Reaction torque propulsion

[Ray Payette]

What do you think of this web page? Reaction torque propulsion (http://www.spacecrab.com/Physics.htm)
It challenges some important notions.

[NateTG]

What do you think of this web page? Reaction torque propulsion (http://www.spacecrab.com/Physics.htm)
It challenges some important notions.

It ignores the that the axle exerts a force or assumes an incorrect center of rotation.

[Ray Payette]

It would work regardless whether there a force on the axle or not. Please refer to the home page : http://www.spacecrab.com/ where there is an link to the demonstration and to the concept of the center of rotation!

[NateTG]

Ah. Right - my bad. The problem is that 'propulsion' is a misnomer. Things like this can be used to change orientation only.

[Ray Payette]

If you click on the Proof link, there is another link to Translation showing that this concept is used to propel a hovercraft. Previously reaction wheels were only used to maintain a satellite's attitude, now they can be used to propel a spacecraft.

[NateTG]

None of the rotations move the center of mass. Propulsion as you describe it is not feasible. I will not post on this thread again.

[Ray Payette]

It is a question of facts and logic. Physics is the explanation of facts and logic!

[pallidin]

Ray, with all due respect, I have researched this subject guite thoroughly, and have been interested in it for some time.
My observations and experiments(basic) have indicated that unidirectional thrust phenomema does indeed exists. That's not the problem. It is EASILY demonstrated in many "one-shot" schemes. The problem is making it occur again and again for continual thrust.
Curiously enough, Ray, as you may know, if the general premise is that "energy is expended", no violations occur.
In my own endeavors, "vector translation" is key. That is, a given force vector alters it's orientation with respect to origin.
Now, a part of that aspect is readily seen in gyroscopic mechanisms, yet the vector shifting is merely displaced in the same axis orientation, though in a different lateral place. Interesting, but not at all useful for unidirectional thrust.
Several years ago I designed a very simple mechanism which causes a forward or upward motion in excess of resultant downward motion.
Nobel prize? World changing invention? No.
It works, but only works on the first input pulse. Nothing is violated in physics because energy is expended in the process. I have never been able to effectively cycle the event. So, it remains as a one-shot "reactionless" shock absorber until I can further develop the device.
Having not much luck in traditional force translation sciences, I am encouraged in the unusual aspects of shock wave propagation, specifically non-linear spherical. How this might go with my own designs remains to be seen, though I would encourage you looking into it.

[Ray Payette]

This isn't a one shot deal. Please refer to:
http://www.spacecrab.com/Proof.htm
the Translational Motion link proves that the hovercraft moves continuously using reaction torque. The rotational vectors are combined to produce a translational motion.

[pallidin]

Ray, having viewed your video and read your site many times today, I suppose I might see why you have the impressions you do.
However, I considered if the effect shown might be a result of "friction-walking", where differing moments of inertia against contact friction causes the effect(consider the worm or snake). I know that the device is a hovercraft, but it by no means suggests that surface friction is zero!
So, to resolve this I considered what whould happen if the same device shown in the video was not on a table, but rather suspended in some special way to eliminate friction-walking as a possible cause.
I would suppose that you have also considered special variations on the experiment to exclude such factors. I would also suppose that you see such variational endeavors to be absolutely paramount in establishing claim credibility, and that you would aggressively persue such matters.
What I am saying, Ray, is this: the video is NOT a truly convincing "proof" of your claim.
Why? Because a trained eye see's walking friction regardless of any contention from you to the contrary because walking friction is DEFINITELY a component in your demonstration as designed.
Now, this does not mean that the effect you present is not real or worthy of further inquiry, it simply means that your experiment as shown DOES NOT exclude enough aggrivating factors to be convincing.
So, it is incumbent upon you to address these concerns, and to design an experiment which is much more acceptable. Are you willing to do that?
Does not the true researcher or experimentalist or inventor critique their own designs with breathtaking brutality until an outstanding, peer-reviewable product is achieved?
So, let us now examine your idea and seek to improve its purest experimental expression worthy of the most discerned critique. Agreed?

[Ray Payette]

That is a very intelligent and constructive idea. The Demonstration link on the home page at http://www.spacecrab.com/images/DoubleRotation.mpg proves to me without any doubt that there are two rotations as predicted by the physics from the Physics link. All told it is very convincing to me, but I'm willing to try any experiment. The ideal of course would be to test it in space!
The problem is what do I do? I have considered drop towers, air tables, pendulum test, elliptical flight (vomit comet) and they all have their advantages and disadvantages. I even tried to obtain some near-frictionless coating from http://www.techtransfer.anl.gov/techtour/nfc.html I was convinced the hovercraft test was the best, though I can appreciate the "friction-walking" criticism.
I am open to any concrete suggestion. Please send me an E-mail.

