[Kryptid]

We are adding only angular momentum from the generator!!!
We are not adding linear momentum!!!

Adding extra exclamation points does not make your argument stronger.

If linear momentum is added to the magnet in orbit, then an equal and opposite amount of momentum must be added to the generator.

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

We are adding only angular momentum from the generator!!!
We are not adding linear momentum!!!

Adding extra exclamation points does not make your argument stronger.

If linear momentum is added to the magnet in orbit, then an equal and opposite amount of momentum must be added to the generator.

How is it possible that magnet comes to the generator proximity slower than it leaves.
Where is the extra linear momentum coming from?
Yes, we added the linear momentum to both magnet and the generator.
Did we add it out of nothing?
Jano

[Kryptid]

Where is the extra linear momentum coming from?

The magnetic field in itself will cause the magnet to accelerate as it approaches the generator, which adds kinetic energy. It's a conversion of magnetic potential energy into kinetic energy. That net momentum is still zero.

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

Where is the extra linear momentum coming from?

The magnetic field in itself will cause the magnet to accelerate as it approaches the generator, which adds kinetic energy. It's a conversion of magnetic potential energy into kinetic energy. That net momentum is still zero.

Kryptid,
is magnetic field linear or it rotates in our example,
Jano

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

Bobolink,
here is the problem that Kryptid and it appears you too do not understand.

I think we both understand that you want your conjecture to be correct so you are ignoring all attempts to help you understand the reality of the situation.  It is clear that you won't listen, because that would destroy your fantasy that you have figured out something that scientists say is not possible.  I don't think you are a troll, you are just someone who has a conjecture based on a limited and flawed understanding and are excited that you think you have made a great discovery.  So, I guess all I can say is have fun living this fantasy. [Shrug]

Bobolink,
Sailboats can sail 3x faster than wind.
Please, explain, how is that possible,
Jano

For those that don't know how to google youtube, the solution,
Jano

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceboat#Attainable_speeds

Different classes of iceboat can achieve speeds, as follow.

    International DN: 55–68 miles per hour (89–109 km/h).[7][10]
    Classic iceboats and Skeeters: 100–150 miles per hour (160–240 km/h). Record: Das Boot, 155.9 miles per hour (250.9 km/h).[2] Record: classic iceboat, Debutaunte, 143 miles per hour (230 km/h).[7][11]

[Kryptid]

Kryptid,
is magnetic field linear or it rotates in our example,
Jano

I've never heard of a "linear" magnetic field before. Did you mean an unchanging field? And I presume, by rotating, you mean a field of this type: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_magnetic_field

In either case, it doesn't matter. Linear momentum will be conserved because the generator must necessarily experience the exact same force that the magnet does, only in the opposite direction. Newton's third law guarantees it.

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

Kryptid,
is magnetic field linear or it rotates in our example,
Jano

I've never heard of a "linear" magnetic field before. Did you mean an unchanging field? And I presume, by rotating, you mean a field of this type: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_magnetic_field

In either case, it doesn't matter. Linear momentum will be conserved because the generator must necessarily experience the exact same force that the magnet does, only in the opposite direction. Newton's third law guarantees it.

Kryptid,
you are like 45 years late, linear magnetic field, magnetic river:

Go to 8:30 for the linear magnetic motor.

Did ROTATING magnetic field increased linear KINETIC energy?
Did increase of angular momentum increased the linear momentum?
Jano

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

Bobolink,
here is the problem that Kryptid and it appears you too do not understand.

I think we both understand that you want your conjecture to be correct so you are ignoring all attempts to help you understand the reality of the situation.  It is clear that you won't listen, because that would destroy your fantasy that you have figured out something that scientists say is not possible.  I don't think you are a troll, you are just someone who has a conjecture based on a limited and flawed understanding and are excited that you think you have made a great discovery.  So, I guess all I can say is have fun living this fantasy. [Shrug]

Bobolink,
This thread was moved to new theories because somebody does not understand that linear momentum can be converted to angular momentum and angular back to linear.
Please, tell me.
Did the increase of the angular momentum increased the linear momentum in the ON/OFF rotating magnetic field, orbiting manget example?
Jano

[Kryptid]

Did ROTATING magnetic field increased linear KINETIC energy?

Yes, but the linear momentum remains unchanged because any increase in linear momentum of the piece of aluminium being propelled is perfectly offset by the increase in linear momentum in the motor in the opposite direction.

Did increase of angular momentum increased the linear momentum?

The total angular momentum didn't increase.

This thread was moved to new theories because somebody does not understand that linear momentum can be converted to angular momentum and angular back to linear.

No, it was moved to New Theories because a reactionless drive would violate Newton's third law.

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

...
No, it was moved to New Theories because a reactionless drive would violate Newton's third law.

Kryptid,
Is the International Space Station violating the Newton's third law?
The ISS is pure inertial reference frame, no force acting on it, just falling.
Why does the ISS keep its attitude?
Why the ISS is not moving around the Earth like this pendulum?



Why it is not upside-down on one side of the Earth and downside-up on the other?
Thrusters are not used to do the attitude management.
Where does the rotation of the ISS come from?
If there was one wheel inside the ISS trying to rotate it then it would fail because of the Newton's third law.
A wheel not used inside a big gimbal, but a wheel just to rotate the ISS.
So ISS is not suppose to rotate, to keep its attitude, agreed?
Jan

[Kryptid]

Is the International Space Station violating the Newton's third law?

No, but it isn't a reactionless drive either.

The ISS is pure inertial reference frame

No it isn't. It's in an accelerating frame because it's traveling in a (roughly) circular orbit.

no force acting on it, just falling.

