[Bored chemist]

I shouldn't need to say it buut ; photons are NOT bulk matter . 

You didn't need to say it.
Nobody had said that photons were bulk matter.
That's just some sh1t you made up.
You should realise that we will spot that sort of thing, point it out  and leave you looking a bit silly.

  10% of kinetic energy is transferred  to the Massive Plate , 90% of KE is retained by glass ball after rebound  . Now, Beanbag on Steel : 55/45/0.
55% of kinetic energy is transferred  to Massive Plate , 45% becomes molecular momentum during "bonding" , .002% is retained as rebound KE . 

Which part of "Energy does not work in the same way as momentum." do you not understand?

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

"It's exactly the same thing .  Why would it be different ?"
 Sounds like somebody forgot their castor oil this morn ! 
 Seriously though ?  My engine doesn't give a flying fleep about your momentum strictures , only about kinetic energy transfer .  So far , it's right too !
Wah-haha-haha !
P.M.

[Bored chemist]

Which part of "Energy does not work in the same way as momentum." do you not understand?

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

 It's a good thing that "energy does not work in the same way..." , this frees me up to piss energy all over the universe without suffering from that obnoxious "rocket equation" !
P.M.

[Bored chemist]

It's a good thing that "energy does not work in the same way..." , this frees me up to piss energy all over the universe without suffering from that obnoxious "rocket equation" !
P.M.

Great!
Progress.
Now all you need to do is recognise that the obnoxious rocket equation is a law of physics (and is independent of the conservation of energy).

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

......................Recap .
The system contains a number of recycling units of kinetic energy .  Reducing the velocity of units by friction reduces the system energy ( momentum ) asymmetrically , thus engendering an effective "push" on the entire unit .
 Obviously , since no reaction mass  is used , the  Rocket Equation Law is bypassed .  There's always a tricK , eh !
P.M.

[Bored chemist]

......................Recap .
The system contains a number of recycling units of kinetic energy .  Reducing the velocity of units by friction reduces the system energy ( momentum ) asymmetrically , thus engendering an effective "push" on the entire unit .
 Obviously , since no reaction mass  is used , the  Rocket Equation Law is bypassed .  There's always a tricK , eh !
P.M.

Word salad is not sufficient to overturn the laws of physics.

And you still need to learn the difference between momentum and energy.
They two quantities are separate, so saying things like "reducing the velocity of units by friction reduces the system energy ( momentum ) asymmetrically " makes no sense.

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

It's mechanic speak , kind of like an engine repair-manual .  This IS a special purpose machine .  How's about that Coefficient Of Restitution Table ? Ain't nothin' like some basic math to set ya straight!
 Also , the kinetic energy and the momentum rise and fall together , though ASYMMETRICALLY ! 
 Think of this as an engine that works by applying suction to the cylinder , instead of pressure .  It might be weak , but it would work !
 Logic exercise over .
.......P.M. 

[Bored chemist]

Also , the kinetic energy and the momentum rise and fall together ,

No.
They don't.

Do you not realise that just because you say something, that doesn't make it true?

Ain't nothin' like some basic math to set ya straight!

And you have yet to do any relevant maths.

How's about that Coefficient Of Restitution Table ?

What about it?
The only person here who has misunderstood it is you.
You don't understand that losing 50% of the energy is not the same as losing 50% of the velocity.

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

I already quoted the necessary rebound percentages .  The imbalance is obvious , thus the principle of USING this imbalance to engender push (asymmetric thrust) should be easily understood by all .  Motion imbalance is the causative factor for most reciprocating engines ; a good enough guide-line I think ! 
 Hey , I know , think of it as negative energy .  That should produce a Woody Harrelson !
P.M.

[Bored chemist]

I already quoted the necessary rebound percentages

Yes, You quoted them.
And you made it clear that you didn't understand them.

a good enough guide-line I think ! 

You think that.
Reality disagrees.

