Dont see an !Inertia drive! section here,so will place it here until Peter can advise as to where it would be best suited to place this project.
Well here is the start of my Inertia drive project-the RFDD engine.
The plan is to use elliptical orbits of mass(in this project,i call them satellites)to off set the reaction force associated with all actions-Reaction Force Diversion Drive (RFDD).
If successful,this will be the only video posted,until the test video's are presented. If un successful,you will see all the build progress video's along the way. The project is expected to take 3 to 4 day's,so the next video will be posted around that time.
The plan if successfull.
After i have run various test on the device,and found that it works as planed,it will be time to choose one other person to replicate the device,run and report on there test finding's. The chosen person will be given the full build video's and instructions. This person must have access to a metal lathe,and a healthy budget for the project(around $200.00 for parts).
The plan if unsuccessful.
Dont do it this way again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGfDbmn5qaw&list=UUsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w
Just a video on the PWM for the RFDD.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqmazCLQ9Lk&list=UUsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w
Dose AC (Allcanadian) not frequent this forum any more?.
Anyway,Chet posted my project over at EF-as i refuse to have any thing to do with that Arron peanut.
Here is what AC posted over there.
Quote: The first question I would ask is why, why will it work knowing momentum is conserved due to Inertia?. If we have no clear answer to this question then it is likely to fail before we have even started.
We should also understand the nature of the problem, imagine we are in outer space and we push on a bowling ball and the ball moves in one direction and we move in the opposite direction. The ball is not touching anything, it is not attached to anything it is just floating in free space and yet somehow it resists the force we have applied to it.
According to the laws of science what I have just described is impossible. An object cannot just produce a resisting force from nothing acting on nothing any more than an object can produce a propulsive force from nothing acting on nothing hence all the confusion. The rules have been skewed stating an inertial propulsive force is impossible despise the fact inertia in itself is equally impossible by the same rules. So we do have cause for optimism and as Tesla once stated ... it is a mechanical problem.
On the upside there is an easy solution to know when we are moving in the right direction. Buy a $10 Arduino Uno and a $5 3 axis gyro + accelerometer off Ebay then use the free software and processing on a laptop to graph all of the forces/motions in real time. I would hate to see anyone resort to using a bathroom scale because that is a clear indication they have no idea what their doing in my opinion.
I have the Arduino gyro/accelerometer setup and it works perfectly for a total investment of less than $20. If were going to build better machines then we need better tools to separate the wheat from the chaff.
AC
The first part we should look at is this comment-We should also understand the nature of the problem, imagine we are in outer space and we push on a bowling ball and the ball moves in one direction and we move in the opposite direction. The ball is not touching anything, it is not attached to anything it is just floating in free space and yet somehow it resists the force we have applied to it.
So who here knows how the space man(men) can push on the bowling ball and have it go in one direction,but not have the space man(men) go in the opposite direction?-without the use of rocket's and that sort of thing-just the space man (or men) them self. This is where force diversion comes into play.
The statement !every action has an equal and opposite reaction!-Who here would clearly like to state what that mean's?.
A question for you all.
Most(if not all) here,will be of the opinion that an inertia drive that provides a uni directional thrust or force in one direction(or most there of),is not achievable-it would break the law of the conservation of energy.But could it just be a case that the law has been misunderstood.
So my question is this--> Who here can accurately explain this law
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
\
Give an example for each
1-What is the action?
2-What is the equal reaction?
3-what is the opposite reaction?
I want you to think very carefully about Q3.
Quote from: TinMan on 2014.08.18, 13:10:42
A question for you all.
Most(if not all) here,will be of the opinion that an inertia drive that provides a uni directional thrust or force in one direction(or most there of),is not achievable-it would break the law of the conservation of energy.But could it just be a case that the law has been misunderstood.
So my question is this--> Who here can accurately explain this law
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
\
Give an example for each
1-What is the action?
2-What is the equal reaction?
3-what is the opposite reaction?
I want you to think very carefully about Q3.
It's not so much about conservation of energy but conservation of (linear) momentum. In the electrical world we have conservation of charge (and in the magnetic world conservation of flux) in addition to energy considerations. Same goes for the mechanical world.
You can get electrodynamic inertia from the earth's electric charge and also from the earth's magnetism. If you use that to break conservation of linear momentum, when you consider the whole thing you find that the reaction is on the earth, so you are driving the earth in the other direction. Overall conservation of linear momentum is preserved. So any system relying on mechanical inertia must create opposite reaction in whatever is responsible for our inertia, and that is distant matter. So you need to transmit gravitational waves that will drive distant matter in the opposite direction (the transit time doesn't come into this). And generating gravitational waves is not a trivial task. However high speed rotation of mass has peculiar properties which could apply here, so don't give up.
Smudge
Quote smudge: So any system relying on mechanical inertia must create opposite reaction in whatever is responsible for our inertia
Lets look at my rough sketch below,and asume that it is opperating in space.With out the 4 balls in place,once the flywheel (if we want to call it that)is up to motor running speed,only the energy required to spin the motor is required-no extra energy is required to keep the flywheel running at a constant speed. Now we add the 4 1kg balls,but still no extra energy is required to keep the flywheel spinning at that constant speed-BUT we now have four 1kg balls exerting a force against the rim of the flywheel. So we have added force without increasing the primary force which created these 4 extra forces in the first place.