[Ray Payette]

Upon reflection I find the objection based on "friction walking" rather farfetched. The hovercraft does have a rocking behavior but saying that this compresses air within the plenum, that has no baffle and is open on its sides, is exagerated. Even if there were some friction, nothing acts on it, certainly not the rotating balsa wood loads!

I have tried to get help from many engineers and from the academic community and except for the very few they dismiss my invention offhandedly without proper scrutiny. Perhaps their cynicism has overcome their curiosity!

I remain open to suggestions and full inspection. I await concrete and constructive comments.

[pallidin]

Excellent! Ray, I am VERY impressed by your both your hands-on nature to develop a theory and, most importantly, your willingness to consider more detailed examination and special experimentation(s) into this theory.
Agreed, the "friction-walking" may or may not be an integral factor in the effect, so I should retract my original statement defining it as an absolute. However, it certainly must be eliminated from all possible influence, and I can see that you do indeed desire the same. Good job!!
As soon as I get off work I will get on to it.

[Ray Payette]

I am aware that all possibilites have to be investigated. There could be a jerking behavior produced in other inventions that use the difference between static and kinetic friction. I don't know how to eliminate these possibilities and that is why I'm using this forum.
I'm looking forward to your contribution, pallidin.

[Ray Payette]

Perhaps a motion control system using:
http://www.machinedesign.com/ASP/strArticleID/56122/strSite/MDSite/viewSelectedArticle.asp
could be devised?

[Ray Payette]

To palidin,
Our discussion has led me to devise a simple variation to test whether friction has any effect. All that is needed is to change the surface under the hovercraft so that there are various coefficients of friction; if friction has ANY kind of effect, we should expect the hovercraft to move at different velocities. Of course the hovercraft has to be sturdy enough to produce constant results; the toy model I used should be upgraded.

By the way, the tests I made were done on highly polished travertine that should have a very low friction coefficient.

[enigma]

The other option of course is aerodynamic forces. You have two giant (relative to the body) propellors on the thing. Even if you've lined them up perfectly perpendicular, the motion about the CG due to the rotations may cause non-zero angles of attack as the craft crawls forward.

[pallidin]

Enigma brings up a valid observation.
A suggestion, Ray: That particular aspect is easily addressed in re-design by completely enclosing the spinning elements so that no external aerodynamic forces are potentialized. Since both extension arms are static there are any number of ways to do this, from individual plastic spheres to entirely exclosing part or all of the apparatus. For that matter, a million thoughts on how to achieve isolation from aerodynamic influence is now crossing my mind. I would choose whatever least expensive option for now, as any option should be equally effective.

Your suggested variation which incorporates varying surface coefficients is interesting.

I also looked at your link with regards to compensating for friction, but at this point, my opinion is that it is not necessary and actually might complicate matters.

Just throwing thoughts out now:
First of all, I consider the effect worthy of further study, because the device uses and expends energy, also, that the "effect" is less than the energy used to create it. This tells me that the device is not asking "something for nothing"
Of course, this doesn't mean that the effect is separate from normal causes or holds any special promise, it means that the effect should be investigated, in my opinion.
Ray, I have closely examined the concept behind the extension arms with the motors and off-centered balsa wood, and apart from the possible aerodynamic effects noted by Enigma, I have also noted another prevalent set of dynamics going-on: very rapid cyclic compression and extension forces placed on the support arms(frequency roughly equivalent to the motor armature)
When the balsa wood is rotating away from the support arm the support arm experiences an extension, however slight. When the balsa wood is rotating towards the support arm, the support arm compresses. In fact, the effect is not linear, and so the support arm will also slightly bend left and right as well as in and out during this off-centered rotation of the balsa wood.
In addition to the above dynamics, and as noted in your web site, a constant torque tension is being placed on each arm, due to the fact that the end of the arms support the motor housings, which produce opposite rotational torque with respect to the motor armature and vectored on the center of system mass.
On top of all this, the center of system mass dynamically alters by virtue of the rotating balsa wood, and this alteration is non-linear. That interests me.

Ray, in summary, I would propose pursuing complete isolation of aerodynamic influence as presented by Enigma. That seems a healthy first design variation.
If the effect continues to occur afterwards, then we can address the more problematic issue of designing a test which eliminates friction-walking as a potential.

[Ray Payette]

Thanks to enigma and pallidin, this is a very constructive discussion.

The possibility that there is any propulsion by expulsion (of air) is remote since I did't feel much air displacement; of course outsiders aren't aware of this! However for scientific purposes I recognize that this possibility has to be excluded. In fact I had tested it by enclosing the mechanisms in cardboard, but they were too heavy. Furthermore this would not have been a very good demonstration, since the mechanisms would have been hidden. At any rate I concur that this test has to be done.

From the getgo I was aware of the wobbly motion of the apparatus and I had a hard time explaining the behavior because of it. The ideal experiment would be to have authentic reaction wheels, but one manufacturer told me that they cost $50,000 each. Another didn't even quote a price. I had to forego this avenue because I lack the money to do this.