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

Replies #107&109 show that I understand PLENTY !  Your constant repetition of established dogma , combined with a total refusal to acknowledge the basic math involved , tends to make the discussion both boring , & stupid .  I am under no obligation to subject myself to such !
P.M.
P.S.- ALL engines manipulate matter and energy in complex ways , this one is no different !

[Bored chemist]

a total refusal to acknowledge the basic math involved

I have repeatedly explained that you have done maths, but not the right maths.
You need to calculate momentum changes and you have not done that.
If you had (or even if you read + understood wher I have done so for you) you would understand why your silly idea doesn't work.

I am under no obligation to subject myself to such !

Indeed.
Any time you want to stop posting trash is fine by me.

Replies #107&109 show that I understand PLENTY

No, they do not.
OK, let's have a quick look at one.

I already quoted the necessary rebound percentages . 

Yes, you did.
Repeatedly.
But you don't understand that the percentages for velocity are not the same as those for energy. This is not evidence that you "understand PLENTY"

The imbalance is obvious

Yes, it is obviously that if you throw thing about inside a spaceship, you can get it to move (as seen from outside). If you are clever, you can make the ship rotate (as seen from outside).
What you can't do is get it to move continuously in 1 direction without something to push against.
You fail to properly take account of the momentum transfers when the thrown things come to a halt.
This is not evidence that you "understand PLENTY"

thus the principle of USING this imbalance to engender push (asymmetric thrust) should be easily understood by all . 

The issue is not that we don't understand it, the problem is that you don't (see above) and that is why, while it's perfectly obvious, it's not true so once again This is not evidence that you "understand PLENTY"

Motion imbalance is the causative factor for most reciprocating engines ;

That's just gibberish.
The cause of reciprocating engines is that people make them.
Engines are actually carefully designed to try to balance the forces involved. People get paid to do it.
http://www.balancingservices.co.uk/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIh4my5Kvb3gIVbpPtCh3F0QxeEAAYASAAEgLu8fD_BwE

So, again this isn't evidence that you "understand PLENTY".

; a good enough guide-line I think ! 

The fact  that bouncing something transfers more momentum than having it stick is counterintuitive, but demonstrably true.
Your thoughts do not influence reality. The fact that you act as if they do is not evidence that you "understand PLENTY".

 Hey , I know , think of it as negative energy .

It doesn't matter much how you think of it.
The fact is that experiments have shown that you are wrong (and the fact is made use of in practical machines like turbines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelton_wheel
So, once more,  this isn't evidence that you "understand PLENTY".

That should produce a Woody Harrelson !

That's evidence of you being a dick, rather than  evidence that you "understand PLENTY".

The only real question left is are you an idiot or a troll?

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

..............Bouncy - Bouncy !
Go to Physics Stack Exchange :
"Why is momentum conserved when a ball hits a vertical wall ?"
The difference in momentum is directional , not quantitative !  The hard ball rebounds having transferred very little kinetic energy  to the steel wall .  This opposes the  beanbag transferring more than 1/2 of it's kinetic energy to it's  steel wall .  As I said before , this is solid shove versus light dink .  The solid shove pushes the box in it's direction far harder than the dink !  These kinds of imbalances are what engines run on , witness the symmetrical outward push of a combustion chamber explosion .  Asymmetrical use of this push results in asymmetrical action , i.e. the pushing down of the piston .  The difference here is that my symmetrical throws experience asymmetrical actions , resulting in asymmetrical pushes to the walls .
 My analysis of your reasoning indicates a fixation on Newtonian Physics .  Problem is , Einstein predominates here .  E=MC2 does mean that ejecting/converting energy uni-directionally should be equivalent to ejecting mass/matter  unidirectionally .
Well , waddya know !  I feel like a Troll with a giant stick today !
P.M.

[Bored chemist]

This opposes the  beanbag transferring more than 1/2 of it's kinetic energy to it's  steel wall .

Just for a start, it doesn't. Much of the energy is lost as heat.

