Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: aspagnito on 02/07/2011 15:37:06
-
Tsup,
I just figured out a way to solve one problem. Let's say there are two circles that have the same middle. One of them is bigger and one of them is smaller. Both of them are trajectories of masses. In the outer one, the mass moves twice that slower then in the inner circle, but the centrifugal forces of both of them have the same vallue. The circles not only have the same middle but are attached to each other with this middle.
So that on one of the sides of such a configuration the centrifugal forces double and on the other "dissapear".
Sinsilly Yours..
Remigiusz Fajfer
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-5vz3bjxdSRs%2FTg8K6X6h3DI%2FAAAAAAAAAAs%2FUHgw_GrMgTo%2Fs320%2Fnap%2525C4%252599d%2Bnieodrzutowy.jpg&hash=53b3b0c8420598d7b01135992a46774e)
-
The whole action-reaction thing would keep this device from generating a net propulsive force. As the mass is propelled upwards by the rotation, the same amount of force which moves it upward will push the rest of the device (the assembly to which the mass is attached) downward. As the mass is pulled back down, the assembly will be pulled up in response. The net forces cancel out.
-
You say, that when the centrifugal force moves the mass "up", the magic something-something keeps it down. Imagine, just picture a mass with such a centrifugal force. It "vibrates", but only because the mass is once on the "up" of the circle, and sometimes on the "down".
I know Newton's Laws, but I don't think that certainity is good for this case.
And one thing - as the mass is pulled up, the assembly is pulled up too. Elsewhere the assembly wouldn't vibrate.
-
Why wouldn't Newton's laws apply? They apply to every other system we can observe: Hold a medicine ball in your hands, then push it away from you forcefully (whilst still holding onto it). You'll feel yourself being pushed away in response. Pull the medicine ball back towards you, and you will feel pulled forward.
I recall that I once thought of pretty much this same design as a child (when I was interested in reactionless propulsion) and I've also seen a computer-generated animation on Youtube of a device very similar to this one. I'll see if I can find it some time.
Of course, the only way to prove your concept is to build it and see if it works.
-
Could someone please explain what effort propulsion is please?
-
Take a look at this video:
You will probably be interested in the device at 2:30. Take note how it does not develop net movement.
-
SuperC - that's lovely experimental work on the video, nice find. Amazing that after such a demonstration many of the commenters still insisted it should work!
-
I watched the video but unfortunately I still do not grasp what this concept is because all I can see are things spinning about and just wobbling as you would expect them to do.
Is the idea to try and make something move or levitate? If that's the idea then I guess the experiments fail miserably....
I found this video on Youtube, is this kinda what it's all about?
Please note in the video that a man is in a canoe that is supposed to be propelled by this device in which the designer says is 20 times more efficient then a jet engine. Notice the arm of the man sitting in the canoe as he pushes himself along the edge of the swimming pool! [;D]
-
The claim (which is baloney) is that by organising the wobbles you can make a net force in one single direction - and use this force to move an object.
The youtube clip provided by SuperC showed some beautifully made little engines which according to the dodgy theory should have made progress along the rails - all they did was wobble! The fact that the canoe (in the clip you provided) had to be shoved along - and when it was in the middle of the pool we never saw the front (perhaps to avoid showing the rope), leads to further doubt.
Each force has an equal and opposite reactive force - you cannot finesse this with these engines to provide a net directional force
-
Twenty more times efficiency then a jet engine! lol, lol...... wibble wobble black bobble, wibble wobble out! [;D]
-
The clip says it's from "The Race to Zero Point"
It looks like they have arrived; there is no (precisely zero) point to this.
-
First thing with this video is that the guy lies a bit. - Why does the srew stop the second wheel? Couldn't he make sprockets do all job? Second thing is that if he wants to move the assembly, the "arms" should spread not in parallel to the track of the motion, but perpendicularly to the track.
And there goes the same propulsion the guy just "prooved" that it does not work
by the way - it's not his idea... it's called "Thornson Inertial Engine" and the full description is over here:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/TIE.htm
by the way - even on this page the "arms" are spread parallel to the motion track - which makes the inertial engine less effective. They should be spreading as they're perpendicular.
-
The whole action-reaction thing would keep this device from generating a net propulsive force. As the mass is propelled upwards by the rotation, the same amount of force which moves it upward will push the rest of the device (the assembly to which the mass is attached) downward. As the mass is pulled back down, the assembly will be pulled up in response. The net forces cancel out.
That is wrong assumption. Mass is propelled only in direction of centrifugal force, and will be propelled upwards only if upwards is in direction of centrifugal force :).