As you know to produce a torque, which is a force, I have to have an acceleration. Simply rotating a load will not do the job. In order to simulate this, the loads have to be eccentric, however theey would cause wobbly motions that are problematic. If you observe the DoubleRotation.mpg on the Home page, you will see that the load was a disk originally but that didn't work because it quickly reached a constant velocity. I simply added some electrical tape to create a constant acceleration. I intend to do some more rigourous testing in the near future.


I appreciate your comments very much.

[Ray Payette]

Thanks to enigma and pallidin, this is a very constructive discussion.

The possibility that there is any propulsion by expulsion (of air) is remote since I did't feel much air displacement; of course outsiders aren't aware of this! However for scientific purposes I recognize that this possibility has to be excluded. In fact I had tested it by enclosing the mechanisms in cardboard, but they were too heavy. Furthermore this would not have been a very good demonstration, since the mechanisms would have been hidden. At any rate I concur that this test has to be done.

From the getgo I was aware of the wobbly motion of the apparatus and I had a hard time explaining the behavior because of it. The ideal experiment would be to have authentic reaction wheels, but one manufacturer told me that they cost $50,000 each. Another didn't even quote a price. I had to forego this avenue because I lack the money to do this.

As you know to produce a torque, which is a force, I have to have an acceleration. Simply rotating a load will not do the job. In order to simulate this, the loads have to be eccentric, however they would cause wobbly motions that are problematic. If you observe the DoubleRotation.mpg on the Home page, you will see that the load was a disk originally but that didn't work because it quickly reached a constant velocity. I simply added some electrical tape to create a constant acceleration. I intend to do some more rigourous testing in the near future.

I appreciate your comments very much.

[pallidin]

Great job on your focus. Keep us posted in the future as your experiment progresses, though certainly time and money are always factors!
Speaking for myself, if any ideas cross my mind which might assist you I will let you know through here or through email.

[Ray Payette]

There has also been a discussion on Space-Talk http://www.space-talk.com/ForumE/showthread.php3?threadid=2483 concerning friction. Another test was concluded that proves that friction is NOT involved.
http://www.spacecrab.com

[Ray Payette]

I have added proof that there is no traction involved and I have changed the Physics proof.

[Ray Payette]

Reaction couple propulsion
The confusion stems from the distinction between a torque and a couple. A torque is a single force that tends to rotate an object; it pivots about the Center of Gravity.

However a couple is a combination of torques that produce a rotation at the center of rotation. It is like swinging a baseball bat, it will displace the center of gravity.

[Kane O'Donnell]

Could you post a mathematical analysis either here or on your page?

Kane

[Ray Payette]

Beer and Johnson deal with the Moment of a Couple in their Statics book:
http://www.me.ttu.edu/classes/ME2464-Levitas/olerch03--Modified.ppt

[Chronos]

I am still confused. There is no way to convert torque [angular momentum] into a vector force without losing energy from the system. I have worked with eccentric loads in heavy vibratory equipment and I guarantee the impulse momentum is less efficient than the drive motor efficiency.

[russ_watters]

Ray, that's not good enough: you need to construct a mathematical model that shows the effect, then demonstrate that you are getting the effect you calculated. Its really not all that diffucult (though I won't do it for you). All you need is a rod's length and mass, the mass of the two motors, and the moments of inertia of all the pieces about the various axes. Then you calculate what each motor's torque does to the system.

If you ever choose to do the math, you will find that the effect you think you see isn't there. It appears that the piece of the puzzle you are missing is this is a dynamic problem, not a static one, and you need to account for the angular momentum.

[Ray Payette]

Thanks for your interest.

Please bear with me for I'm not a scientist nor an engineer so I think in a different way than you do. To me a couple has a moment and it produces a contrary an opposite couple that has an opposite moment. I have a working model that demonstrates it. To me it is quite simple.

However I will try and answer you in your own logic. Please give me some leeway.

[Ray Payette]

Right now I'm not seriously concerned about efficiency; I will deal with that later!
People seem to have difficulty conceiving that a rotational force can be converted into a linear force. Lokk at it from a different perspective, we have long been converting linear motion into rotational motion, such as the piston to train wheels or to an automobile drive shaft; the converse should be equally acceptable.

[russ_watters]

Thanks for your interest.

Please bear with me for I'm not a scientist nor an engineer so I think in a different way than you do. To me a couple has a moment and it produces a contrary an opposite couple that has an opposite moment. I have a working model that demonstrates it. To me it is quite simple.

However I will try and answer you in your own logic. Please give me some leeway.Just be aware that in science, a working model without a mathematical model explaining it isn't worth a whole lot. We need numbers because the numbers are the quantitative description of the logic that sounds so good in your head.

[Chronos]

Thanks for your interest.

Please bear with me for I'm not a scientist nor an engineer so I think in a different way than you do. To me a couple has a moment and it produces a contrary an opposite couple that has an opposite moment. I have a working model that demonstrates it. To me it is quite simple.

However I will try and answer you in your own logic. Please give me some leeway.Physics does not allow any leeway. I am an engineer. I am sometimes accused of being a scientist [which really makes me mad because I have no clue why things work the way they do]. I cuss theorists on a daily basis because they are more forgiving than the real world ever permits. Every transaction in mechanics suffers from energy loss. Every attempt to convert angular momentum [which is fairly efficient] into a vector force suffers from this these annoying losses termed kinetic energy [vibration] and friction. For the most part, they just make things get hot. I would be very wealthy if I knew how to circumvent those effects.

[Ray Payette]

I am not an engineer nor a scientist and I have decided not to act in that way. I am an inventor and I have a real working model that proves what I have said and for me it is sufficient. Furthermore I have indicated the physics principles involved. I will not discourse how "static" forces can be considered "dynamic" forces; this distinction is not of my concern. Since it is easy for an engineer to draw up a mathematical model, let them work on it and still explain how the invention works, because it really does!

There may be a loss pf energy and it may not be particularly efficient, but in space ANY other means of propulsion will be a considerable help.

The invention does not work by expulsion (rockets) nor by traction, it should be for scientists and engineers to tell me how it works.

Marconi probably nerver knew that short waves could be transmitted over the horizon because they bounced on the F2 layer of the ionosphere. I have demonstrated a new propulsion system and it is for others that have other kinds of knowledge to fully explain it. Dismissing my invention because I don't have a complete scientific explanation would be similar to dismiss Marconi's invention because he didn't know about the F2 layer.

[Chronos]

All kidding aside Ray, it just aint possible. If you have a working model, I will be the first to volunteer [given the chance] suspending belief in the so-called laws of physics. Aspiring to understand how things work, to become an engineer or scientist, is the very reason people enter the field. Navigating that mine field does not make you numb to possibilities. It does, however, sharpen your ability to recognize what is usually found when following hoofprints.

[Ray Payette]

To Chronos,
Have you looked at all the .mpg video files on my Web pages:
http://www.spacecrab.com
perhaps they will inspire you.

[russ_watters]

I am not an engineer nor a scientist and I have decided not to act in that way. In that case, I can assure you that you will neer be taken seriously. Further, without bothering to learn the science and engineering behind it, I can assure you that you won't ever really know what your device is doing. Not a good way to approach the issue.

In your video, with all the vibration (you can see the motors shaking in all 3 axes - and quite a bit in the yaw axis), its impossible to show that the effect you are talking about is what is really causing it to move.

[HallsofIvy]

I question whether anyone who would say "we have a hard time conceiving that rotary motion can be translated into linear motion" is really an engineer. Converting rotary motion into linear motion is goes back to before Archimedes.

I will also point out that he has a "working model" but don't post any actual pictures of the working model on his website. Also he notes that it can only be tested "in space". If that is the case, how does he know his model works?

[Ray Payette]

I recognize that I lack the scientific credibility, but I don't have 3 years to devote to learn it (at a basic level). My strategy is to interest people that are much more qualified than me to do the scientific research.
True my model vibrates, that is the essence of my invention; I could not use reaction wheels that are used in satellites because they cost $50,000 each and they produce very little power, however they do not vibrate. I used eccentric loads that vibrate but that produce the required power for the demo. I invested my money in preparing patent applications and right now I don't have any money or ressources to invest in research. Then I will be able to hire scientists and engineers and to purchase lab equipment to do the proper research.
Most R&D is done the other way around, you get a doctor in physics who devises a concept, who gets the funding for the university lab and who then applies for a patent when this is complete. I did not have that luxury.
I am appealing to engineers and scientists to help me with this project.

[Ray Payette]

To HallsofIvy,
You want to look at actual pictures, please look at my videos:
http://www.spacecrab.com/images/FrictionTest.mpg
and others on the Web site.

[Ray Payette]

Patent Process
You may ask why didn't I propose my project to obtain R&D funding? First, I didn't have ANY scientific credibility so it is very likely that I would vave been refused however good the idea is. Secondly any disclosure of the invention would automatically forfeit any rights to it; if I talked about it before I filed for a patent I would have lost all my rights.

[krab]

By conservation of momentum, you cannot propel anything without propelling something else in the opposite direction. Ray, you don't know physics. You should learn some. It will keep you from wasting your time trying to invent stuff that will never work.

[Ray Payette]

krab, the hovercraft advances because because of reaction couple reactions, in other words each motor turns a loads thereby producing couples; the hovercraft turns in the opposite direction. The law of conservation of momentum is strictly followed.
When this is done in succession by two similar torques, the rotation is in essence translated into a linear motion.

