleys changes.  There is also the CF within the system that moves the satellites outward.

In my view there is more going on than just spinning some weights,, and that might even suggest that you mount your testbed by the sides as such that you can rotate the testbed to see if there is a direction of greater force than the one straight out in line with the peak of the long orbit.

P.S. I am no brainiac,, but I have played with very similar systems.
Tom the classical physics that conflicts with the idea of a reactionless drive is Newton's Third Law.  Draw a box around a device as Tinman has done or a bag as the Italian demonstration did.  If we want the object in the box or the bag to accelerate, something has to push on it from behind or pull from the front.  N3 tells us that whatever does that pushing or pulling experiences an equal and opposite force.  Within the box each ting that pushes is matched by something that pushes back equally and oppositely.  Ditto anything that pulls in the box.  So the spinning weights, no matter how arranged experience equal and opposite forces within the box (or bag) and there is no net external force.  When the Italian guy hung his bag from one cable, that cabe has almost no leverage against the pivot it hangs from and can't transmit any force to speak of to push the bag pendulum statically against gravity.  Tinman's situation is a little bit different because he uses two suspension cables.  A static torque can be generated between the two cables.  The box can statically twist against the beam.

Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3025
Re: Inertia Drive project. RFDD.
« Reply #38 on: August 25, 2014, 07:12:48 PM »
Mark,

First of all I was trying to explain the funny path of the satellites.

Secondly,

Have you considered the 2 points where the CF of the satellite is not expressed in its full value against the system?  Those 2 points are where there is the transition from an accelerating condition and the transition to the decelerating condition.  These two points fall outside the system interaction and have a momentary release from the closed system.  Example:  swinging a rock around your head with the rock tied to a string, you can cut the string and open the system or you can suddenly move your arm forward and partially releases the rock from the system.  The second one is interesting in that you "feel" a sudden pull on your arm as the rock and string close the system once again,, this could even make a noise.

So what is a "closed system" and when is it not closed.

Offline ARMCORTEX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 621
Re: Inertia Drive project. RFDD.
« Reply #39 on: August 25, 2014, 08:05:36 PM »
Closed, open... such meaningless words. To claim understanding by the use of these words is simply pathetic.

Its the obervers point, I think Terawatts research are playing this also, via very proprietary material choosing and calculation. non easily done.

They have very stealthy technology, the process itself, I bet you wouldnt notice it if you saw the device.

Beyond that , I believe that Chas Campbell is using eccentric trick and pulleys elasticity as turning this into an "oscillator""

http://www.overunity.com/12464/using-chas-cambel-flywheel-system-for-15-horsepower/135/#.U_qAU010y70

From the sims i did, if we add a small, hidden, eccentric, we can have rocking motion wich is = to rotating frequency, if the frame holding this rotating mass is somewhat loose.

It is my belief, that this switch flywheel is trapped between loose( pulleys) , wich allow it to oscillate by translation just enough to be energized by drive motor and squeeze the the pulley powerfully and fast, avoiding connection of input to ''filter wheels'' if possible When such force of applied tangantially at 1000hz, the lead out theory happens.

The lead out theory... another mystery, dereferencing by eccentrics, now this ? .... We are but postulating on the theories of some, what is really happening ?

I believe that this attempt is quite obvious with chas first video, but that others, are better @ hiding this oscillating tension on the belt.

The Turkish company is a perfect example, you cannot visually notice the rocking. but their assembly indicates to me that their tensionner needs to be tuned.



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Inertia Drive project. RFDD.
« Reply #39 on: August 25, 2014, 08:05:36 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3025
Re: Inertia Drive project. RFDD.
« Reply #40 on: August 25, 2014, 10:02:47 PM »
Closed, open... such meaningless words. To claim understanding by the use of these words is simply pathetic.


Not so much,, a bound group of interactions or an unbound group,,

The same thing can be described in many ways,, MarkE has a firm set of definitions he works by and so when I can I try and use his terms his way to facilitate a passage of information.

In this thread the discussion is over Tinman's RFDD which is a drive system for motion and is not intended to be a source for OU per say.

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4880
Re: Inertia Drive project. RFDD.
« Reply #41 on: August 25, 2014, 11:19:15 PM »
No-not OU in any way Webby.

MarkE has a firm set of definitions he works by.

So are missing the big picture here,and seem to relate a force to being a physical force,but overlook the fact that there is indeed another outside force being applied to the system.The system is not closed.
Quote: In a closed system (one that does not exchange any matter with the outside and is not acted on by outside forces) the total momentum is constant.

But there is an exchange of matter in my system-that being by way of electrical force supplied via the battery,which is external from the system. Is voltage not described as being a preasure. Where dose it say in N2 & N3 that this force has to be physical?. We already know that an electrical force can be turned into a mechanical force-thus the electric motor.


Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6831
Re: Inertia Drive project. RFDD.
« Reply #42 on: August 26, 2014, 01:02:23 AM »
No-not OU in any way Webby.

MarkE has a firm set of definitions he works by.

So are missing the big picture here,and seem to relate a force to being a physical force,but overlook the fact that there is indeed another outside force being applied to the system.The system is not closed.
Quote: In a closed system (one that does not exchange any matter with the outside and is not acted on by outside forces) the total momentum is constant.

But there is an exchange of matter in my system-that being by way of electrical force supplied via the battery,which is external from the system. Is voltage not described as being a preasure. Where dose it say in N2 & N3 that this force has to be physical?. We already know that an electrical force can be turned into a mechanical force-thus the electric motor.
Tinman your system exchanges torque with the overhead beam via the couple formed by the two suspension cables.  If you either eliminate the couple by going to a single suspension cable, or monitor deflection at the center of the couple, I submit the small static deflection that you currently see with the pointer that is well off the couple center will go away.

Offline Artoj

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: Inertia Drive project. RFDD.
« Reply #43 on: August 26, 2014, 04:35:16 AM »
Tinman, great work, I suggest 4 ways of checking, 1) put the unit(with batteries included) on a floating platform in a pool of water, 2) place the unit on a friction free flat and very level surface(oil,air, magnetic), 3) on a slight incline plane that is friction free as well, 4) on the end of a balanced beam with the force vector aiming a) circular b) up/down , regards Arto.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6831
Re: Inertia Drive project. RFDD.
« Reply #44 on: August 26, 2014, 05:57:24 AM »
Tinman, great work, I suggest 4 ways of checking, 1) put the unit(with batteries included) on a floating platform in a pool of water, 2) place the unit on a friction free flat and very level surface(oil,air, magnetic), 3) on a slight incline plane that is friction free as well, 4) on the end of a balanced beam with the force vector aiming a) circular b) up/down , regards Arto.
Those are all reasonable suggestions.  Be careful about the air table as the air cushion can develop thrust.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Inertia Drive project. RFDD.
« Reply #44 on: August 26, 2014, 05:57:24 AM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: