[Kryptid]

Your impact drive will not work. You get the same amount of movement whether you move a weight quickly or slowly. The only difference it creates is the amount of time it takes for the weight to move a certain distance up and down. If you have a weight in a vehicle that is floating in space above the Earth and you push that weight up with a force of 150 kilonewtons, the rest of the ship will be pushed down by 150 kilonewtons as well. That is Newton's third law in action. For every action (the weight being pushed up) there is an equal and opposite reaction (the ship being pushed down by the same amount of force). Once the weight stops moving, there will no longer be a force acting on the ship at all and it will stop moving altogether.

On the return stroke, when the weight is being pushed down, the same amount of force will push the ship up now. It doesn't matter if this force is the same as the up-stroke (150 kilonewtons), more than the upstroke or less than the upstroke: you get the same result. The ship is pushed in the opposite direction of the weight until the weight stops moving, at which point the ship stops moving too. It's inevitable. You can do the math yourself if you are unconvinced.

Birds do not fly by this principle. They fly by pushing air downward. If you take careful note of how a bird's wings are positioned during flight, you will notice that the angle of attack of the wings changes as they move up and down. It is not at all like moving a weight up and down to create movement.

[Bored chemist]

Thebox, yes sorry I got it wrong. 

There's clever adults and clever teens.
Then there's serious people...

And there are serious clever people- who understand that this proves that your project won't work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
I realise that you don't understand it, but that doesn't stop it being true.

[Bored chemist]

I have been alive for something like 1,356,048,000 seconds

That's about forty odd years, so this claim you made earlier isn't true, is it?

Been occasionally thinking about this before the internet when young. Then the internet came out and with that power was wondering

You were not alive before the internet was here.

[paulggriffiths (OP)]

I have been alive for something like 1,356,048,000 seconds

That's about forty odd years, so this claim you made earlier isn't true, is it?

Been occasionally thinking about this before the internet when young. Then the internet came out and with that power was wondering

You were not alive before the internet was here.

Originally it was for academics and such over phone lines.
Remember when BBC had it's first address?Around then.

[paulggriffiths (OP)]

Thebox, yes sorry I got it wrong. 

There's clever adults and clever teens.
Then there's serious people...

And there are serious clever people- who understand that this proves that your project won't work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
I realise that you don't understand it, but that doesn't stop it being true.

Wrong webpage bandit, that's angles, and not related to relative impact.
Go Chemist...

[paulggriffiths (OP)]

Your impact drive will not work. You get the same amount of movement whether you move a weight quickly or slowly. The only difference it creates is the amount of time it takes for the weight to move a certain distance up and down. If you have a weight in a vehicle that is floating in space above the Earth and you push that weight up with a force of 150 kilonewtons, the rest of the ship will be pushed down by 150 kilonewtons as well. That is Newton's third law in action. For every action (the weight being pushed up) there is an equal and opposite reaction (the ship being pushed down by the same amount of force). Once the weight stops moving, there will no longer be a force acting on the ship at all and it will stop moving altogether.

On the return stroke, when the weight is being pushed down, the same amount of force will push the ship up now. It doesn't matter if this force is the same as the up-stroke (150 kilonewtons), more than the upstroke or less than the upstroke: you get the same result. The ship is pushed in the opposite direction of the weight until the weight stops moving, at which point the ship stops moving too. It's inevitable. You can do the math yourself if you are unconvinced.

Birds do not fly by this principle. They fly by pushing air downward. If you take careful note of how a bird's wings are positioned during flight, you will notice that the angle of attack of the wings changes as they move up and down. It is not at all like moving a weight up and down to create movement.

I'm glad you enjoyed the time...
Newtons laws of motion are not motion and then impact. It had a result didn't it? Needs to controlled.
I'm not expecting 100% efficiency, expecting 60-75% but as I have as good as unlimited energy, who cares.
Anyway, devote your time to your own project? Then you can complain to yourself... got to more interesting than complaining to a computer screen? uuh?

[Bored chemist]

Wrong webpage bandit, that's angles, and not related to relative impact.
Go Chemist...

I said you wouldn't understand it.
I will try to explain.
The law of conservation of momentum proves that a ship in space can't move without, in effect, something to push against.

Noether's theorem shows that the conservation law is true.
It's a mathematical proof that it's true; there's no real "wriggle room".

So, you can't move a ship by waving stuff around in it.
So your "invention" can not work.

[guest39538]

Wrong webpage bandit, that's angles, and not related to relative impact.
Go Chemist...