Since you claim to be an authority in physics, please explain why the hovercraft advances, given that I have shown in the video that there is no traction or explusion involved.

[russ_watters]

Ray, you say you recognize that you lack scientific credibility, then you make claims about how your device works. Don't you see the contradiction there?

You say you hope to hire scientists and engineers to develop this further - here you have scientists and engineers telling you (for free) that this doesn't work. Don't you see the contradiction there? If you want, you can pay me some money and I'll tell you the same thing. Would you beleive it then? Is there anything that you could be shown that would convince you?

The engineering math that describes what is going on isn't that complicated, but it'd take me a couple of hours to do it, and I don't want to right now. Any halfway competent engineering sophomore should be able to oblige for $20 or $30 in beer money. My recommendation to you is that you find someone willing to do the math for you (or better yet, build a simple computer model), and then listen to them when they tell you it doesn't work.

Your device is so chaotic that its tough to know exactly what is going on, but I believe I have the answer: Since you claim to be an authority in physics, please explain why the hovercraft advances, given that I have shown in the video that there is no traction or explusion involved. Its the pitch. The vibration is causing the hovercraft to pitch, and the pitching motion is lifing the skirt in the back, where air escapes, pushing the hovercraft forward.

Whether its that or another consequence of the vibration, I am confident that if you stiffen the motor mounts to reduce the vibration, the forward motion will disappear.

Several experiments you can do which may help you see what is happening:
-Try turning on one motor at a time.
-Try reversing one or the other.

[Ray Payette]

I do not have the scientific credibility doesn't mean I know nothing about physics. It means that I don't have official degrees that can attest to it. Historically that has been a trait of many inventors, starting with Edison.
I don't rely on scientists and engineers to tell me it doesn't work. I rely on the physical evidence to prove that it works. When they will be able to explain correctly why it works, then I will be convinced. Until then the facts are amply sufficient.

So far everyone is trying to prove that it doesn't work. Please explain why it does work, because it does. That is a fact.

[Ba]

The problem is there is no scientific model except for the "friction" walkers to show that an invention like this does work. We have given several suggestions and you may have considered them briefly but then tossed them aside. And also without actually bieng able to put it through some tests we can't prove it either way. We can suggest ways for you to test it, but other than that we can't do anything.

[Ray Payette]

I do agree that more testing is in order, however I do not have the ressources nor the funding to do serious research.
Thanks anyhow!

[Chronos]

Actually, I think it would be easy to test. Set up a test where the device must lift itself off the ground [including it's entire power system] and remain suspended indefinitey without need for refueling.

[Ray Payette]

This is not an anti-gravity device!

[russ_watters]

So far everyone is trying to prove that it doesn't work. Please explain why it does work, because it does. That is a fact. Many of us have done both, and you won't listen to either. I don't think there is anything more we can do here for you. Sorry.

[Entropy]

This is not an anti-gravity device!

The point is that it would be creating constant energy from nothing, thats the whole basis around a PPM. It doesn't have to "remove" the pull of gravity.

Please explain why it does work.

It doesn't work. Your machine is pushing against the ground and expeling air, although it is a very small amount its still happening.

[Ray Payette]

I never claimed that it doesn't require energy. Where did that notion come from? The model uses a 9 volt battery and it creates no energy whatsoever.

The model is a hovercraft that floats on a cushion of air. That is not what propels it.

[russ_watters]

I never claimed that it doesn't require energy. Where did that notion come from? The model uses a 9 volt battery and it creates no energy whatsoever. You misunderstand: anything that moves has to obey conservation laws: either action-reaction (the hovercraft moves in one direction, another mass, like air, moves in the other) or it must exert a force on a stationary object like the ground. Your device, the way you describe it, exerts no force on the ground or air, so it doesn't obey conservation laws.

The propellers on your hovercraft should make it shake back and forth - when the propellers move forward, the hovercraft should move backwards and when the propellers move backwards, the hovercraft should move forward. You can see this vibration occurring in your video. The vibration is quite clearly the primary effect of your device. The secondary effect is what is making it move forward. Remember, since its a hovercraft, it takes very little energy to move it forward, but clearly there is a lot of energy in the vibration. If only a tiny fraction of the energy goes into unbalancing the hovercraft, its going to move. And thats what's happening. The model is a hovercraft that floats on a cushion of air. That is not what propels it. It is clear from the video that it tilts forward due to the flexible motor mounts. That very well may lift the back enough for the lifter fan to propel it forward.

Here is a math problem that hopefully you can do: assuming no friction, how much force (and then work and energy) does it take to move a 2kg hovercraft forward 2 feet in 5 seconds?

Compare that to the power output of those motors and see if you get a significant fraction of the motor power output.

[Entropy]

The model is a hovercraft that floats on a cushion of air. That is not what propels it.

You do know that hovercrafts can still drift in a specific direction due to an imbalance in the pressure of the air under it, don't you? In fact this is pretty much inevidable seeing how you can get exactly even pressure. How do you know this isn't the cause of the movement?

[russ_watters]

Lemme clean that up for you, Entropy...You do know that hovercrafts can still drift in a specific direction due to an imbalance in the pressure of the air under it, don't you? In fact this is pretty much inevitable seeing as how you can't get exactly even pressure. How do you know this isn't the cause of the movement? Indeed, it is difficult enough to get a hovercraft stable when it is flat - when it its shaking, rolling, and pitching, its just not possible.

[russ_watters]

Let me characterize this in another way. There are two ways to describe what is going on here:

First, take the hovercraft as a whole and find the action and reaction. If the hovercraft moves forward on a frictionless surface, something (air) must go in the other. This is the easy way - its just high-school Newtonian physics. Action:reaction.

Second, take the component parts of the hovercraft and model exactly what they are doing. This is the hard way as it requires college level engineering to describe (which isn't to say with some reading-up you can't figure it out without taking the courses: search for some info on Engineering Statics and Engineering Dynamics courses).

The problem is you think you know what the hard way will show and as a result, you're ignoring the obviousness of what the easy way says.

[Ray Payette]

The actions are rotating loads. A motor that turns a load produces a rotating force, in other words a couple. This has to be compensated by an equal and opposite reaction, in this case a couple that turns the hovercraft in the opposite direction. That is the essence of the device. A motor turns a load; that makes the hovercraft turn in the opposite direction.

If there were a strong imbalance caused by the vibration that would push the hovercraft forward, then it wouldn’t pass the traction test. But it did.

The facts are that the hovercraft moves forward and it passed the traction test. Another fact is that there are many vibrations, but how can you explain that these vibrations propel the hovercraft forward? Old propeller planes really shake around also, but that isn’t what propels them.

[Alkatran]

The actions are rotating loads. A motor that turns a load produces a rotating force, in other words a couple. This has to be compensated by an equal and opposite reaction, in this case a couple that turns the hovercraft in the opposite direction.

Ever take a physics class? The reaction happens at the same time as the action, not later.

[Ray Payette]

Exactly, at the same time the motor turns the load the hovercraft turns in the opposite direction.

[Alkatran]

Exactly, at the same time the motor turns the load the hovercraft turns in the opposite direction.

It takes energy to start this turning. It takes energy to stop it. It takes energy to keep it going because of friction. Cars are faster and more efficient.

[Ray Payette]

Perhaps cars are faster and more efficient here on earth, but they don't work in space. This form of propulsion is an alternative to rockets.

[Alkatran]

It won't work in space, momentum is conserved. If momentum is not conserved then Newton's third law is false, everything we know about collisions is false, etc etc etc...

Basically, physics changes completely.

So... until you do it in space I don't believe it.

[Ray Payette]

That's a new one, the physics in space are different. Since you are well versed in that subject, could tou please give me a reference that would state that.

[enigma]

That's a new one, the physics in space are different. Since you are well versed in that subject, could tou please give me a reference that would state that.

No, physics is space are the same.

The environment in space is different.

Your craft is getting propelled somehow... most likely aerodynamic forces from the propellers or non-uniform pressure distributions along the skirt. You don't have air to move it in space, therefore it won't work in space. You can't get energy from nothing.

Why don't you try to suspend the thing from a string and run it then.

If you truly have something, the device will oscillate about some non-plumb equilibrium position.

[Ray Payette]

There are no propellers, only wooden rods that don't displace much air; they cannot possibly provide the hovercraft's propulsion.

The energy from the battery is converted to kinetic energy. Energy is used up from the battery.

I suspended the device on a cushion of air that provides more degrees of freedom than a pendulum. Since there are rotational forces involved (reaction couple) and the vehicle needs to stay on the same plane, 3 wires would be required to stabilize it. This in turn would pose tortional questions. The hovercraft is a better experiment.

[mapper]

Next time im in space ill do your experiment. Sounds like fun.

btw what video codecs do we need to view this video? Ive dl like 10 different ones and nothing works still.

[Ray Payette]

It should work in space because it doen't interact with the environment at all; it needs no air to move or surgace to push in order to work.

Try the latest Microsoft Media Player. There are 23 megs .mpg files so you might need to delete your temporary internet files as the TIP suggests.

[enigma]

It should work in space because it doen't interact with the environment at all; it needs no air to move or surgace to push in order to work.


This is an unsubstantiated assertion, and quite frankly, incorrect.

You cannot get kinetic energy without pushing against something. Sorry... that's just the rules of this universe.

Without measuring it, you have no justification to just write off the aerodynamic effects of the rotating beams. Without measuring it, you have no justification to just write off the potential for a pressure difference across the edge of the skirt caused by the vibrations.

