Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Antigravity => Other antigravity machines and devices => Topic started by: tinman on August 17, 2014, 12:20:44 PM
-
Well here is the start of my Inertia drive project-the RFDD engine.
The plan is to use elliptical orbits of mass(in this project,i call them satellites)to off set the reaction force associated with all actions-Reaction Force Diversion Drive (RFDD).
If successful,this will be the only video posted,until the test video's are presented. If un successful,you will see all the build progress video's along the way. The project is expected to take 3 to 4 day's,so the next video will be posted around that time.
The plan if successfull.
After i have run various test on the device,and found that it works as planed,it will be time to choose one other person to replicate the device,run and report on there test finding's. The chosen person will be given the full build video's and instructions. This person must have access to a metal lathe,and a healthy budget for the project(around $200.00 for parts).
The plan if unsuccessful.
Dont do it this way again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGfDbmn5qaw&list=UUsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w
-
Just a video on the PWM build and tune for the RFDD.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqmazCLQ9Lk&list=UUsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w
-
That's aa nice looking little board. What IC does it use?
-
That's aa nice looking little board. What IC does it use?
It uses the TL494 IC.
This is a sweet little unit,and having the variable frequency is very useful indeed.I have tried it with a couple of different motors now,and im quite supprised as to how much you can reduce the power draw just by changing the frequency of the pulses,while maintaining the same output torque on the motor.There is another thing i forgot to mention on the video,and that is you can remove the soft start just by removing a jumper plug. The frequency can also be made to go higher,simply by replacing one of the caps to a smaller value,or one of the resistors to a lower value. Maybe later on i will just replace that resistor with a V/R.Bellow is the circuit.
-
That looks like a decent design for a low side switch driver.
-
A question for you all.
Most(if not all) here,will be of the opinion that an inertia drive that provides a uni directional thrust or force in one direction(or most there of),is not achievable-it would break the law of the conservation of energy.But could it just be a case that the law has been misunderstood.
So my question is this--> Who here can accurately explain this law
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.\
Give an example for each
1-What is the action?
2-What is the equal reaction?
3-what is the opposite reaction?
I want you to think very carefully about Q3.
-
A question for you all.
Most(if not all) here,will be of the opinion that an inertia drive that provides a uni directional thrust or force in one direction(or most there of),is not achievable-it would break the law of the conservation of energy.But could it just be a case that the law has been misunderstood.
So my question is this--> Who here can accurately explain this law
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.\
Give an example for each
1-What is the action?
Force is reciprocal: Sit on a chair that is on a solid surface. Your weight is the action applied to the chair.2-What is the equal reaction?
The chair applies an equal force against your weight.3-what is the opposite reaction?
The force that the chair exerts upward against your weight. Your weight is a force that points towards the center of the earth, the chair's supporting force points identically away from the center of the earth: Equal and opposite.
I want you to think very carefully about Q3.
There is only one reaction in Newton's Third Law, and it is equal and opposite to the action. 2) and 3) are asking about the same thing.
-
There is only one reaction in Newton's Third Law, and it is equal and opposite to the action. 2) and 3) are asking about the same thing.
Mark
I dont believe that 2 and 3 are the same-asking the same thing.
I agree that the force or pressure is equal and/or opposite,but the direction of that force or pressure(or part there of) dose not have to be opposite.
I believe that opposite in this case means only an equal amount of apposing force or pressure-but not necessarily in the opposite direction.
-
Well here is the start of my Inertia drive project-the RFDD engine.
The plan is to use elliptical orbits of mass(in this project,i call them satellites)to off set the reaction force associated with all actions-Reaction Force Diversion Drive (RFDD).
A US patent was issued some years ago claiming to provide unidirectional inertial thrust employing a unique elliptical path for its counter-rotating weights. Sorry, remember no more details at all and the notebook containing the copy of the patent is buried under so much other junk it would a real excavation to dig it up.
Have you done a patent search?
CANGAS 63
-
Mark
I dont believe that 2 and 3 are the same-asking the same thing.
I agree that the force or pressure is equal and/or opposite,but the direction of that force or pressure(or part there of) dose not have to be opposite.
I believe that opposite in this case means only an equal amount of apposing force or pressure-but not necessarily in the opposite direction.
But....Newton's equal and opposing reaction is expected to have a force component which has a unit vector exactly antiparallel the original action force unit vector, with the two magnitudes being exactly equal.
CANGAS 64
-
A US patent was issued some years ago claiming to provide unidirectional inertial thrust employing a unique elliptical path for its counter-rotating weights. Sorry, remember no more details at all and the notebook containing the copy of the patent is buried under so much other junk it would a real excavation to dig it up.
Have you done a patent search?
CANGAS 63
Yes i did have a look at a few designs,but they wernt the same. The challenge is to reduce the orbit of the weights(i refer to them as sattellites)to give us our elliptical orbit's,without there being an equal /opposite force applied to the rotating mass.This is where force diversion comes into play.We need only divert a small amount of force to create an imballance within the system.The more force we can divert,the more unidirectional force we achieve. Yes-we are trying to do what is said to be not possable,but everyone here is trying to do that-unfortunately,so far no luck. But we keep trying non the less.
-
But....Newton's equal and opposing reaction is expected to have a force component which has a unit vector exactly antiparallel the original action force unit vector, with the two magnitudes being exactly equal.
CANGAS 64
I should try and word thing's a little more in detail.I would agree that the reaction force is equal to the force of the action,but will the reaction cause a mass to travel in the opposite direction to that of the action force that created that reaction.
I guess im more trying to say that the direction of travel of a mass that has had a force applied to it,isnt always in an opposite direction to the moving mass that applied that force.
-
Just a quick video update on the RFDD.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZFusjLL3dg&list=UUsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w
-
The machining looks nicely done.
-
I should try and word thing's a little more in detail.I would agree that the reaction force is equal to the force of the action,but will the reaction cause a mass to travel in the opposite direction to that of the action force that created that reaction.