Now lets have a look at my even rougher second sketch. We now have an offset in the flywheel that carries these 4 balls that create these 4 extra forces.If we take a momentary snapshot of the rotating flywheel(as the sketch shows),we can see that balls 1 and 2 are following a smaller orbit than that of balls 3 and 4.So at this very instant(as depicted)we have an offset of force which would give us an inertial unidirectional force that flows in the direction from center of motor shaft,through the center of balls 3 and 4.Now what if it were possable to keep that elliptical orbit shape of the flywheel while it rotated,and used only the rotational power of the motor to keep the elliptical shape of the flywheel,so as an equal and opposite force was not required to pull balls 3 and 4 back into a smaller orbit like balls 1 and 2. So if we look at sketch two,and picture it rotating in the depicted elliptical orbit,we can see that we would have a greater force in one direction.
So how can this be done.Well as i stated above(first paragraph),4 extra large forces can be applied to a system that are at a 90* angle to that of the force that gives them creation(motor rotation).The very opposite can be used in that,we can add a force (load) to the motor and remove the 4 extra forces created by the 4 ball's.This is the force we use to increase and decrease the orbit path of the 4 balls,so as they follow the elliptical orbit path. Now i know you are going to ask-what stops the motor spinning insted of the orbiting balls. Well thats an easy fix. We simply have a second unit bolted ontop of the first unit,but this is a counter rotating unit,and all rotation by the motors is canceled out.The thing to remember here is,we only have to reduce that opposite force by 1%(or less) to achieve a net force in one direction.
I have played with a few variations of eccentric drive devices over the years without much success, although your approach may have more merit than what I was doing.
I was very inspired along these lines at an early age. In the mid fifties there was an early morning TV news and variety show that featured various guests. One of the guests was a young inventor that demonstrated a clear plexiglass box. Inside the box were several hundred steel balls and a mechanism attached to an electric drill that thrust the balls in a given direction, hitting the inside top of the plexiglass box, then were somehow recycled into the thrusting mechanism.
The device made a horrible racket when started up, but did float up into the air. The demonstration did not last long as the racket was so loud the host quickly terminated the test as none of the dialogue could be heard.
Although very young (9 or 10), I was amazed by this and quickly realized that if it did work, it would revolutionize air travel once perfected.
In my teens, I played with gyros moving in and out of their plane of axial rotation while the assembly itself was rotated.
I have moved away from large mechanical devices, looking more towards manipulating atomic particle spins or ether flows as the answer.
Best of luck with your tests.
ION
Quote from: ION on 2014.08.19, 15:19:12
I have played with a few variations of eccentric drive devices over the years without much success, although your approach may have more merit than what I was doing.
I was very inspired along these lines at an early age. In the mid fifties there was an early morning TV news and variety show that featured various guests. One of the guests was a young inventor that demonstrated a clear plexiglass box. Inside the box were several hundred steel balls and a mechanism attached to an electric drill that thrust the balls in a given direction, hitting the inside top of the plexiglass box, then were somehow recycled into the thrusting mechanism.
The device made a horrible racket when started up, but did float up into the air. The demonstration did not last long as the racket was so loud the host quickly terminated the test as none of the dialogue could be heard.
Although very young (9 or 10), I was amazed by this and quickly realized that if it did work, it would revolutionize air travel once perfected.
In my teens, I played with gyros moving in and out of their plane of axial rotation while the assembly itself was rotated.
I have moved away from large mechanical devices, looking more towards manipulating atomic particle spins or ether flows as the answer.
Best of luck with your tests.
ION
Thanks for the input ION. That noisey device you describe sounds similar to how the shawyer's engine work's,only on a much larger scale-http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2570.msg40941;topicseen#msg40941
This was posted by Chet. I think it works on the principle of electrons hitting a surface,and giving thrust in that direction?.Sounds much like those little steel balls hitting the lid of that device you spoke of.
Well ,it's taking a little longer that i had hoped,but so many other things to do while im on holidays. Just mowing the lawn can turn into a half day saga-when you have to repair the ruddy mower before you can actually mow the lawn;s. Mind you,the mower was running quite fine last time i switched it off,but the shaft conected to the governor decided it was time to get seized into the crank case-on flat out of course. Anyway,all fixed now,and lawns mowed., Here is just a short update video of the finnished shaft's for the project. Im hoping to have the bulk of it together today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZFusjLL3dg&list=UUsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w
Managed to get a bit more done today on the inertia drive project.Here is a small update video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63yJn9HuaWA&list=UUsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w
Well i ran the first test today on the RFDD-the pendulum test. The test was successful,although i was hoping for a little more deflection on the pointer. But as the sattllites are very small,and the device as a whole is very heavy,im happy with the result's. I have also decided to forgo the replication by another builder before showing how the device works,so you will also get a look inside the RFDD,and see it workings while running. This will all be in the video i will be posting tonight-as soon as it has uploaded. As per the norm here in WA this time of night,uploading is very slow-only 234 minute's remaining-then processing of course.
Video finally up-enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-JF4a6qyDs
Dear TinMan.
Sorry !! :) Just couldn't resist !!
I hope you enjoy it ??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbJqmevU9s8
Cheers Grum.
Tinman,
Very interesting work!
At first, I thought the deflection was due to the center of gravity shift. The COG does shift.
Then I realized the deflection was opposite that which should be due to the COG shift :D
I'm cornfused ???
Quote from: Grumage on 2014.08.23, 19:06:04
Dear TinMan.
Sorry !! :) Just couldn't resist !!
I hope you enjoy it ??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbJqmevU9s8
Cheers Grum.
lol-nice one grum.
Now,can you do the pendulum test please lol.
Cheers
Brad
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2014.08.23, 23:55:28
Tinman,
Very interesting work!
At first, I thought the deflection was due to the center of gravity shift. The COG does shift.
Then I realized the deflection was opposite that which should be due to the COG shift :D
I'm cornfused ???
I knew some one was going to say that it was due to the shift of the weights,but i didnt expect them to see that it was opposite to what the shift should have resulted in-good observation WW
Regarding Grum's little car, I would be interested in how and from what direction the piston is supplied with air and in what direction it is expelled, as a little fan mounted atop the car would also produce movement.
If the air to the piston is supplied and expelled all in the same direction then the ultimate test is to eliminate the car and put the piston assembly inside a plastic sphere, hang it on a long cord from the ceiling and look for a deflection.
Ultimately I believe we need to learn how to effect an ether pump out of the atoms of the inertial body, however, an ether pump is perhaps just one way to do it, and the mechanical models are valuable to get us moving in the right direction.
The riddle of inertia, and the "memory effect" of inertia may hold the key.
Good work guys.
I did some very similar work to Grum's little car.
What it boiled down to was there was no effect unless there was at least one direction of resistance (the table top).
I recall some work by NASA in the shuttle some decades ago using the same principles. They found no propulsion in a weightless environment. The gizmo just jerked back and forth unless it was fixed to a rotating lever.
Reminiscent of gyroscopes and precession.
However, Tinman's gizmo overcomes COG shift AND deflects the other way ??
Dear ION and WaveWatcher.
Many thanks for the comments. The cylinder is fed air via a side port and is exited at the front of the Toy car. In other words in opposition to the direction it travelled !! I will insert a quote from the comments made about the video.
Quote.
M Thruster7 hours ago
This is the stick-slip phenomenon. Dynamic friction causes the device to do hundreds of mini jumps a minute, propelling it forward. While there's much to be desired from TinMan's experiment, there's a distinct lack of "stuff to push away from", which is the purpose of the pendulum.
Feel free to hang that thing from the ceiling and see if it moves.
Unquote.
Today, we hung a simple 12 V solenoid and plunger in a yoke driven by an RMC PWM and yes, you guessed, it rattled but no apparent swing.
Tests continue.......... :)
Cheers Grum.
Dear All.
Having slept awhile ! It dawned on me that my simple yoke assembly is proving Newton's 3rd law to a tee!
My solenoid is bashing each end alternately, net result, no movement .
I shall now try to engineer a solenoid that just hit's one end only!!
Outcome ?? :)
Cheers Grum.
How can it hit one end without being pushed from the other or pulled from that end? C.C
Unless you can create a suction in space-time I think Newton will still take the prize.
Don't think I don't want you to get that prize before Newton. He has won all too often :-\
There are many ways to build what would seem like a reactionless drive in the boundaries of gravity and an atmosphere. But creating one which works in the vacuum of space is the challenge.
I have always found most peoples understanding of Inertia very odd. That is the layman would tell me inertial propulsion is impossible because of the Conservation of Energy without knowing what energy or it's conservation actually is and they are simply parrots. Then the experts tell me it is due to the conservation of momentum and for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction. That is inertial propulsion cannot work because something tangible cannot act against nothing because that would violate the laws of physics.
Now let's do a thought experiment, I am floating in outer space and I push on an object which has the same mass as I do. The conservation of momentum/energy states the action and reaction must be equal and opposite thus the object and I move away from each other with an equal velocity. My momentum (mass velocity) is equal to the objects momentum (mass velocity).
Here comes the tricky part, when I pushed on the object it resisted the applied force because of it's inertia just as my motion in the opposite direction was equally resisted because of my inertia. Now we know a force cannot act against nothing because this violates the laws of physics so how exactly did the object resist my applied force?. You see if I apply a force to the object and it resists this force then there must be a counter-force and low and behold there is nothing for the object to act upon which violates the laws of physics.
I understand the terminally misguided may say the counter-force was my inertia however the direction of force is incorrect and two wrongs do not make a right. Again I applied a force to the object and it resisted my applied force however it is impossible for the object to resist anything because it has nothing to act upon to produce a counter-force to my applied force.
Hence we see the delusion of inertia for what it truly is, if no mass can produce a motive force against nothing then by the same rules no mass can produce a resisting or counter-force against nothing... unless of course nobody actually understands the rules to begin with.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2014.08.26, 22:11:51
I have always found most peoples understanding of Inertia very odd.........
Hence we see the delusion of inertia for what it truly is, if no mass can produce a motive force against nothing then by the same rules no mass can produce a resisting or counter-force against nothing... unless of course nobody actually understands the rules to begin with.
AC
The problem is the way we are taught that inertia is some (internal) property of mass to resist a change of motion. When clearly inertia is an external force acting on the mass, that external force being conjured up by acceleration through space. Perhaps "conjured" is the wrong word to use since it implies some trickery, I could have said "summoned up". So how can space apply a force? Well the first thing to realize is that space is not empty, it is full of massless particles whizzing through at light speed. And IMO it is the interaction of mass with those space particles that creates the force. For how that might happen see my topic "Gyroscopic (Coreolis) forces and the Aether".
If that seems too far fetched then ponder on the fact that in electromagnetics we are familiar with external forces acting on things. And some of those EM forces are inertia-like in that acceleration is involved. Thus a positive charge within a region of space that is at some negative electric potential (due to some nearby negative charges) will exhibit an inertia effect, an acceleration will summon up a force opposing that acceleration. So there we have inertia that is not an internal property of the body but is truly an external force. The reaction to that force appears on those nearby negative charges which get forces from the radiated field. So why can't mass behave in a similar fashion, why can't our space have some form of potential within which an accelerated mass receives a force that opposes that acceleration?
The answer is it can!! That potential is a gravitational potential. And it is not just the gravitational potential from the earth, that is tiny compared with the potential coming from all the other mass in the universe. Because potential decays with distance according to a 1/R law, and mass is spread evenly throughout the universe when you consider mass density on a universal scale, it is a fact that mass at large distance contributes greater potential than mass nearby so we live within a huge gravitational potential coming from distant matter. Now when we accelerate a mass within that potential we discover an external force that we call inertia. We also radiate a gravitational wave and that will eventually apply force to all the other mass in the universe, so there is the reaction you are looking for. Of course the wave is very weak, so much so that we can't measure it, but that does not mean it is not there.
Here endeth the first lesson.
Smudge
@Smudge
You make some good points and I would agree it is inconceivable that Inertia is solely an internal property. In fact the known laws of physics and common sense dictate mass cannot act against nothing thus there must be something filling all space we are unaware of.
I believe the real issue concerning inertia is that it is a constant and if we were to link it with gravity then we create more problems. First we would have to explain why inertia remains constant and gravity diminishes by the inverse square law. Then we have a problem with science which generally uses one undefined term such as (Gravity) to explain another undefined term (Inertia). Generally speaking when we link more terms which are in themselves undefined we do not gain any more understanding.
Knowing this I opted for a different route and solved the issue of what the primary fields are fundamentally first which then led to the understanding of secondary effects such as inertia. I tend to do things backwards and start at the most fundamental level then work my way out.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2014.08.27, 12:52:57
@Smudge
You make some good points and I would agree it is inconceivable that Inertia is solely an internal property. In fact the known laws of physics and common sense dictate mass cannot act against nothing thus there must be something filling all space we are unaware of.
I believe the real issue concerning inertia is that it is a constant and if we were to link it with gravity then we create more problems. First we would have to explain why inertia remains constant and gravity diminishes by the inverse square law.
But we don't know that inertia remains constant. Yes it appears to remain constant within the confines of our galaxy but it could have a different value at far distant regions of the universe. The apparent expansion of the universe could be an artifact where distant atomic oscillators have a different frequency simply because inertia is not constant. As to gravity diminishing by the inverse square law that only applies to gravitational force or field and that is the gradient of the potential. The actual potential diminishes by the inverse 1/R law. And our earth's gravity adds so little to the potential we have here that to all intents and purposes it is a constant potential value hence a constant inertia value. We are all besotted by gravity being a local effect whereas the potential we live in is far from local, it comes from distant stars. Mach had the right idea there.
QuoteThen we have a problem with science which generally uses one undefined term such as (Gravity) to explain another undefined term (Inertia). Generally speaking when we link more terms which are in themselves undefined we do not gain any more understanding.
I don't see that as a problem. It is a known effect in electromagnetics where we have interacting effects such as a time-changing electric field causing a magnetic effect and vice versa. To me linking gravity and inertia explains things that are known but not obvious, such as why the reference frame for a gyro is not the earth, nor the sun, nor even our galaxy but is to the best of our knowledge the distant stars. I agree that this does not yield the exact mechanism by which space applies forces on mass, but that is a different ball game. As an EM engineer I am aware of photons whizzing through space at light velocity, but what is a photon? What else is whizzing around us? Well there are neutrinos having zero rest mass but having spin, and these can go right through the earth and out the other side. Could these be the building blocks for photons? Could we not live withing a highly dense (in respect of number density) aether of these particles some of which will impact with our mass particles and that is the mechanism that supplies inertia? To me that is an obvious and highly possible scenario.
QuoteKnowing this I opted for a different route and solved the issue of what the primary fields are fundamentally first which then led to the understanding of secondary effects such as inertia. I tend to do things backwards and start at the most fundamental level then work my way out.
AC
I'd be interested in seeing your solution.
Smudge
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2014.08.25, 22:45:16
How can it hit one end without being pushed from the other or pulled from that end? C.C
Unless you can create a suction in space-time I think Newton will still take the prize.
Don't think I don't want you to get that prize before Newton. He has won all too often :-\
Dear WaveWatcher.
Please study the attached png file.
Could this bend dear old Newton's law ?? ;)
Your comments, as always, gratefully received.
Cheers Grum.
Your drawing, if I understand it, shows the energy to move the mass perpendicular to the mass travel but there will still be an equal and opposite reaction to the propelled mass.
The support for the wedges will feel the reaction to the mass being propelled.
Over in the TPU thread I offered a paper showing the possibility that we could get some electrodynamic inertia separate from mass inertia. In particular acceleration of a magnetic pole in the scalar magnetic potential of the earth should create measureable inertia, and this could be the basis for a thrust machine. In corresponding with someone on this subject I wrote the following which might add credence to the idea.
If my theory about accelerating magnetic poles is correct then there should be an electric vector potential created by pole movement, similar to how a magnetic vector potential is created by charge movement. Then acceleration of the pole creates a time-varying electric vector potential which should create a magnetic field, similar to how a time varying magnetic vector potential creates an electric field. If we use C as the electric vector potential then we should see H = -dC/dt (or it might be B = -dC/dt) in the same way that we have E = -dA/dt. That means the accelerating pole radiates a B or H field. In the presence of a scalar magnetic potential from the earth, the inertia effect is that radiation then trying to move the magnetic pole(s) responsible for the scalar potential. IOW if we can obtain thrust in this way the reaction to that thrust tries to move the earth's magnetic dipole, which in effect is moving the earth itself. Then our thrust machine is not pushing against nothing, it is pushing against the earth, which makes it far more a possibility. As regards using the effect for gaining energy I am not sure that I can offer an explanation for where the energy comes from. but if it tries to slow down the earth's enormous core of rotating molten iron then maybe that is the source.
Smudge
Smudge,
That sounds like a partial solution to my findings on falling magnetized objects.
basic experiment:
Drop a coin shaped, axially polarized powerful magnet into something which will prevent damage to the magnet and prevent bounce. A tin can filled with sand works well.
Note how often one of the poles faces the same direction upon impact. It should always be the same even if you allow a little spin when dropping it.
Shoulder height works fine.
My conclusion: A magnetic field, in motion within and ambient magnetic field, acts very similar to a point charge in motion within that same ambient magnetic field. An easier way to think of the falling magnet is as a spinning gyroscope with two rotating masses on the same shaft. The masses spinning in opposite directions. If you do this with such a gyroscope that gyroscope assembly will also have a preferred vertical shaft alignment.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2014.08.26, 22:11:51
Now let's do a thought experiment, I am floating in outer space and I push on an object which has the same mass as I do. The conservation of momentum/energy states the action and reaction must be equal and opposite thus the object and I move away from each other with an equal velocity. My momentum (mass velocity) is equal to the objects momentum (mass velocity).
Here comes the tricky part, when I pushed on the object it resisted the applied force because of it's inertia just as my motion in the opposite direction was equally resisted because of my inertia. Now we know a force cannot act against nothing because this violates the laws of physics so how exactly did the object resist my applied force?. You see if I apply a force to the object and it resists this force then there must be a counter-force and low and behold there is nothing for the object to act upon which violates the laws of physics.
AC
I see no violation at all AC. You do not need a force acting against a mass to feel resistance.The resistance comes from accelerating that mass-N2,and has nothing to do with a resistance acting against that mass. It takes a force to accelerate mass,wether in the vacume of space,or here on earth. This is how rocket engines produce thrust in space,and that thrust has nothing to push against-but still it produces thrust. It get's it's thrust from accelerating mass-mass ejection.
Once the mass has reached is max speed(in space),then it will continue on at that speed until it meets a resistive force-and only then it will slow down.
Hi Tinman,
At OU: Reed & think in "Clem-Engine", liquid at boiling transition temp departing uit of the nozzle in to gas makes a huge wall to ...........
Thanks for building & doing!
Regards, Johan
@Tinman
QuoteI see no violation at all AC. You do not need a force acting against a mass to feel resistance.The resistance comes from accelerating that mass-N2,and has nothing to do with a resistance acting against that mass. It takes a force to accelerate mass,wether in the vacume of space,or here on earth. This is how rocket engines produce thrust in space,and that thrust has nothing to push against-but still it produces thrust. It get's it's thrust from accelerating mass-mass ejection.
Once the mass has reached is max speed(in space),then it will continue on at that speed until it meets a resistive force-and only then it will slow down.
I had to read through your post a few times to understand what you were getting at but I think I found the issue were having.
An acceleration can be positive(increasing velocity) or negative (decreasing velocity) ie. deceleration but both are considered to be an acceleration.
It may also help to go through the process--
1)A force is applied to a mass and it accelerates (a change in velocity) and if there was no applied force then obviously it could not accelerate, the force is the fundamental cause of an acceleration or deceleration.
2)If the mass is accelerating then this acceleration is resisted by a counter-force we call Inertia which is defined as a resistance to changes in velocity or an acceleration.
3)If a real force is acting on a mass to accelerate it and this force is resisted by Inertia then inertia must be considered a force because the only thing which may act on a mass is a force.
4)We now have two forces present, an applied force and Inertia a counter-force acting in opposite directions which we feel as one force, logically speaking if the object had no mass then it has no inertia and we wouldn't feel anything.
5)If we apply a force A to an object to accelerate it forward the force A acts forward on the object and backwards on us equal and opposite. Now we do not move backwards because our feet are on the ground and the ground also feels this backward force. However we have a problem because the force we feel is transfered to the ground but the force the object we are pushing on feels is transfered into nothing but empty space. Imagine a bolwing ball hanging from a string .... where is the the force it applies to you transferred to?... apparently nowhere.
A rocket is really no different but more confusing because we now have two masses which apply a force to one another and they both move in opposite directions. Now instead of a rocket imagine we have two bowling balls with a coiled spring between them and we release the spring. Each end of the spring applies a force to each bolwing ball equally accelerating each ball in opposite directions however while each ball is being accelerated the acceleration is being resisted by a counter-force we call Inertia. We could call them ball A and ball B, now the only reason ball A is accelerating is because ball B is resisting it's acceleration which acts on A and likewise the only reason ball B is accelerating is because ball A is resisting it's acceleration which acts on B. Yes they are pushing off of one another however the standard reasoning to explain it is circular in nature because it still relies on the fact that it is impossible that A or B can act on themselves in themselves.
For instance let's say ball B is now a wall attached to the Earth at which point the force accelerating ball A is transferred to the wall B...simple enough. Then ball B is not a wall but a ball again so where does the force accelerating ball A get transferred to? Well to ball B which isn't attached to anything but it is still resisting the force to accelerate ball A. The inertia of ball B is resisting the force accelerating ball A but it is not attached to anything tangible and is floating in empty space. At which point we may understand that what we call inertia requires that a mass act on themselves in themselves which violates damn near every law of physics.
AC
@AC
Your making no sense.
Quote: )If we apply a force A to an object to accelerate it forward the force A acts forward on the object and backwards on us equal and opposite. Now we do not move backwards because our feet are on the ground and the ground also feels this backward force. However we have a problem because the force we feel is transfered to the ground but the force the object we are pushing on feels is transfered into nothing but empty space. Imagine a bolwing ball hanging from a string .... where is the the force it applies to you transferred to?... apparently nowhere.
The force isnt transfered into nothing but empty space,it is transformed into kinetic energy-KE=1/2 mv2-. Being that your feet are on the ground,we can asuum you are here on earth,in which case there is also a gravitational and atmospheric force being applied to and acting against the ball on the string. If we push the ball in space,the energy of the ball becomes kinetic,and the force you applied is given back when that ball reaches a resistance. The kinetic energy remains until a resistance is met by the ball.
@Tinman
QuoteThe force isnt transfered into nothing but empty space,it is transformed into kinetic energy-KE=1/2 mv2-.
I understand what your saying however I would ask, does your simplistic explanation lead to a greater understanding?. Well no you simply inserted a few textbook terms which does not require anyone to actually think about what happens and why at the most fundamental level.
I think the ball and string may be leading to confusion, Now I apply a force to an object however before the object starts moving anywhere it is resisting my applied force with a counter-force we call inertia. There is no transformation to kinetic energy and the terms are meaningless because the where how and why of the transformation are never defined nor is the term kinetic energy. I see this a great deal where people try to explain something by not really explaining anything that matters.
Again, I apply a force to an object and my applied force is resisted by a counter-force before the object has started moving. This counter-force is a real force and must come from somewhere and act from somewhere on the applied force. No transformation to KE is not an acceptable answer because it does not answer anything.
AC
@Tinman
I understand my posts can be overly critical sometimes however my intent is to add constructive criticism so we might move forward. With that I would like to share some things I have learned along the way which may help.
To be honest I cannot see how whirling weights around in any configuration could ever amount to anything mainly because it involves a center of rotation, a fulcrum, and a center of mass, another fulcrum. This essentially ensures the system remains closed within itself however this may not mean it may always remain closed to external forces.
Another aspect is that what we call tangible objects are supposedly 99% empty space and are simply particles bouncing about their fields interacting with other fields, field on field. Thus the translation of force is solely through field interactions and fields may be manipulated or distorted. As I said we have to get past the concept of simple objects described with vague if not meaningless terminology.
So how could we effect the inertia of an object?, I believe the force model must operate as a step function, that is logically it operates in discrete steps. There is an applied force, a counter-force(inertia), motion, a decrease in force, a decrease in the counter-force, less motion, more force, more counter-force, motion and so on. I believe this because the translation of force is acting field on field through what is considered empty space but logically must contain fields. Now what we do know of fields is that there is some resiliency in them and some delay in time as nothing can act instantaneously so far as we know.
It may be that if an object ever came under a condition of pure resonance in which the whole of an object was in oscillation in itself then the internal fields may oscillate on some level. This may be our gate way to acting on the fields internal to matter, an object, because we are not producing a simple surface effect but acting on the most fundamental level which dictates the properties of matter. There is some literature to suggest this may be the case such as ancient civilizations which supposedly levitated large rocks with sound. I think we all know it is impossible that sound could be powerful enough to do this however it is not a matter of a simple force acting on a simple object. It may be that the sound projected caused internal resonant oscillations in the material which led to a change in the internal field interactions which distorted the internal fields relative to the external fields(gravity) which then caused the object to move.
Thus we are left with the notion that a simple force acting on a simple object is a lesson in futility however utilizing an intermittent non-dampened force (resonant) to cause every singular part of an object to interact within itself which then interacts with the environment doesn't seem so far fetched. We can then see a logical chain of cause and effect, a step function, of one thing acting on another which acts on something else changing it in some way which causes other interactions with a defined degree of separation between the initial action and the result.