Satellites use reaction torque NOW! All the torque wheels do is adjust orientation. No free energy. No fuel-less motion. What's more, after a while, they need to be de-spun by firing the attitude control rockets while they torque the wheels in the opposite direction.

If you think you've found something new, then you MUST quantify it or else you have no way to justify spending millions of dollars to design, build, launch, and test a device in space. If you can't quantify it yourself, then find someone to do it for you. You can either pay someone or actually listen to what people here are telling you... either way you'll get the same response. Torques cannot increase linear momentum without pushing against something.

Do the string experiment. I'm willing to wager whatever you can afford that you'll find you have no equilibrium offset.

[Ray Payette]

You contradict yourself. First of all you state that satellites use reaction torque now. Yes they do, they use reaction wheels to maintain their attitude. They don’t have to push against anything to do this. So you implicitly agree that a rotary means of propulsion is not only feasible, it is in fact used in space. In fact my invention refers to US patent 5,723,923 concerning a reaction wheel. In one version of my patent I use that same reaction wheel to produce the rotations on a satellite. The sum of these rotations result in a linear momentum, but they originate as rotational torques.

BTW it is an erroneous notion that propulsion has to push against something. When in space rockets simply throw away their burnt fuel in space against nothing. All you need is an action to get a reaction. Get your notions correctly!

If you examine my website well enough you will see that it also solves the momentum build-up problem by a momentum unloading procedure.

I was a chartered accountant for decades so I know that I could discuss numbers for years without achieving a conclusion. That is a quagmire I do not wish to go into.

[russ_watters]

You contradict yourself. First of all you state that satellites use reaction torque now. Yes they do, they use reaction wheels to maintain their attitude. They don’t have to push against anything to do this. So you implicitly agree that a rotary means of propulsion is not only feasible, it is in fact used in space. In fact my invention refers to US patent 5,723,923 concerning a reaction wheel. In one version of my patent I use that same reaction wheel to produce the rotations on a satellite. The sum of these rotations result in a linear momentum, but they originate as rotational torques. Again, rotational motion is not the same as translational: the contradiction is in your own understanding of the subject, not in enigma's. You do not use the same reaction wheel as the satellite, you use an unbalanced "wheel." If you think that's trivial, try using two balaced wheels in place of the rotating sticks. You'll end up with a quite stable (vibration free) and motionless object - like a dual-rotor helicoptor sitting on the ground. The similarity between your device and a satellite w/reaction control is that neither can produce translational motion, only rotational.

If you do the math, you will find that what you have constructed, if working correctly, makes the hovercraft oscillate like an orbital sander due to the unbalanced rotation. The energy from the battery is converted to kinetic energy. Energy is used up from the battery. That's true, but you're still missing where that energy is going: an electric motor obeys conservation law. The motor produces a torque on the shaft and the shaft produces an equal an opposite torque on the motor. This cannot be mechanically converted into translational motion without coming into contact with the environment.

Conservation law does not say that consuming electrical energy can result in unbalanced mechanical energy. Both the mechanical and electrical systems obey conservation law separately and collectively.

[russ_watters]

The actions are rotating loads. A motor that turns a load produces a rotating force, in other words a couple. This has to be compensated by an equal and opposite reaction, in this case a couple that turns the hovercraft in the opposite direction. That is the essence of the device. A motor turns a load; that makes the hovercraft turn in the opposite direction. Right - and the part that you're missing, the part that requires a little math or engineering work to show, is that the two couples cancel each other out, resulting in no forward motion. If there were a strong imbalance caused by the vibration that would push the hovercraft forward, then it wouldn’t pass the traction test. But it did. That has nothing to do with traction, thats the fan pushing the hovercraft forward. Another fact is that there are many vibrations, but how can you explain that these vibrations propel the hovercraft forward? Old propeller planes really shake around also, but that isn’t what propels them. I did explain it, you just won't accept it. Speaking of old planes, did you know that if the pilot of a WWII fighter didn't counter the torque of the motor, the plane would flip over? Action-reaction is obeyed there as well. Also, the vibration of your device far exceeds its propulsion, unlike with an old plane. In fact, I'd wager that if you ever chose to do the calculation I laid out above, you'd find upwards of 90% of the mechanical energy produced by those motors is going into making it shake back and forth, and another 9% or so is lost to friction.

[krab]

The actions are rotating loads. A motor that turns a load produces a rotating force, in other words a couple. This has to be compensated by an equal and opposite reaction, in this case a couple that turns the hovercraft in the opposite direction. That is the essence of the device. A motor turns a load; that makes the hovercraft turn in the opposite direction.
So you appear to believe in conservation of angular momentum. Why do you not believe in conservation of linear momentum? As for us, Would we believe that conservation of linear momentum is true, or would we believe that a guy who has filmed a jiggling vibrating assembly of parts has disproved it? Now that's a toughie.