I said you wouldn't understand it.
I will try to explain.
The law of conservation of momentum proves that a ship in space can't move without, in effect, something to push against.

Noether's theorem shows that the conservation law is true.
It's a mathematical proof that it's true; there's no real "wriggle room".

So, you can't move a ship by waving stuff around in it.
So your "invention" can not work.

Isn't that like saying a rocket has no thrust in space? 

[Bored chemist]

Isn't that like saying a rocket has no thrust in space? 

No, it isn't.
If it had been like saying something that's clearly not true, I'd not have said it.


A rocket has thrust because it pushes the hot gases out the back.
Gas goes one way and the rocket goes the other.

[Kryptid]

I'm glad you enjoyed the time...
Newtons laws of motion are not motion and then impact. It had a result didn't it? Needs to controlled.
I'm not expecting 100% efficiency, expecting 60-75% but as I have as good as unlimited energy, who cares.
Anyway, devote your time to your own project? Then you can complain to yourself... got to more interesting than complaining to a computer screen? uuh?

Fine. If you're not interested in learning why your device cannot possibly work, I won't bother you about it any further.

[paulggriffiths (OP)]

Ignoring the non-inventors who enjoy there precious days denying every post but what they personally believe I think I'm getting somewhere with my MOID. I'm going in to the theory of it at a detailed pace and gaining profit, I'm just hopping enough to keep it up in the air... I'm not expecting shooting up in to the clouds just yet though...

[paulggriffiths (OP)]

Isn't that like saying a rocket has no thrust in space? 

No, it isn't.
If it had been like saying something that's clearly not true, I'd not have said it.


A rocket has thrust because it pushes the hot gases out the back.
Gas goes one way and the rocket goes the other.

What it should be is a resizable outlet with the walls at a slight angle as when the jet increases it gets wider and due to angles efficiency is lost.
1,000,000 jets * £1,000 = another £1,000,000,000 to me!
Or I get 25% of the profit from the less fuel. £10,000,000,000,000 
You wouldn't want the jet to be any wider than the outlet. You could lose up to 1/2 the power at the outer.
Replace the blades with my advanced propeller and even better!
Thanks Chemist. Go Chemist!

[paulggriffiths (OP)]

If an object is moving up in to the air, I need to know how gravity will affect it in math over time.
Any calculators or equations?

[Kryptid]

If I throw an object 10 mph up in to the air, I need to know how gravity will affect it in math over time.
Any calculators or equations?

This might help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_for_a_falling_body. Keep in mind that the time it takes for an object to reach its maximum height after being thrown upward is equal to the time it takes for that same object to fall back down to your level. If you know the mass and kinetic energy of the object being thrown, you can calculate how high it will go by using the gravitational potential energy calculator I posted earlier. These equations, however, are only valid in a vacuum. Although you can calculate drag due to the air, it adds an extra layer of complication and is strongly dependent upon the shape of the object.

[Bored chemist]

Thanks for clarifying your status as delusional.

Or I get 25% of the profit from the less fuel. £10,000,000,000,000

That's roughly the USA's current annual GDP.

[paulggriffiths (OP)]

Bored Chemist, I like you, or more to the point I don't, and more so you saying not possible! I saying, the good, bad & you're ugly.

[Bored chemist]

Bored Chemist, I like you, or more to the point I don't, and more so you saying not possible! I saying, the good, bad & you're ugly.

Whether  I'm good bad or ugly isn't the point, is it?

This is a science web page,and you are not doing anything like science.
You are just  sticking words together.

[paulggriffiths (OP)]

Bored Chemist, I like you, or more to the point I don't, and more so you saying not possible! I saying, the good, bad & you're ugly.

Whether  I'm good bad or ugly isn't the point, is it?

This is a science web page,and you are not doing anything like science.
You are just  sticking words together.

... and numbers with 2 of the fundamental forces of physics. Fancy going on a journey to the edge of the universe?

[Bored chemist]

Fancy going on a journey to the edge of the universe?

Yes, but you haven't come up with anything like a means to get there.

[evan_au]

You can't generate net forward movement just by shifting a weight around inside of an object, no matter how quickly or slowly.

There is a way this could work - if the object is sitting on a surface which experiences slip/stick friction.

Accelerating a piston gradually does not generate enough force to overcome the stickiness of the friction.
Stopping the piston quickly does generate a high force (for a short time), overcomes the sticking friction, and will slip the object forward (for a short distance).

It won't help a bird fly, as air is a Newtonian fluid, and does not exhibit slip/stick friction.
It won't accelerate a spaceship either, as a vacuum does not exhibit slick/stick friction (or friction of any kind).