I guess im more trying to say that the direction of travel of a mass that has had a force applied to it,isnt always in an opposite direction to the moving mass that applied that force.
I think its important to note that reaction force acts normally to the surface
where action is applied.
-
Got a little more done today on the project. Here is an update video on the progress.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63yJn9HuaWA&list=UUsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w
-
Well i ran the first test today on the RFDD-the pendulum test. The test was successful,although i was hoping for a little more deflection on the pointer. But as the sattllites are very small,and the device as a whole is very heavy,im happy with the result's. I have also decided to forgo the replication by another builder before showing how the device works,so you will also get a look inside the RFDD,and see it workings while running. This will all be in the video i will be posting tonight-as soon as it has uploaded. As per the norm here in WA this time of night,uploading is very slow-only 234 minute's remaining-then processing of course.
-
Enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-JF4a6qyDs
-
You've certainly put a lot of work into it.
-
Hi Tinman,
great work and exciting results!
Have you measured the force and power consumption?
-
Hi Tinman,
great work and exciting results!
Have you measured the force and power consumption?
The force is very weak in this machine,as one would expect. P/in is around 780mA @ 13.2 volts->10.3 watts
-
Power input is kind of irrelevant for this sort of effect. It sure looks intriguing and I'm eager to see any replications/improvements that come forth of this. Thanks for sharing your work, a simple but good example of the open source spirit.
-
Power input is kind of irrelevant for this sort of effect. It sure looks intriguing and I'm eager to see any replications/improvements that come forth of this. Thanks for sharing your work, a simple but good example of the open source spirit.
Considering that Tinman noted that the effect was powerful enough to break the cables, its is obvious that there is a considerable power to harvest.
Perhaps it requires a modified design.
-
Considering that Tinman noted that the effect was powerful enough to break the cables, its is obvious that there is a considerable power to harvest.
Perhaps it requires a modified design.
I thought that the purpose of the experiment was to see if tinman's apparatus could generate a reactionless force.
-
Considering that Tinman noted that the effect was powerful enough to break the cables, its is obvious that there is a considerable power to harvest.
Perhaps it requires a modified design.
The stress on the wire is nothing to exciting in regards to power. If we had a flywheel of the same mass,and spun it fast enough with a small motor that consumed less power,the flywheel would tear itself apart once terminal velocity was reached.So some thin cable breaking is really nothing when we have metal tearing apart in the above example.
-
I thought that the purpose of the experiment was to see if tinman's apparatus could generate a reactionless force.
It was.
I am supprised that no one has said it cant work yet-to many laws would be broken->which they wouldnt be.
A reactionless drive like mine break's no laws of physic's,but more give a better understanding as to what those !so called!laws mean.
-
tinman, I think that people should be encouraged to test their ideas.
Any physical experiment necessarily conforms to nature. Our observations and interpretations can however be very faulty. So, we have to be careful when we think we see something extraordinary to be sure that what we think we see is really what is happening. If you start getting results that look like they defy presently understood physics, then it will be time to look to see if there is a mistake in the experiment interpretation.
Something that you might think about adding that could be interesting would be an ordinary plumb bob.
-
Same design: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-iE-nTDUQY
Wonder what will happen if he added weights to the wires like you did.
-
Same design: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-iE-nTDUQY
Wonder what will happen if he added weights to the wires like you did.
Another:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek8keardyGs
Why not to use a different approach - two sprockets, large and small, connected by the chain, like in a bike: masses attached to the chain at the equal distances -
this should not only provide a radius benefit, but also a mass benefit - arc
of the larger sprocket will bear more masses.
-
Same design: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-iE-nTDUQY
Wonder what will happen if he added weights to the wires like you did.
That is the expected result. It is what I expect we will see if tinman hangs a plumb bob as a pendulum.
Sir Isaac says that the force exerted by the discs retaining the sinker weights is equal to the mass and the acceleration that the spinning disks impose on the sinkers and the wires. Sir Isaac says that there is no net force exerted outside that frame of reference. Is Sir Isaac correct as the video you linked seems to show, or will tinman's sinker weights make a critical difference? I submit that the plumb bob test will give us a strong indication.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Mark,this is not what is happening. If we use your theory,then reversing the direction of rotation of both the motor,and then of course the pully's and weights would also reverse direction,we should see an opposite deflection of the pointer.After the video,the reverse test was carried out. Very simple of course,we just swap the polarity of the motor around,then the whole rotating masses change direction of spin. This gave the very same result,and same deflection of the pointer.
Soon i will be performing another test,and scale's will be placed between the cables and device,so as we can see if we get a weight gain in one direction of spin,and a weight loss in the other.
But first there is a little some thing else i would like to show,and that is how it is possable to get a reaction force to produce a force in the same direction of the force that created the reaction force in the first place.
-
This is just a simple little example as to how a reaction force can be made to produce a force that is equal to and also in the same direction as the action/force that created it.If we look at the picture of the motor with a prop attached,we see two actions and reactions that take place. First we apply DC power to the motor,and the motor spins in one direction. Lets say that the first action is the shaft/prop turning,and the reaction is the motor housing wanting to rotate in the opposite direction-this is our equal and opposite forces. The second action/reaction is the face of the prop blades pushing against the air,and the air pushing against the blade faces. So the effect is that air is forced/pushed in one direction,and the motor and prop is pushed in the other. All is good,we have our equal and opposite reactions.
But what if i told you,through a series of mechanisms i could stop the reaction force on the motor housing,but maintain the action/force produced by the prop. Infact,what if we could double the output force in the way of air flow,and have non what so ever reaction force produced by the motor housing.Lets say the motor housing is attached to a torque meter,and that torque meter showed X amount of torque from the motor housing.This would of course be the same amount of torque being placed on the prop.What if we can double the output force of flowing air,but show a 0 reading on the torque meter. The result from this Reaction Force Diversion would be that the reaction force itself,is able to apply a force that is in the same direction as the force that created it.