This opposes the  beanbag transferring more than 1/2 of it's kinetic energy to it's  steel wall .  As I said before , this is solid shove versus light dink

You still refuse to understand that it's the momentum which gives the shove, rather than the kinetic energy.
(You may notice that your weird world where  energy and momentum are treated the same is sufficiently different from the real world that the mods have moved you into "new theories".)

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

..............Different Tack .
Let’s assume that the beanbag and the steel ball both push the wall equally hard , thus cancelling out .  You are still left with a steel ball flying across the UNMOVING box ! When that hits it's target sandbag , what will be the result ? 
 You are having a conceptual problem here because this is a compound system , not a single impact .  It opposes elastic and inelastic collisions , that complicates the issue !
As for the board thing , did you just hike up your shorts , and run away screaming !?
P.

[Bored chemist]

Let’s assume that the beanbag and the steel ball both push the wall equally hard

Why assume something which is known to be wrong?

As I have explained, the bouncing ball imparts twice as much momentum as the beanbag.

As for the board thing , did you just hike up your shorts , and run away screaming !?

It would be better if you stopped saying stupid things.

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

..............Illusion......
Alright , I have to backtrack a bit .  Convertalot is backing up that 2x bit , counter-intuitive though it is .  However , the inelastic collisions should shed much more energy as heat than the elastic ones .  A system of repeating impacts should produse a slight loss of kinetic energy transfer on the inelastic collision side , ergo slight push due to inefficiency of kinetic energy transfer .  Call this a friction engine .  Weak but doable .
P.M.

[Kryptid]

..............Illusion......
Alright , I have to backtrack a bit .  Convertalot is backing up that 2x bit , counter-intuitive though it is .

I was in the process of trying to prepare an easy experiment that anyone could do at home using inexpensive items to demonstrate this whole momentum thing. Has it turned out that such a thing isn't necessary after all? Have you accepted that the ball pushes the metal wall harder than the sandbag? Or should I go ahead with the experiment?

[opportunity]

   Optimum Spaceship Design ?
 Let the assumption be that we have developed an effective Impulse Drive .  Not a rocket , not an ion thruster , but a powerful & efficient , nuclear-powered , drive mechanism . This being the case we can presume peak travel velocities in excess of 1 million miles per hour .  Although such a ship can afford to carry adequate radiation shielding for the job , interplanetary dust and debris pose a lethal danger .  At full speed , one pea-sized rock would impact a ship with more explosive power than a stick of dynamite .  Such an impact would punch through blunt shielding , wrenching the ship badly , and spraying deadly shrapnel through it's interior .  To prevent this , a different type of shield is necessary .  The most effective design would be a long cone .  This would be slightly wider than the ship , and held ahead of the ship by flexible mounts .  Constructed mainly of high-tech , impact-absorbing materials , it would be coated with a thick  layer of iron sand , contained within an aluminum skin .  The resultant composite effect would absorb tremendous  energy , and yet be reasonably light .
 The ship proper would be a long, thin , pencil-like design . In other words ; a Needle-Ship .  The crew working & living spaces would be directly behind the cone .  The supplies & auxiliary craft would be next , the Impulse Drive machinery would be after that , and the Reactors ( w/minimal shielding ) would be last .
Electric thrusters would arranged about the ship for fine attitude control .  Heat radiators , solar panels , antennas , etc. would all be arranged strategically on the ship exterior. 
 The final requirement would be the trajectory .  In order to minimize in-flight impacts , the ship would need to follow a parabolic trajectory , rising up above the plane of the ecliptic .  This would place the high-speed portion of it's course above 99% of possible impactors .
 A ship of this type would benefit from full recycling of organic waste products .  Pre-positioning of LNG would also improve capability .  A two-ship formation would magnify safety and redundancy , and possibly allow for tethered , centripetal gravity as well .
 Alright , this would kick 2001s Odyssey all over the place !
 Enjoy your new spaceship ! .P.M.

Who would fund that?