[enigma]

Yes they do, they use reaction wheels to maintain their attitude. They don’t have to push against anything to do this.

No. Try again.

The satellite torques the wheel. The wheel torques the satellite. The wheel speeds up. The satellite changes orientation.

So you implicitly agree that a rotary means of propulsion is not only feasible, it is in fact used in space.

Changing orientations by adjusting the potential energies of internal components is NOT propulsion.


BTW it is an erroneous notion that propulsion has to push against something. When in space rockets simply throw away their burnt fuel in space against nothing. All you need is an action to get a reaction. Get your notions correctly!


The rocket pushes against the fuel. The fuel pushes against the rocket. You do realise you're accusing an aerospace engineer of not knowing how a rocket works, right?

That is a quagmire I do not wish to go into.

Then don't expect anyone to shill out millions of dollars to test your device, and don't expect any of us to believe you've invented an infinite improbability drive.

[Chronos]

BTW it is an erroneous notion that propulsion has to push against something. When in space rockets simply throw away their burnt fuel in space against nothing. All you need is an action to get a reaction. Get your notions correctly!A refresher course in rocket science may be in order. A rocket pushes against the mass of the propellent being expelled. Your device is going to flop around like a wounded toad and whatever linear displacement you manage to coax out of it will require a huge amount of energy compared to a device such as a rocket.

[russ_watters]

The rocket pushes against the fuel. The fuel pushes against the rocket. You do realise you're accusing an aerospace engineer of not knowing how a rocket works, right? ...and a mechanical engineer of not understanding torque. And most of the rest of the guys who have posted in this thread are either physicists or engineers. In another universe, that would be funny...

Ray, it appears I was wrong - you need to learn what conservation of energy/momentum is, as well as how torques/couples work in machines. I had hoped you would know Newtonian mechanics - its learned in high school physics and should even be intuitive.

There is an enormous amount of information on the internet about these two subjects. Please, please avail yourself of the resources and learn about these two concepts. Google works: HERE (http://www.mcasco.com/QA15.html) is a start. To help you think about the rocket situation you mentioned in your email we need to talk a bit about cause and effect. The conservation of linear momentum is one of those things very near to the heart of what makes the universe work. For our purposes it is a cause, not an effect. That means we do not say linear momentum is conserved because... Rather we say this or that happens because linear momentum is conserved. If we take the conservation of linear momentum to be a "law of nature" then we can conclude all sorts of interesting things from that.

Suppose for example that we have a rocket loaded with fuel, initially at rest in our frame of reference. When we start the engines, some of the fuel is ejected at high speed from the exhaust of the rocket. The exhausted fuel now has some linear momentum in our reference frame. The total linear momentum before the firing of the engines was zero. Since it is conserved, the total must remain zero. This means that the momentum of the fuel in the backward direction must be exactly balanced by the momentum of the rocket in the forward direction. Therefore the rocket moves forward. This concept applies to your hovercraft as well - it moves forward, therefore something else must move in the other direction, or it must push against the table. Take your pick.

For the concept of a "couple" vs a "torque", look HERE (http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/en3/Notes/Statics/Forcecouple/Forcecouple.htm). You're misusing the concepts. We have seen that a force acting on a rigid body has two effects: (i) it tends to move the body; and (ii) it tends to rotate the body.

A natural question arises – is there a way to rotate a body without moving it? And is there a kind of force that causes only rotation without translation?

The answer to both questions is yes.

5.1 Force couples

A system of forces that exerts a resultant moment, but no resultant force, is called a force couple. Couples cannot cause translational motion - but then, what is happening on your device isn't couples anyway - its torques.

[russ_watters]

Ray, in my searches, I have found you have discussed this at length on other forums. The answers the scientists and engineers are giving you on other forums are the same as the answers we are giving you. I really need to know: is there anything that any expert can tell you that would convince you that your device is moving because of something other than "reaction torque propulsion"? If not, its useless to continue trying to explain it to you.

Or, failing that, how many experts does it take before you will believe one?

Further, you clearly have put a lot of energy into this - put some energy into learning the physics and engineering behind it.

[mapper]

shesh, when this gets locked "Theory vs. Math (possible/impossible)" is the only thead people are going to be able to post in!

wtf is up with all the locked threads anyway? Let people post if they wish. If its dead it will die on its own!

[enigma]

wtf is up with all the locked threads anyway? Let people post if they wish. If its dead it will die on its own!

From the Forum Guidelines (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374)

Overly Speculative Posts:
Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. Posts or threads of an overly speculative nature will be moved to the Theory Development subforum without notice, where discussion may continue in quarantine. Forum staff may choose to lock threads in the Theory Development subform when they decide the topic has run its course. Advertisements of personal theories and unfounded challenges of mainstream science will not be tolerated anywhere on the site, including the Theory Development subforum. Users may not create threads in the Theory Development subforum.

[Doc Al]

And on that note: thread closed.