This is nothing new,and it is used today in some machines. But most just pass it on by,and take no notice of what actually has/is taking place-both an action and reaction force producing a force that is equal but not opposite.
I would expect Mark,and some others to work this out,and know what the hell im talking about.
-
What is the ultimate goal is this ?
Using my yatsenyuk voice, "this is very dangerous".
-
What is the ultimate goal is this ?
Using my yatsenyuk voice, "this is very dangerous".
To show a simple example of a reaction force producing a force that is the same as the force/action that created it-not opposite to.
-
Mark,this is not what is happening. If we use your theory,then reversing the direction of rotation of both the motor,and then of course the pully's and weights would also reverse direction,we should see an opposite deflection of the pointer.After the video,the reverse test was carried out. Very simple of course,we just swap the polarity of the motor around,then the whole rotating masses change direction of spin. This gave the very same result,and same deflection of the pointer.
Soon i will be performing another test,and scale's will be placed between the cables and device,so as we can see if we get a weight gain in one direction of spin,and a weight loss in the other.
But first there is a little some thing else i would like to show,and that is how it is possable to get a reaction force to produce a force in the same direction of the force that created the reaction force in the first place.
That might be interesting to watch on video. Howeve, down to cases, in order to show that something exerts a force without a reaction force you really need to eliminate vehicles by which reaction force can be transmitted. I have suggested a couple of means by which the reacting force/torque that can be transmitted can be reduced to very small values and/or the effects of residual force/torque can be reduced to small values. You already have a result that conflicts with the Italian demonstration that of similar ilk. I suggest that you should want to be able to show at least to yourself why your results appear different.
-
This is just a simple little example as to how a reaction force can be made to produce a force that is equal to and also in the same direction as the action/force that created it.If we look at the picture of the motor with a prop attached,we see two actions and reactions that take place. First we apply DC power to the motor,and the motor spins in one direction. Lets say that the first action is the shaft/prop turning,and the reaction is the motor housing wanting to rotate in the opposite direction-this is our equal and opposite forces. The second action/reaction is the face of the prop blades pushing against the air,and the air pushing against the blade faces. So the effect is that air is forced/pushed in one direction,and the motor and prop is pushed in the other. All is good,we have our equal and opposite reactions.
But what if i told you,through a series of mechanisms i could stop the reaction force on the motor housing,but maintain the action/force produced by the prop.[/quote/Then I would tel you that you are mistaken.[quote
Infact,what if we could double the output force in the way of air flow,and have non what so ever reaction force produced by the motor housing.Lets say the motor housing is attached to a torque meter,and that torque meter showed X amount of torque from the motor housing.This would of course be the same amount of torque being placed on the prop.What if we can double the output force of flowing air,but show a 0 reading on the torque meter. The result from this Reaction Force Diversion would be that the reaction force itself,is able to apply a force that is in the same direction as the force that created it.
The interesting challenge would be how you might attempt to prove such a thing as measuring the force on the air is typically done by measuring the reaction torque. If the reaction torque doesn't match the air then Houston we have a problem. I am interested in the test set-up that you would propose.
This is nothing new,and it is used today in some machines. But most just pass it on by,and take no notice of what actually has/is taking place-both an action and reaction force producing a force that is equal but not opposite.
I am all ears.I would expect Mark,and some others to work this out,and know what the hell im talking about.
-
That might be interesting to watch on video. Howeve, down to cases, in order to show that something exerts a force without a reaction force you really need to eliminate vehicles by which reaction force can be transmitted. I have suggested a couple of means by which the reacting force/torque that can be transmitted can be reduced to very small values and/or the effects of residual force/torque can be reduced to small values. You already have a result that conflicts with the Italian demonstration that of similar ilk. I suggest that you should want to be able to show at least to yourself why your results appear different.
mark-could you post the link to this italian test,as i must have missed it some where???.
-
The interesting challenge would be how you might attempt to prove such a thing as measuring the force on the air is typically done by measuring the reaction torque. If the reaction torque doesn't match the air then Houston we have a problem. I am interested in the test set-up that you would propose. I am all ears.
Well maybe we could call it an action/reaction paradox? lol.
I will get all the gear together i need,and start making the jig.Im sure when you see it,you will be able to think of one machine that uses this principle straight away.
-
I look forward to seeing what you come up with.
-
I never heard that these were torque amplifiers, so when/if you get some air what benefit does that bring.
So unless you wanna go full fledge UFO with petrol generator in the middle I fail to see the point of this activity.
Very stupid idea.
-
I never heard that these were torque amplifiers, so when/if you get some air what benefit does that bring.
So unless you wanna go full fledge UFO with petrol generator in the middle I fail to see the point of this activity.
Very stupid idea.
A reactionless drive that actually works would be a remarkable thing.
-
hmm, I guess you are right, what was I thinking.
Do continue worldly discoveries Tinman.
Open a bar where people have their beers floated to them.
-
Here is a similar concept, a brilliant experiment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yI5xD5d0mmw&list=UUjGrMikL5Y4N4N10CBF_UZA
-
Here is a similar concept, a brilliant experiment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yI5xD5d0mmw&list=UUjGrMikL5Y4N4N10CBF_UZA
Very nice indeed-hard to refute that one. Interesting to see that it work's on the very same principle as my setup. Increase the speed of mass(in his case,water)to the halfway point of the circumference,then decrease the speed of mass on the other half.
Infact,that would be a very easy setup to make and test. No need for all the wheels,just a set of scales to messure the pull force,and see if it is indeed continuous.Looks like i have a busy weekend ahead.
-
A reactionless drive that actually works would be a remarkable thing.