It is not the primate like application of force with a club which we tend to see today but a little finesse to cause one thing to interact with something else, to cause them to use their own energy to act on one another rather than energy we input into the system. It's not unlike the art of war, why wage war on someone when it is much easier to cause two other parties to wage war on themselves.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2014.09.01, 15:02:47
@Tinman
I understand what your saying however I would ask, does your simplistic explanation lead to a greater understanding?. Well no you simply inserted a few textbook terms which does not require anyone to actually think about what happens and why at the most fundamental level.
I think the ball and string may be leading to confusion, Now I apply a force to an object however before the object starts moving anywhere it is resisting my applied force with a counter-force we call inertia. There is no transformation to kinetic energy and the terms are meaningless because the where how and why of the transformation are never defined nor is the term kinetic energy. I see this a great deal where people try to explain something by not really explaining anything that matters.
Again, I apply a force to an object and my applied force is resisted by a counter-force before the object has started moving. This counter-force is a real force and must come from somewhere and act from somewhere on the applied force. No transformation to KE is not an acceptable answer because it does not answer anything.
AC
This is nothing more than resistance to change,and there is a force on the ball,and it takes a certain amount of force to overcome the force acting on the ball.Im guessing we are still here on earth,where gravity is that force you have to overcome. The ball is being pulled toward the center of gravity,so it takes a cetain amount of force before you can create motion. The same with the ball sitting on the ground. If that ball on the ground weigh's 10 pound's,and you apply a lifting force of 9.9 pounds,the ball will not rise of the ground.But if this same ball with the 10 pound mass is floating in space,and you throw a feather at it,you can bet ya ass it will move,and keep on going until it meets a resistance.
At this point in time,the mechanical version of my inertia drive project has been put on the back burner-due to a recent discovery thats shows a far greater potential.
Who here knows all about fluid dynamics O0.
Preliminary test show that fluids can be manipulated to offset the equal and opposite force-by up to 90*.
Due to these result's,i will be going back to the start of my testing,with a far better and more accurate test bed setup.
The pictures below shows my test bed base for the next 3 test i will be carrying out this weekend.
In short.
I have found that 2 jets of water intersecting at right angles,do not show any force placed or imposed on the other.
I am in the process of joining all the test video's together-i think your going to like the result's.
I have also completed the first test of second stage test,where as the pressure cleaner wand is now mounted on the pendulum. I think your going to like that test even more.
The first test video result's(as depicted a post ago) should be up within 1 to1 1/2 hours. Once we discus those test,and eliminate any faults with the test i may have made,then i will post the second video showing the result's of the completed unit so far.
I also believe there is a better way than using the high pressure water jet,and would give a much better result. This would eliminate the need for the high pressure cleaner,and use only an electric motor. This new system could also be driven off the back side of the pump motor,thus meaning we need only the one motor to do the job. I will start the build on the new part of the device tomorrow.
Here is the test carried out today. I also worked out why i was getting a negative reading when running just the ejection nozzle. Turns out when i put the pipe at the back of the pedulum board,it pulled the hose a bit tighter. This resulted in the hose pulling on the pendulum board,and thus showing the negative 30-40 grams. this has been corrected,and we now get a stedy 120 to 125 gram pull on the scales-this is a unidirectional pull.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8as20q1CYE&list=UUsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w
Hmmm,
Here's an avenue of exploration:
Quote from: EMdevices on 2014.10.02, 03:20:07
I've been wanting to carry out this type of experiment for a while now but haven't yet. What results did you get?
I would say that dropping a magnet in the earths magnetic field should produce results pretty close to what's expected from a non magnetized object. The reason is that the earths magnetic field is slightly divergent and so it affects the magnet's fall just a tiny bit. In a perfect divergence-less magnetic field (parallel magnetic flux lines with no gradient) the only force experienced by a small magnet placed in this field would be a torque, which tries to align it to the external field, but no net force in any direction.
I would hazard a guess that WW's experiment used the vertical component of the earth's magnetic field to align the magnet. Unless of course if WW lives at the equator O0.
Smudge
My results were as I stated.
Amazing.... Such a simple experiment and no one does it.
Requirements:
1. a strong axially polarized coin shaped magnet. You can use almost any magnet but the suggested magnet needs very little fall time to align itself.
2. gravity
3. space
I recall a well known (by us) experimenter allowing such a magnet to slide down a copper bar. With one polarity facing up it slid down the bar very slowly, as most would expect. With the other polarity facing up the magnet insisted on flipping itself while sliding down that bar.
It was a WTF? moment for that experimenter and all others, it seemed. For me, it was a DUH! moment.
Such a basic and profound experiment and result denied, ignored and blown-off.
One of my fears is that the many saying that there is nothing left to discover or invent are partially correct.
It should instead be that there are no real inventors or discoverers left. All those claiming those titles are only capable of assembling Lincoln Logs, Legos or white papers from others into different combinations.
There is plenty of very base info left for discovery. We don't know it all and what we know must always be questioned.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2014.10.03, 03:55:23
@wavewatcher
"I recall a well known (by us) experimenter allowing such a magnet to slide down a copper bar. With one polarity facing up it slid down the bar very slowly, as most would expect. With the other polarity facing up the magnet insisted on flipping itself while sliding down that bar."
that makes sense to me, because a magnet that free falls in the tube slowly, and I've done the experiment myself, is also free to move and rotate, so it aligns with the magnetic field of the earth, just like a compass.
