[paulggriffiths (OP)]

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).

Well said...

[Bored chemist]

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).

Well said...

And it's no use whatsoever in air, never mind in space.
So you have a "space ship" that can crawl inefficiently along the ground, yet you think it's going to earn you more money than the entire US produces in a year
LOL

Do you understand why I think your ideas have no credibility?

[paulggriffiths (OP)]

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).

Well said...

And it's no use whatsoever in air, never mind in space.
So you have a "space ship" that can crawl inefficiently along the ground, yet you think it's going to earn you more money than the entire US produces in a year
LOL

Do you understand why I think your ideas have no credibility?

I want a family 10 generation's patent actually.

[Bored chemist]

Do you understand why I think your ideas have no credibility?

[paulggriffiths (OP)]

[

Do you understand why I think your ideas have no credibility?

[Bored chemist]

[

Do you understand why I think your ideas have no credibility?

Please disregard all previous signatures.

So, that's a "no" then.

[paulggriffiths (OP)]

[

Do you understand why I think your ideas have no credibility?

Please disregard all previous signatures.

So, that's a "no" then.

[Bored chemist]

OK, I will try to explain.
One reason why you don't have any credibility is that when someone asks you a question, you post nonsense.

Another is that you say things that are clearly not right.

Posting pictures of chimps is yet another thing that makes it clear that you are not able to engage in sensible discussion.

[paulggriffiths (OP)]

OK, I will try to explain.
One reason why you don't have any credibility is that when someone asks you a question, you post nonsense.

Another is that you say things that are clearly not right.

Posting pictures of chimps is yet another thing that makes it clear that you are not able to engage in sensible discussion.

You're only 152 messages...

[Kryptid]

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).

Ah yes, I've seen just such devices "work" on Youtube videos due to this friction effect. As you say, it won't work for flight or space travel.

[paulggriffiths (OP)]

Bored Chemist & Kryptid, what would you're chosen projects be?

[Kryptid]

Bored Chemist & Kryptid, what would you're chosen projects be?

I've thought about a lot of potential inventions in the past, but I don't have any that are occupying me at the moment. Most of these are from my high school/pre-high school days:

- Perpetual motion machine based on permanent magnets (would not have worked).
- Perpetual motion machine based on a nuclear fusion-nuclear fission plant combination (would not have worked).
- Antigravity device based on a laser-powered, spinning, superconducting disk (would not have worked).
- Laser-like device that shoots a beam of negative energy to cool things off instead of heating them up (would not have worked).
- Fusion reactor that uses neutrons generated by a fission reactor to produce energy (would make too little energy to be practical).
- "Solar panel" that uses a magnifying glass to heat up a thermocouple to generate power (probably too inefficient).
- Cold fusion reactor that uses atoms where the electrons are replaced by W- bosons (would not have worked due to instability of W- bosons).
- "Solar panel" that uses hydrogen fluoride vaporizing and then condensing to produce power as it uses a mobile shade to cool off or warm up the container of hydrogen fluoride (probably too inefficient).

My track record of ideas isn't too good, though sometimes I have come up with ideas similar to other people. I sort of independently came up with the idea of an exoskeletal engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoskeletal_engine while at work one day, although the difference between my design and the one on the Wiki is that mine would have rotor blades attached to both an outer spool and an inner spool (in order to make the best use of both the tensile and compressive strength of the rotor blades). I've also thought up a lot of molecules, usually explosives and network solids. However, in those cases, it would probably be better to say I "discovered" the possibility of the structures instead of "inventing" them. Others have found many of those same structures independently, however (nitryl cyanide, for example).

[alancalverd]

The slip/stick principle has been used for millions of years by fish, various seeds and parasites, and some mammals (try dragging a hedgehog  out of a hole backwards), a few thousand years by crosscountry skiers, and more recently by telephone engineers who use an eccentric flywheel mounted between two brushes to drag a cable through a pipe. Since it depends on the conservation of momentum, it is just an extreme example of all forms of propulsion.

[evan_au]

I've thought about a lot of potential inventions in the past...
- Perpetual motion machine based on permanent magnets (would not have worked).....

'When I was your age, I always (believed in impossible things) for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

There is  no shame in dreaming up impossible things.
- The important thing is that you quickly understand why they are impossible
- And then go on to something which is possible
- Many advances in science and engineering have come about through understanding the limits of a technology, and finding some "loophole" or "exception case" where the normal limits can be exceeded

It won't help a bird fly, as air is a Newtonian fluid, and does not exhibit slip/stick friction.

Thinking about it some more, there may be an exception to this normal behavior of air: as you approach the supersonic range, air exhibits some nonlinear behavior.

You may be able to propel an aeroplane by having a ram which pushes behind at supersonic speeds, and then retracts more slowly.
It would be horribly inefficient. It would also be very annoying, as it would emit a continual stream of sonic booms, even when hovering.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)#Wave_drag_in_transonic_and_supersonic_flow

[paulggriffiths (OP)]

Well I'm a happy man, my pistons engine design has improved and I'm quite positive about up to 200 times more power efficient engine compared to current current technology. Ill call it OEPSCE. To claim as inventor to right to patent as of yesterday. . Some of you are thinking 'yea right'. I'm quite positive. PG

[evan_au]

my pistons engine design has improved...up to 200 times more power efficient engine compared to current technology

Current technology for piston engines in cars is around 20% efficiency.

200 times better is - 4000% efficiency!

That means you get 40 times the energy out than what you put in.
This is a "Perpetual Motion Machine of the first kind", something that violates the laws of thermodynamics.
Take a working model to the patent office, and you will make a billion dollars (unless someone comes up with a quite different way that produces 50 times the input energy...).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion#Classification

[Kryptid]

Current technology for piston engines in cars is around 20% efficiency.

200 times better is - 4000% efficiency!

That means you get 40 times the energy out than what you put in.
This is a "Perpetual Motion Machine of the first kind", something that violates the laws of thermodynamics.
Take a working model to the patent office, and you will make a billion dollars (unless someone comes up with a quite different way that produces 50 times the input energy...).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion#Classification

I was going to make a comment exactly like this one when I got off from work. Looks like you beat me to it. Now I have to wonder what kind of math paulgriffiths used to reach his "200 times more power efficient" figure.

[Bored chemist]

OK, I will try to explain.
One reason why you don't have any credibility is that when someone asks you a question, you post nonsense.

Another is that you say things that are clearly not right.

Posting pictures of chimps is yet another thing that makes it clear that you are not able to engage in sensible discussion.

You're only 152 messages...

Would you  like to add some sense to that?

[Bored chemist]

Bored Chemist & Kryptid, what would you're chosen projects be?

Mine would be


Irrelevant to the thread and to the question of whether or not your pipe dreams would work.

[paulggriffiths (OP)]

Bored Chemist & Kryptid, what would you're chosen projects be?

Mine would be


Irrelevant to the thread and to the question of whether or not your pipe dreams would work.

OK Chemist, I know you like not liking me which is fine and not a problem...
So, are you a capable problem solver?

Using math "how do you know if you have entered a door frame and not gone around it from one moment to the next?"