I have many ideas as to how a reactionless drive may be made. Although most will work in a vacuum,im not sure about the absence of gravity :-\
-
Has anyone considered sound? Most of the reactionless drives I seen over the years are noisy and produce a small displacement distance. I wonder if same said constructions were made to be nearly silent by design or added a sound absorber around them would their displacement be reduce proportionately to drop in decibels.
I remember David Cowlishaw experiments on gyroscopic inertia thrust(GIT). What ever happened to him?
-
A lot of the devices that people have tried had large changes in the rate of acceleration: jerk. That turns out to be pretty effective for stiction drives. Tinman's rig is suspended, through long cables greatly reducing harmonics that can be transmitted to the supporting structure compared to something that rests on a surface.
-
@MarkE (or anyone that know's)
I have a question for you regarding my (rough)sketch below.Now i could set up an experiment myself,but time and cash are short in supply,as i need what i have of both to build the next setup-demo.
If we have two jets of water coming from two nozzles,and we direct those jets into each other at right angles(say an inch from the nozzles),using just jet A as an example,will jet B cause jet nozzle A to be pushed in direction A or direction B,or will there be no force applied to the nozzle itself at all
-
@MarkE (or anyone that know's)
I have a question for you regarding my (rough)sketch below.Now i could set up an experiment myself,but time and cash are short in supply,as i need what i have of both to build the next setup-demo.
If we have two jets of water coming from two nozzles,and we direct those jets into each other at right angles(say an inch from the nozzles),using just jet A as an example,will jet B cause jet nozzle A to be pushed in direction A or direction B,or will there be no force applied to the nozzle itself at all
Once the water is free of each nozzle, but for some surface tension it goes on its way. Surface tension can transmit some force back up the stream, pushing the A nozzle leftward away from the B nozzle. The faster the stream from A the stronger the effect.
-
Once the water is free of each nozzle, but for some surface tension it goes on its way. Surface tension can transmit some force back up the stream, pushing the A nozzle leftward away from the B nozzle. The faster the stream from A the stronger the effect.
Being that surface tension is very weak,can we say that the force placed on nozzle A from the jet of water from nozzle B will be very weak?
What % of the 40 psi would you say is placed on nozzle A from jet B?.
-
Being that surface tension is very weak,can we say that the force placed on nozzle A from the jet of water from nozzle B will be very weak?
What % of the 40 psi would you say is placed on nozzle A from jet B?.
It depends on the velocity of the water leaving the A nozzle. If the A nozzle is just dripping then virtually no force transmits back to the nozzle. If the velocity out the A nozzle is very high then you could get a decent percentage of the force that acts on the A stream to transmit to the A nozzle.
-
It depends on the velocity of the water leaving the A nozzle. If the A nozzle is just dripping then virtually no force transmits back to the nozzle. If the velocity out the A nozzle is very high then you could get a decent percentage of the force that acts on the A stream to transmit to the A nozzle.
It would be 40 psi constant flow preasure, from both A and B nozzel,which are 1/2 inch nozzle's.
Would you think it would be more than 10% of the 40 psi that acts upon nozzel A-that seems to be a generous amount to me.
-
OK Mark-one more question.
In the slightly modified sketch below,i have added a green arrow. If water jet B is hitting water jet A,would this increase the force(in the direction of the green arrow)on nozzle B,or would the force on nozzle B be the same as if it wasnt hitting water jet A. Both jets of water intersect each other 1 inch from either nozzle.
-
OK Mark-one more question.
In the slightly modified sketch below,i have added a green arrow. If water jet B is hitting water jet A,would this increase the force(in the direction of the green arrow)on nozzle B,or would the force on nozzle B be the same as if it wasnt hitting water jet A. Both jets of water intersect each other 1 inch from either nozzle.
It is the same answer as the other question. If the velocity is high enough then surface tension conveys force back to the B nozzle.
-
It is the same answer as the other question. If the velocity is high enough then surface tension conveys force back to the B nozzle.
Mmm-interesting. So each water jet has an equal effect on each nozzle,but not opposite,as there at right angles to each other.
-
Mmm-interesting. So each water jet has an equal effect on each nozzle,but not opposite,as there at right angles to each other.
Huh??? Maybe I didn't express myself well.
The proportion of force orthogonal to the A flow transmitted by the A stream back to the A nozzle depends on the velocity of the water coming out of the A nozzle. The force on the A stream depends on the volume flow from the B nozzle that impacts the A stream. The situation with nozzle B is similar. So one could readily arrange a high velocity from the A nozzle but a much higher flow at lower velocity from the B nozzle (nozzles obviously can't be the same) and see much more total force reflected back to A than reflected back to B. Or one could arrange to have little force feed back to A by emitting a small volume flow from B.
-
I would say that the nozzle condition stated could only be the same or less than if the jet was applied against a solid object.
This is similar to the "helicopter ground effect" in that the pressure in the center of the jet increases when it strikes an object at close range because it has no place to go.
At about twice the jet diameter, I would estimate nearly zero ground effect. A helicopter is near zero ground effect at about 1-1/4 it's rotor diameter.
As the flow rate (higher pressure at same diameter) increases, the effect could extend further but would still drop off rapidly.
-
I conducted the test pictured below-carried out many times over the last 3 hours.
The results were- without a second jet of same size and same pressure hitting the test jet 1 inch from the nozzle,we had a pull force on the scales of 820 grams.
With second jet of same size and same pressure hitting the test jet(purple circle)at right angle's,the scales still read 820 grams of pull force.
From this test, i conclude that any force that may be applied to either nozzle when the jet of water is hit by another jet of water at right angles is very small(if any).
The test was also carried out with the hinge point at 90* to the pictured,so as to messure any side ways force placed on the nozzle by the second jet. No sideways force was detected by the scales.
-
I conducted the test pictured below-carried out many times over the last 3 hours.
The results were- without a second jet of same size and same pressure hitting the test jet 1 inch from the nozzle,we had a pull force on the scales of 820 grams.