That is what most conclude but it isn't so. Which direction it slides related to the Earth's magnetic poles makes no difference. Do you really think the Earth's magnetic field is strong enough to cause the magnet to take a short vertical leap, flip and continue sliding down the bar?
Quote from: EMdevices on 2014.10.03, 03:55:23
@Matt Watts
thanks for sharing that video of Jeffrey Cook. He seems to say there is no reaction on the ring magnet base, when the small disk magnet is pushed out the other side. If that is true, it's truly amazing and worth exploring. However, from the video I'm not convinced his set up is adequate to observe such kickback reaction force, because he pushes down on the big plastic frame of the ring magnet, so friction holds it fixed to the table, or he could just be holding it with his hands.
This type of experiment should be done on a low friction air table, like in the physics classes. And the velocity and position of the two masses measured after separation. Only then can an accurate determination of the conservation of momentum, or it's violation, be achieved. (of course, he will have to implement some remote control trigger so he doesn't have to touch the masses)
To do this properly, my suggestion would be to set this up so the projectile points straight up and put everything on a very sensitive weight scale that can collect measurements at least 100 times per second and have a means to record that data. The trigger mechanism should be a small motorized cam drive similar to what precision bench rest shooters use, connected to a timer or wireless receiver so that no wires leave the platform.
IF
If the projectile is launched and we see ZERO recoil on the scale, we can take this experiment further. What we should see if the theory is correct, is an immediate loss in weight equaling that of the projectile. We should not get a single sample showing an increase in weight or displacement downward.
If this experiment can be done successfully, it tells us the recoil of the projectile is actually pushing against the Ether and not the base from which it was launched. I think you would agree this to be a profound conclusion with wide implications. Just imagine a motor that has no counter-torque.
Quote from: TinMan on 2014.08.18, 13:10:42
A question for you all.
Most(if not all) here,will be of the opinion that an inertia drive that provides a uni directional thrust or force in one direction(or most there of),is not achievable-it would break the law of the conservation of energy.But could it just be a case that the law has been misunderstood.
So my question is this--> Who here can accurately explain this law
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
\
Give an example for each
1-What is the action?
2-What is the equal reaction?
3-what is the opposite reaction?
I want you to think very carefully about Q3.
"Most(if not all) here,will be of the opinion that an inertia drive that provides a uni directional thrust or force in one direction(or most there of),is not achievable-it would break the law of the conservation of energy."
--rather, "of the opinion that an inertia drive that provides a uni directional thrust or force in one direction(or most there of),is not achievable-it would break the law of the conservation of MOMENTUM"
I taught Newtonian mechanics for many years, along with other subjects and would be happy to take a shot at these questions (as I have time).
Newton's third law is basically a re-statement of the law of conservation of momentum.
Consider two masses in space, say an astronaut or spaceman S (mass M) and a space rock R (as big or small as you like, but call its mass m). They are at rest with respect to (wrt) each other, and we (observer) are also at rest. This is selected as a simple case; the momentum of both S and R = zero.
Now the astronaut pushes R away and finds that he moves in the opposite direction. Take the direction of the rock to be the + x direction, then,
Before the push: MV= 0 = mv, and the sum (called the total momentum) = zero
After the push: -MV = mv (equation 1)
and the total momentum is still zero, MV + mv = zero. S has a negative velocity since it moves in the - x direction. (Try not to get hung up on the negative sign, it is a matter of convention trying to keep the directions straight.)
Note that the velocities are equal in magnitude only if the masses are equal. In any case, the equation
-MV = mv allows us to determine the V of the astronaut if we know v of R and the masses M and m.
Inertia is simply an inherent OBSERVED quality in physical objects to resist acceleration. WHY masses resist acceleration (ie., inertia) is not well understood IMHO.
AC - note that your wall is attached to the earth, which is really just a BIG space rock, not fixed. If the astronaut pushes on the wall, he goes one way and the earth goes the other way -- but it DOES move, it is not fixed.
To get the acceleration, assuming the astronaut gives a steady push (constant force), we simply divide both sides of equation 1 by the TIME (duration) during which the push occurs, until contact ends. I will call this t or often we use delta-t, but start the clock at zero and its simply t.
Then, Equation 2 is -MV/t = mv/t .
Now we add a definition of acceleration (constant in this simple case) as velocity/(time interval), and we have
Equation 3 -MA = ma , where A is the acceleration of the astronaut and a is the acceleration of the space rock.
Finally, we follow Newton's second law and recognize that force = mass x acceleration, so that
Equation 4 -F (on astronaut) = f (on the rock), and following from Eq 3 and Eq 4, we can say:
The forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, which is Newton's Third law.
The force on the rock (action) and the force on the astronaut (reaction) -- these are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. Please note that the action and the reaction ALWAYS act on DIFFERENT objects (i.e., never on the same object).
To be brief (but potentially more confusing IMO):
Every action has an equal-and-opposite-in-direction reaction.
This is Newton's Third Law, and we see how it is derived from conservation of momentum.