No force acting on it? I don't think you know what the word "falling" means...

Why does the ISS keep its attitude?

Due you mean altitude? Because the centrifugal force of its orbital motion counteracts the gravitational force pulling it towards the Earth.

Why it is not upside-down on one side of the Earth and downside-up on the other?

I don't know because I've never looked into it. It could either be due to some kind of gyroscopes keeping it in the desired orientation, or due to tidal locking (admittedly, I don't know if tidal locking works for an object that small on such small time scales).

Thrusters are not used to do the attitude management.

Nor are they needed.

Where does the rotation of the ISS come from?

See my previous statement about gyroscopes and tidal locking.

If there was one wheel inside the ISS trying to rotate it then it would fail because of the Newton's third law.

You have just demonstrated that you don't know how Newton's third law works. If a wheel is spun aboard a spacecraft and it is not counterbalanced by another wheel spinning in the opposite direction, then the spacecraft itself will spin in the opposite direction of the wheel. That is precisely what Newton's third law means: the force causing the wheel to rotate results in an equal and opposite force that forces the spacecraft to spin in the opposite direction.

So ISS is not suppose to rotate, to keep its attitude, agreed?

I'm not completely sure what you are asking here, but absolutely none of this has anything to do with a reactionless drive. A reactionless drive is a machine that can produce net momentum in a closed system. The ISS does no such thing.

So let me ask you this: if there is a spacecraft floating in free space, do you agree that the total momentum off all of its constituent particles must add up to zero if the spacecraft itself has no net movement?

[Colin2B]

,
Why does the ISS keep its attitude?
Why the ISS is not moving around the Earth like this pendulum?

Why it is not upside-down on one side of the Earth and downside-up on the other?
Thrusters are not used to do the attitude management.
Where does the rotation of the ISS come from?

So ISS is not suppose to rotate, to keep its attitude, agreed?
Jan

Newton’s First law. Once you set it rotating at one rev per orbit it just keeps doing it, no correction required.
Clever folks those flyers

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

,
Why does the ISS keep its attitude?
Why the ISS is not moving around the Earth like this pendulum?

Why it is not upside-down on one side of the Earth and downside-up on the other?
Thrusters are not used to do the attitude management.
Where does the rotation of the ISS come from?

So ISS is not suppose to rotate, to keep its attitude, agreed?
Jan

Newton’s First law. Once you set it rotating at one rev per orbit it just keeps doing it, no correction required.
Clever folks those flyers

Colin,
Yes, very good point, agreed.
Still, this is digging deeper:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_moment_gyroscope#International_Space_Station

In addition, it seeks a Torque Equilibrium Attitude (TEA), in which the combined torque contribution of gravity gradient, atmospheric drag, solar pressure, and geomagnetic interactions are minimized.

The ISS is influenced by these disturbances.
If ISS did not have CMGs to compensate then it would be in a chaotic motion like astreroids in this arcade game.



The disturbances would got the ISS into a chaotic rotations and nothing would help if we gave up.
CMGs give us a 'firm/fixed' point to push against and to balance the ISS.
How is that possible? What is that 'fixed point'?
If this 'magical point' did not exist then how we can get any torque for the Torque Equilibrium Attitude (TEA)?
I call this point a potential well, because the effect really appears to be similar to a potential well,
Jano

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

[Kryptid]

Newton’s First law. Once you set it rotating at one rev per orbit it just keeps doing it, no correction required.
Clever folks those flyers

Now I feel kind of stupid for not realizing that.

How is that possible?

Gyroscopes work through conservation of angular momentum. It has nothing to do with a reactionless drive.

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

Newton’s First law. Once you set it rotating at one rev per orbit it just keeps doing it, no correction required.
Clever folks those flyers

Now I feel kind of stupid for not realizing that.

How is that possible?

Gyroscopes work through conservation of angular momentum. It has nothing to do with a reactionless drive.

Kryptid,
if you watch the above video and you compare 45s when the CD players are OFF.
The CD players rotate  and the center of mass moves away almost in a 'straight line'.

He gave the players linear impulse, linear momentum, he did not give them any angular momentum.
Why are the CD players rotating around the center of mass?
Jano

[Kryptid]

He gave the players linear impulse, linear momentum, he did not give them any angular momentum.
Why are the CD players rotating around the center of mass?
Jano

I'll answer that once you've answered the question that I posed to you earlier:

So let me ask you this: if there is a spacecraft floating in free space, do you agree that the total momentum off all of its constituent particles must add up to zero if the spacecraft itself has no net movement?

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

He gave the players linear impulse, linear momentum, he did not give them any angular momentum.
Why are the CD players rotating around the center of mass?
Jano

I'll answer that once you've answered the question that I posed to you earlier:

So let me ask you this: if there is a spacecraft floating in free space, do you agree that the total momentum off all of its constituent particles must add up to zero if the spacecraft itself has no net movement?

Yes!

Do you agree that if you drop a cat backwards (with cat's back facing the ground) then the cat should not rotate and fall on her legs?
Do cats generate angular momentum out of nothing?
Jano

[Kryptid]

Yes!

All right, good. Then here is the next question: do you agree that, before the ship's engine is turned on, the total linear and angular momentum of a stationary ship is also zero?

In regards to your question about the CD players: he did give them angular momentum. Pushing an object off-center results in a transfer of angular momentum.

In regards to your question about the cat, the total angular momentum is unchanged. The total angular momentum starts at zero and ends at zero. The cat did not generate any net angular momentum. If you actually paid attention to the very video you posted, you would realize that.