With second jet of same size and same pressure hitting the test jet(purple circle)at right angle's,the scales still read 820 grams of pull force.
From this test, i conclude that any force that may be applied to either nozzle when the jet of water is hit by another jet of water at right angles is very small(if any).
The test was also carried out with the hinge point at 90* to the pictured,so as to messure any side ways force placed on the nozzle by the second jet. No sideways force was detected by the scales.
With the current set up, the transmitted force is into the page is opposed by the hinge pin, and is 90 degrees to the spring scale.
For the plumbing and spring scale set-up that you have, you need to rotate the two nozzles 90 degrees CCW in the horizontal plane, so that the "A" nozzle is pointing into the page, and the "B" nozzle is directed to the left. The transmitted force will still be low.
-
With the current set up, the transmitted force is into the page is opposed by the hinge pin, and is 90 degrees to the spring scale.
For the plumbing and spring scale set-up that you have, you need to rotate the two nozzles 90 degrees CCW in the horizontal plane, so that the "A" nozzle is pointing into the page, and the "B" nozzle is directed to the left. The transmitted force will still be low.
@Mark
I was looking to see if more pull force would be placed on the nozzle that is bolted to the swinging plank,when a second jet of water hit's the fixed jet at right angles. Further messurements at all angles of force that could be placed on the fixed jet by the second jet,showed no force at all in any direction. This is good for us,and will soon become apparent why.
-
@Mark
I was looking to see if more pull force would be placed on the nozzle that is bolted to the swinging plank,when a second jet of water hit's the fixed jet at right angles. Further messurements at all angles of force that could be placed on the fixed jet by the second jet,showed no force at all in any direction. This is good for us,and will soon become apparent why.
Tinman referring to your original drawing are you asking whether A would experience more Z axis force with the B stream hitting the A stream horizontally?
-
Tinman referring to your original drawing are you asking whether A would experience more Z axis force with the B stream hitting the A stream horizontally?
Forced meassured as red arrow depic's. Second messurement- picture the hinge and scales turned 90*(facing us),and i then messured if there was any side ways force seen on the nozzle.
Both test showed non at all,and my scales read down to .001kg's-1 gram.
-
I am not very surprised that any effect is below the measurement resolution. For these conditions: The observation is no detected force transmitted.
-
I am not very surprised that any effect is below the measurement resolution. For these conditions: The observation is no detected force transmitted.
And this is a good thing Mark,as it gives a means for a reactionless drive of far greater potential than that seen in my first design(which is still under debate).
-
Below is a test i carried out over the last few night. The setup is as depicted below.
With or without the high pressure jet running,the scales remain at around 1.1-1.3 kg's
It is interesting that we can recirculate the water,and still maintain that thrust in one direction.
The thrust produced would be half of what the scale is reading,as the scale is mounted mid point between the hinge and let 1.So one could expect a 550-650 gram thrust.
From all my test so far,it seems that the equal and opposite forces can be removed by way of continual liquid mass collision.
I am open to carrying out,and videoing any test request based around what i have found so far.I will only be able to do it during weekend though,as my work hours are to long to get anything done after work.These test will also have to be within my budget of course.
-
So you're saying that the jet or liquid doesn't have to leave the system for there to be a sideways force? Have you tried this experiment with a "wall" attached to the system so jt1, while jt2 is off, can crash on it and confirm the scale goes to 0?
-
It sure makes it look like you've devised the basis for a propellantless drive, doesn't it? Is that what you have, or if packaged up in a wheeled box would it just sit there?
Do you just want the answer? Or do you prefer to go about finding the answer experimentally?
I encourage you to get to the conventional Newtonian conforming physics through additional experiments, because I like the way that this experiment appears to defy them. I think that it is a good example of how assumptions can mess with us.
To proceed experimentally, there are two things that you will want to test. The first is whether or not the result is due to deflecting the nozzle #1 stream with another stream or not. To do that, turn the second pump off and just put a deflector plate at the right side of the funnel and see what the scale reads.
-
It sure makes it look like you've devised the basis for a propellantless drive, doesn't it? Is that what you have, or if packaged up in a wheeled box would it just sit there?
Do you just want the answer? Or do you prefer to go about finding the answer experimentally?
I encourage you to get to the conventional Newtonian conforming physics through additional experiments, because I like the way that this experiment appears to defy them. I think that it is a good example of how assumptions can mess with us.
To proceed experimentally, there are two things that you will want to test. The first is whether or not the result is due to deflecting the nozzle #1 stream with another stream or not. To do that, turn the second pump off and just put a deflector plate at the right side of the funnel and see what the scale reads.
I am baseing this around the fact that a rocket engine produces thrust without anything to push against in space-it works via mass ejection. As i seen no effect to either nozzle when two jets of water met at right angle's,then that gave a means to divert or change the direction of the water streem-i cannot measure the small amount of force produced via water surface tension,as it seems to small.
Will be doing more test this weekend,and will carry out the one you recomended Mark.
-
I am baseing this around the fact that a rocket engine produces thrust without anything to push against in space-it works via mass ejection. As i seen no effect to either nozzle when two jets of water met at right angle's,then that gave a means to divert or change the direction of the water streem-i cannot measure the small amount of force produced via water surface tension,as it seems to small.
Will be doing more test this weekend,and will carry out the one you recomended Mark.
We are on the same page with respect to the observations. Ultimately, if we are careful, then we can see reality through the experiments.
-
If what i see so far with the test i have carried out,then this is one case when there is no equal and opposite reaction. Driving semi's for a living gives you a lot of time on the road to think of different setup's,and picture how they might work. On average,i travel around 800-1000km's a day-so pleanty of time to think.
From what i have seen so far,this project deserves a restart-going back to the begining. I havnt forgotten about my RFDD,but this has a far greater effect and force,and so this will be what gets my attention until i have the correct answer-one that is confirmed by people like your self Mark.