Tsup,
I just figured out a way to solve one problem. Let's say there are two circles that have the same middle. One of them is bigger and one of them is smaller. Both of them are trajectories of masses. In the outer one, the mass moves twice that slower then in the inner circle, but the centrifugal forces of both of them have the same vallue. The circles not only have the same middle but are attached to each other with this middle.
So that on one of the sides of such a configuration the centrifugal forces double and on the other "dissapear".
Sinsilly Yours..
Remigiusz Fajfer
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-5vz3bjxdSRs%2FTg8K6X6h3DI%2FAAAAAAAAAAs%2FUHgw_GrMgTo%2Fs320%2Fnap%2525C4%252599d%2Bnieodrzutowy.jpg&hash=53b3b0c8420598d7b01135992a46774e)
There's just no way that those forces could add up to anything but 0. The inertial force (centrifugal force) has two components (if we take your setup for example), and its x-axis component is Fx=cos(angle)*k, and its y-axis component is Fy=sin(angle)*k ("k" is a constant defined by dimensions of this system). If you integrate these components over any 2*pi integer multiple you'll get 0 as a result, and when this thing is rotating 2*n*pi point is pretty often ;).
-
Now that's a complete meesh-mash. The picture shows exactly nothing else but a superposition of the centrifugal forces.
All You did was drawing a circle and saying there's nothing to add. Look at the picture and show a mistake there if there is any.
Besides... Newton's Laws are only valid for inertial assemblies and not valid for not inertial assemblies. Newton probably knew that situations like these might appear.
As for the first "wrong assumption" - it is good only in this case.
If we're speaking the way "hell-no"... please comment the movie I recently placed here.
I don't know if You're a bad mathematician, or just joking... add this
Fx=cos(angle)*k, Fy=sin(angle)*k
with
Fx=cos(2*angle)*k, Fy=sin(2*angle)*k
and You'll get a result
-
If this machine actually works, then why hasn't Roy Thornson been awarded a Nobel Prize or at least caused textbooks to be rewritten?
I'm wondering if the reason that the boat was able to progress across the water was due to friction forces. Water is slippery, yes, but it isn't frictionless. A hard shove in one direction might allow you to travel further than a soft shove in the other direction when friction is involved.
If you were to suspend this inertial device in a vacuum using something like a superconducting magnet, and it could still make forward progress, then that would be interesting.
Also, the idea of it having an efficiency 20-fold over a jet engine isn't that impressive anyway because jet engines are already notoriously inefficient; you'd measure a jet plane's fuel consumption in gallons per mile instead of miles per gallon!
-
Action and reaction should hold anywhere in a circle, over a plane. The only thing you will get is a wobbling effect as the mass delivers its 'punches' all over it in time. If it hold in one direction in 'one time sequence' it must hold in another 'time sequence' directed another way too. Action and reaction is a symmetry, you will find it work any which way you try it.
It's simple.
=
Although inside a sphere you can make it work, walking the slope :)
But that's gravity. (On the ground I mean, not in space.)
-
I'm wondering if the reason that the boat was able to progress across the water was due to friction forces.
I think you could be asking a good question. If the mechanism created a small lateral (or even vertical) vibration towards the rear of the hull, it would make the hull act like a sort of "fishtail" paddle and produce a resultant forward force.
-
Geezer, that really does make a lot of sense, I think you have cracked it. Fishy tails! [;D]
-
Now that's a complete meesh-mash. The picture shows exactly nothing else but a superposition of the centrifugal forces.
All You did was drawing a circle and saying there's nothing to add. Look at the picture and show a mistake there if there is any.
Besides... Newton's Laws are only valid for inertial assemblies and not valid for not inertial assemblies. Newton probably knew that situations like these might appear.
As for the first "wrong assumption" - it is good only in this case.
If we're speaking the way "hell-no"... please comment the movie I recently placed here.
I don't know if You're a bad mathematician, or just joking... add this
Fx=cos(angle)*k, Fy=sin(angle)*k
with
Fx=cos(2*angle)*k, Fy=sin(2*angle)*k
and You'll get a result
Oh, come on! I didn't mean to offend you :). Add whatever sin or cos function with linear variable (in our case angle), and you'll get 0. You can add even cos(3*angle), and cos(4*angle)... ( or sin(3*angle) and sin(4*angle)...) to all this, and still you'll have 0 over a base period.
And another thing... There is something wrong with that drawing. The inner circle (the one that is spinning faster) will have negative pull on the device twice (negative in comparison to desired direction). Try to plot both functions, it should be more obvious that way.
Don't get me wrong, I am happy that people are trying to "walk around" established reasoning. I am just pointing out the obvious facts.
PS Nice reasoning by Supercryptid.