I have a design now in my head,(after a whole day on the road) that will also utilise the high flow of air created by the 1600 psi fan jet.This will also add to the efficiency via way of the venturi effect ! i hope!.
But first i will draw up the first test rig-post it here so as we can discus what flaws it may have for the test to be carried out.
-
Below is the test setup that will be used throughout the (A) series of test. Then it will be modified to carry out what we will call the (B) series of test.
If successful,i will spend !more money! ::) on building a stand alone system.
The first setup is just to get an accurate pull force reading on the scales. I will be using the house water supply,so as the preasure remains constant throughout the entire test series. When it comes time to use the high prssure pump,i will run both at the same time,and check pull force messurements again-just to make sure. the flow rate from the high pressure pump(fan jet) is only 5.5 LPM,so shouldnt effect the flow to the nozzle to much at all.
-
The second test,is to place a shield in front of the water jet,so as we can see the equal and opposite force at work. The scale should read zero force shown. If not,then we need to take a closer look at the setup.
-
Next we will be carrying out test 1 again,but with the high pressure fan jet cutting the water jet,so as the direction of water flow is diverted downward. Scale readings will be compared with the readings from test one.The high pressure fan jet assembly will be fixed to the RHS frame-not the swinging frame.
These are the three test i will be carrying out in the first video,and hope to have them done by sunday-7-9-14.
-
Tinman that looks like a pretty reasonable set-up. You might want to put a a full loop in the flexible section above the hinge, and make that section of hose as pliable as possible so that it does not transmit torque, one way or another to the hinged vertical section. You might also want to run a pressurized null test by replacing the nozzle with a cap and adjusting the flexible section support for as little net force in either direction as possible.
-
Hi!
Where is the inertial drive here? ;-)
M= F x r.
10N x 1m= 1N x 10m.
mass= X kg.
Upside down rocket engine on mass= X kg+ propu force. Propu force= summa mass minus mass.
-
There is nothing here.
This silly moving machine will not produce a single watt of heat energy or light energy for free.
Tinman is but a fool, his stupidity may cause his family to starve in a coming nuclear winter.
Luckily for them, they will have a cool wiggly device to look at as they die.
''Why Tinman, why, why didnt you listen to ARMCORTEX, you could of bought more bags of rice and fire wood, Im now gonna die because of you Tinman''
''Why didnt you send all our savings to ARMCORTEX, he could have saved us with his superior ideas and superior IQ, but nooo, you didnt listen to ARMCORTEX''
-
Hi!
Where is the inertial drive here? ;-)
M= F x r.
10N x 1m= 1N x 10m.
mass= X kg.
Upside down rocket engine on mass= X kg+ propu force. Propu force= summa mass minus mass.
The idea is that the thruster propellent is recollected within the system and therefore not expended, resulting in an "externally reactionless" IE propellentless drive scheme. The faucet is a convenience. Tinman's earlier test was conducted with a pair of pumps recirculating the water.
-
Tinman, I see you are spamming the boards everywhere, I cannot accept this insult to the intelligence of gravity device initiates.
I already had an idea for clever and directable (decoupled) thornton drive, wich needed no gears and was far more solid and could had had a longer arm.
I never even considered it worthy of my time, a mere afterthought, not necessary to me.
And there you are, running around with mere shit as if it was gold.
-
Tinman, I see you are spamming the boards everywhere, I cannot accept this insult to the intelligence of gravity device initiates.
I already had an idea for clever and directable (decoupled) thornton drive, wich needed no gears and was far more solid and could had had a longer arm.
I never even considered it worthy of my time, a mere afterthought, not necessary to me.
And there you are, running around with mere shit as if it was gold.
Oh dear
Have you missed a dose of your medication again Army ?
It actually sounds like you have smoked waaaay to much of your piece pipe. I see no spaming from me,but i do how ever,see lots of dribble post from your self.Your failure to see what im trying to show,is proof that you have no idea about the simplest of machines or devices.
Now run on back to the med box,and get yaself a fix.
-
There is not enough room on the servers for both of us Tinman.
Your thread is not as good as mine and you have more response.
I cannot tolerate this :)
-
There is not enough room on the servers for both of us Tinman.
Your thread is not as good as mine and you have more response.
I cannot tolerate this :)
Thats because people here can sort out the crap(yours) from those who spend the time experimenting ,and posting real result's(mine).
So once you are gone,there will be plenty of band width for me lol. :P
-
I see this a bit different.
It looks like a vector problem because you are simply combining two directional forces.
If jets A and B were the same, then this results in a jet C at the vector quantity of A and B (45 degree with twice the volume)
The new vector C still contains the original forces of A and B, and to capture this would generate the same opposite force as if A and B never intersected.
-
I see this a bit different.
It looks like a vector problem because you are simply combining two directional forces.
If jets A and B were the same, then this results in a jet C at the vector quantity of A and B (45 degree with twice the volume)
The new vector C still contains the original forces of A and B, and to capture this would generate the same opposite force as if A and B never intersected.
Given two vectors: [Xm, Y0, Z0] and [X0, Yn, Z0], the sum results in a magnitude of (m2 + n2)0.5 and a direction atan(n/m), but enither the Xm nor the Yn are lost The sight gag here is that the scale reads the Xm force even though water propellent does not leave the system.
-
Bandwidth...yep
Since you almost made me laugh, I will let your go, like a fish who wasnt be enough to bother with, too thin.
Be thankful that I showed pity, thinfish.
-
Bandwidth...yep
Since you almost made me laugh, I will let your go, like a fish who wasnt be enough to bother with, too thin.
Be thankful that I showed pity, thinfish.
I will let your go,Like a fish that wasnt be enough to bother with ??? lol.
You been smoking the piece pipe again army?. Your words truely reflect who you are-a jumbled up fool. So dont rush off army,i love a good comedy.
-
Man... wtf
I do that sometimes, its not drugs.
Anyways, your mind read it right, right ?
Cya around, my competitor, Tincan. :P Eat my dust :P
-
Man... wtf
I do that sometimes, its not drugs.
Anyways, your mind read it right, right ?
Cya around, my competitor, Tincan. :P Eat my dust :P
Lol-tincan.
I can laugh along with ya army-im an Aussie.
I can asure you i am not your competitor. I just go about my own experimenting,and post my own result's.
As Australia is mostly desert,eating dust is no problem. In fact,we normally have it on our sandwiches, when camping out. The larger grains of sand can be a bit crunchy though.
-
ahhh Australia.
The country of Chas Campbell gravity god.
Fine inventors over there.
-
Well the weather has been absolute crap here for the last few day's,and i have been house bound due to illness. So looks like there wont be much experimenting getting done here this weekend.
Will have to try again next weekend.
-
I'm sorry to hear that. Get some rest then. I hope you feel better soon.
-
I'm sorry to hear that. Get some rest then. I hope you feel better soon.
Thanks Mark. Im on the mend,but the weather is getting worse.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/24919566/severe-weather-warning/
-
Thanks Mark. Im on the mend,but the weather is getting worse.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/24919566/severe-weather-warning/ (https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/24919566/severe-weather-warning/)
Well,next time you bash the USA you might remember that we saved your ass in WWII. Since then, you Aussies gave up your guns so...best of luck to you the next time. Also, I unsubscribed to your Youtube channel considering that if you really feel that way, you have nothing to offer in science because you must be a deluded fool.
Bill
-
Well,next time you bash the USA you might remember that we saved your ass in WWII. Since then, you Aussies gave up your guns so...best of luck to you the next time. Also, I unsubscribed to your Youtube channel considering that if you really feel that way, you have nothing to offer in science because you must be a deluded fool.
Bill
Im happy that you have unsubscribed to my channel,as a deluded fool is one that thinks all the answers come by way of the gun-a true blue war monger is what you are,your nic says it all PIRATE
And just so as you get it straight next time you open your mouth,i did say government,not the people of the USA-who are indeed friends of Australia. Our government is just the same,and the people of Australia do not in any way condone the actions of war deem'd necessary by the government.
-
Im happy that you have unsubscribed to my channel,as a deluded fool is one that thinks all the answers come by way of the gun-a true blue war monger is what you are,your nic says it all PIRATE
Spoken like someone who is deluded and will need the USA to bail them out yet again. War mongers, in your words, saved your ass in WWII so, what is your problem then? Should we not have done that? Just read some history before making your opinions is all I ask. You would be dead if not for the USA. Do we do everything right? Of course not. But, we did save the world, including you, in WWII so I think we have done more right than wrong.
I have many Aussie friends that wish they could still own weapons. They get robbed by guys with guns but yet, they are not allowed to have any. How is that working for you?
Bill
-
Spoken like someone who is deluded and will need the USA to bail them out yet again. War mongers, in your words, saved your ass in WWII so, what is your problem then? Should we not have done that? Just read some history before making your opinions is all I ask. You would be dead if not for the USA. Do we do everything right? Of course not. But, we did save the world, including you, in WWII so I think we have done more right than wrong.
I have many Aussie friends that wish they could still own weapons. They get robbed by guys with guns but yet, they are not allowed to have any. How is that working for you?
Bill
Yes we seen how well the US bailed everyone out with the GFC-thanks a treat. Fortunately we were smart enough to come out of that relatively unscathed. As far as the guns go,well i answered that else where,and like i said,if you think you must own a gun,then you just go and get a licence to have one. You are mistaken by saying that our guns were taken off us-only semi automatic guns were taken from us. But join a gun club,and you can keep them too. I still have my gun's,including my high powerd rifles. In fact,it only takes 24 hours to get a gun licence over here,so the gun ban
as you call it,was just a political stunt that really did nothing at all- but it got the government voted in for a second term.
-
Well on the mend now,so hope to get the setup and test done this weekend.
-
Before i go any further with posting my finding's(along with video's),what would be the implications of proving some of set physics wrong?
Also,if a reactionless drive was actually proven beyond doubt to work,what laws of physics would it violate?
-
Before i go any further with posting my finding's(along with video's),what would be the implications of proving some of set physics wrong?
Also,if a reactionless drive was actually proven beyond doubt to work,what laws of physics would it violate?
A true working reactionless drive would violate Conservation of Momentum. It is one of the First Principles. Violating it would have profound implications for the way that we think the world around us works.
-
A true working reactionless drive would violate Conservation of Momentum. It is one of the First Principles. Violating it would have profound implications for the way that we think the world around us works.
Thanks Mark for the reply.
I am in the process of joining all the test video's together-i think your going to like the result's.
I have also completed the first test of second stage test,where as the pressure cleaner wand is now mounted on the pendulum. I think your going to like that test even more.
The first test video result's(as depicted a few post ago) should be up within 1 to1 1/2 hours. Once we discus those test,and eliminate any faults with the test i may have made,then i will post the second video showing the result's of the completed unit so far.
I also believe there is a better way than using the high pressure water jet,and would give a much better result. This would eliminate the need for the high pressure cleaner,and use only an electric motor. This new system could also be driven off the back side of the pump motor,thus meaning we need only the one motor to do the job. I will start the build on the new part of the device tomorrow.
-
A true working reactionless drive would violate Conservation of Momentum. It is one of the First Principles. Violating it would have profound implications for the way that we think the world around us works.
Could you be so generous as to write out some specific examples of how it would be violation of COM? You know, quote "one of the First Principles", and then, explain in exact detail how and why the "one of the First Principles" is being violated?
Sweeping general statements are so easy to make.....
LOL! I just did it myself! :)
CANGAS 71
-
Here is the test carried out today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8as20q1CYE&list=UUsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w
-
Could you be so generous as to write out some specific examples of how it would be violation of COM? You know, quote "one of the First Principles", and then, explain in exact detail how and why the "one of the First Principles" is being violated?
Sweeping general statements are so easy to make.....
LOL! I just did it myself! :)
CANGAS 71
Momentum is the product of mass and its velocity.
Conservation of momentum is a First Principle.
CoM means that momentum within a system is some constant value. Therefore if within some system, change of momentum in one thing requires a matching sum change of momentum of other items in the system.
A reactionless drive alters the velocity of the driven object in isolation.
-
Momentum is the product of mass and its velocity.
Conservation of momentum is a First Principle.
CoM means that momentum within a system is some constant value. Therefore if within some system, change of momentum in one thing requires a matching sum change of momentum of other items in the system.
A reactionless drive alters the velocity of the driven object in isolation.
I will generously assume that you made your very best effort to explain your discontent re reactionless drive in SPECIFIC TERMS and examples.
Thank you for doing your best.
I suggest that you immediately investigate the meaning of "specific" in your nearest dictionary.
CANGAS 74
-
Here is the test carried out today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8as20q1CYE&list=UUsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w
Nice.
-
I will generously assume that you made your very best effort to explain your discontent re reactionless drive in SPECIFIC TERMS and examples.
Thank you for doing your best.
I suggest that you immediately investigate the meaning of "specific" in your nearest dictionary.
CANGAS 74
LOL
-
There used to be these toys back in the 80s, basically a top, with a gyro in it. They would start on the ground, pullstring to make it spin. The gyro would then fly upwards in a very uncontrolled wabbly fashion, then land when it slowed down and end its journey like a normal spinning top.
Momentum is always conserved. Change the angular momentum, and you change the directional force.
-
Funny, i've also had this idea that it's about changing the rotational speed of a gyroscope for some time now.
-
There used to be these toys back in the 80s, basically a top, with a gyro in it. They would start on the ground, pullstring to make it spin. The gyro would then fly upwards in a very uncontrolled wabbly fashion, then land when it slowed down and end its journey like a normal spinning top.
Momentum is always conserved. Change the angular momentum, and you change the directional force.
Are you sure they wernt the one's that had the fan blades,as i had those.
-
Enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-JF4a6qyDs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-JF4a6qyDs)
Hi Tinman
I watched the above video and your last one with the water deflection.
Sadly from what I can see MarkE is correct.
What you have failed to properly take into consideration and it is a very important consideration, is the torque applied by the spinning motor.
This torque will create both a sideways torque and a rotation about the axis (think precession).
You did argue that you reversed the motor and got the same deflection. But we have not seen this I'd like to see the whole thing run with the motor operating in both directions. Hopefully you prove me wrong.
Also I played with the water (liquid) theory a while back and unfortunately it is a serious dead end. I personally would not spend any time on it. Though you are welcome to if you wish. The video showed in my opinion, zero effect.
The other thing is its not a closed system!
While you are concentrating on the water leaving the nozzle you are ignoring the water flowing through the system. There is no possible way to "close the loop". I know, I have tried :( . all attempts to return the water to the nozzle (nozzles) results in a cancellation of the effect.
It is most important to note the following. As the water flows around the system anytime it is deflected by the sidewalls of the pipe (around a bend) there is an equal and opposite reaction. Thus taking water from the "collector" to the pump and then back to the nozzles results in zero gain.
Please don't take this as criticism. You are where I was 3 or 4 years ago. lots of learning to do yet. Its the learning that's the fun part.
But this does not mean I don't believe in reaction-less drives. It just so happens I do. In fact the reason I read this thread is because I believe I have cracked this nut. I wanted to see what the state of play is and so far I have not seen anyone either on these forums or through patent searches that has the answer.
Of course MarkE will argue I am wrong, it can't be done. So until I have solid proof I am leaving it as it is. You may recall I am a very big critic of OU. hopefully my previous form will give pause. Either I am losing it or perhaps I am on to something.
In the meant time keep at it. Just remember there is no such thing as a negligible force when dealing with a reaction less drive. Every small reaction must be accounted for, and you mist look in every nook and cranny for it. The most important place to look is whenever a fluid or mass changes direction. The velocity of the mass DOES NOT COUNT. It's the velocity over time that counts. In other words running a weight slower around one portion of a device provides as much force as running the same weight around the other portion but over a shorter time frame. This last one is the basis of many a failed patent.
I think MarkE will attest to that last one. (its a variation of the old energy versus power argument).
A couple more things. Don't use a pendulum test, its deceiving, your device must operate at 90 degrees to the force of gravity otherwise your results may be erroneous. If you use wheels they must be omnidirectional to avoid the "ice skater effect". Bunnies has suitable wheels for just a dollar or two.
Now I have to go and buy some bearings. Too much friction in my test device....
-
CuriousChris I go with what the weight of evidence tells us. At this point in time it tells us that there isn't any known way to propel something without moving something else recognizable the opposite way. That gives me a very low expectation that a reactionless drive can be devised. Should someone come up with strong contrary evidence, then the collective we would be remiss to ignore such evidence.
-
I agree Mark. The weight of evidence is against a reactionless drive. I am pinning my hopes on that being only because not all evidence has been considered.
I believe I have accounted for all arguments and am confident that my theories are correct. my simplistic testing at this point confirms my theory of operation. But as you are aware we can get caught by the unexpected or the dismissed as trivial.
One argument that crops up all the time is such a device would be a perpetual motion machine. If my theory is correct I will prove that it is not a perpetual motion machine and without energy input it cannot move, There is no breaking of newtons laws, not even a sidestepping. The other argument most commonly used is the "closed system" argument. This most commonly used argument does take into account there is no such thing as a closed system, except perhaps the universe itself.
Time will only tell. Sadly work takes precedence and I have to wait for my bearings to come from china, I have not found a local supplier :( .
If nothing else it will be a learning exercise.
-
Ultimately the evidence will tell the story.