Help explaining why this will or will not work

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mick10
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Work
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the validity of a proposed propulsion device showcased in a video, with participants examining its feasibility based on principles of physics, particularly the laws of motion and conservation of momentum. The conversation includes skepticism about the device's claims and the motivations behind its promotion.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the device appears to be a complex attempt to circumvent established physical laws, particularly the conservation of momentum.
  • Others express skepticism about the motivations behind such devices, suggesting they are often designed to mislead or attract funding without scientific validity.
  • A participant notes that the device is not a perpetual motion machine but rather a centrifugal propulsion system, which still does not work due to violations of physical laws.
  • Concerns are raised about the claims of "fifth dimensional properties," with some participants dismissing these as nonsensical.
  • Several participants emphasize that the device's design does not provide a net positive force, as the system's components are balanced and do not create the claimed effects.
  • There are references to historical examples of similar failed devices, indicating a pattern of such claims in the field of physics.
  • Some participants share personal experiences of trying to explain these concepts to others who may not have a strong background in physics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the proposed device is unlikely to work based on established physical principles, but there is no consensus on the specifics of its failure or the motivations behind its promotion. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the validity of the claims made in the video.

Contextual Notes

Participants express frustration over the complexity of the device's claims and the difficulty in communicating fundamental physics concepts to those without a technical background. There are also references to the potential for misinterpretation of physics principles in promotional materials.

mick10
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
hi all, first time poster. i have been a physics hobbiest since my first physics course as part of my ME degree and spend many happy hours . . . . well . . . . thinking about things lol. actually it goes back further then that to a science fair day in first grade, i remember picking up some rocks on a table and realizing gravity, kinda been thinkn about it ever since lol. properties of mass and motion. anyway i have a friend that is trying to argue the validity of this thinghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNP5odWvJRk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

we've all seen these things come and go, hutshison affect, h20 powered cars etc. and this to me appears to be a very complexstiction or reactionless drive. i have a pretty good understanding of the laws of motion and my contention is this could never work. it looks very clever and compex but in its simplest definition you cannot throw a mass then take advantage of its innertia within a closeed system

i am having trouble explaining clearly to my friend why this will not work and could use some help in sorting out the details (unless of course I am wrong and you guys think this could work lol . . . hey i am always willing to be wrong and learn something ) my thoughts are that he does not realize the center of gravity is not on the axis of the machine but somewhere within that mobius path that the mass disk takes. in its deffinition it seems to me like a very complex reverse version of a villard, leupold or davinci wheel and it is that shifted center of gravity that precludes those from working, the conservation of energy. no freelunch in physics as it were . . . .

thanks all and looking forward to your thoughts.(mods if this is in the wrong section feel free to move, thanks)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That is one of the most beautiful and elaborate displays of absolutely nothing that I've ever seen. Total BS.

Stay tuned to this channel for a more scientific answer from someone else.
 
looks like one of those projects where "clever" guys make a nice looking video and some plans and fake organizations then ask for serious funding from people who don't know much about physics promising a "new technology" that will save the world and aliens too and then they get away with their money just to buy another one of those cool looking mercedes cars to enjoy the last times of the "age of oil"

The video is similar to those "free energy" videos or in other words refer to what Danger already said it is BS.
 
Fantastic.
Another awesome video of what useless things some people do in their spare time.
I think I'll make one anyways when I finally get lots of spare time, but not just right now, because it looks neat, with lots of mechanical things going round and round to dazzle everyone.

What is it, by the way. Looks like a new type of outdoor free air clothes dryer, except the guy put it all in a bell housing to cover up his embarrassment of such a contraption.

Anyways, your friend should be explaining precisely why he thinks it should do what he thinks it supposed to do, without skipping any parts about friction and violating any laws of physics. When the explanation from him comes to the part about "...and here's the beauty and magic about it...", he pretty much has stated that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Since it is supposedly purported to be a PM machine your thread will most likely be zapped, terminated, eliminated, or just plain closed for discussion. sorry.
 
It's not a PM machine because most of these devices require an energy source to operate. It's a centrifugal propulsion system. Or in other words, inertial propulsion, reactionless thruster, Dean drive, ect... (a replacement for the rocket engine). Of course none of them will work because they all violate the third law of motion and the conservation of momentum.
 
thanks all, yes it is a wonderous piece of animation and one of the most complex attempts to get around physics that I have ever seen lol. I have been arguing my point to my friend for the last couple days with no success but he also has no classical training technical education. truth be told I did not either till I went through the core courses in my degree. I have been trying to tell my friend in the simplest terms you cannot throw a mass and then take advantage of its inertia within the same closed system. you also cannot hide the laws of motion within its complexity.


very much looking forward to more of your thoughts on this. thanks for the input
 
Last edited:
Incedentally my friend is actually involved with the inventor somehow. He did the animation and something to do with the transmition I guess, I didnt know a thing about it til he posted a link on Facebook. Been arguing my point ever since lol. He keeps claiming some fifth dimensional properties that i don't understand lol. Also keeps telling that i don't understand simple physics lol (sorry so many lols but I can't help it)

As we all know from one of the greatest physics quotes ever "its easy to be creative and its easy to be credible but its very difficult to be both"
 
Last edited:
mick10 said:
Incedentally my friend is actually involved with the inventor somehow. He did the animation

He should harness his talents and go to work for Disney. Their concepts make a lot more sense than this crap.
And tell him from me that there's no such thing as a "fifth dimensional property". That exists only at Hogwarts.
 
Been trying to but you know how people try to hide their lack of knowledge behind "this is to complex for you to understand". Its funny but very frustrating at the same time
 
  • #10
mick10 said:
Been trying to but you know how people try to hide their lack of knowledge behind "this is to complex for you to understand".

Just counter that the same way that I do. Tell him, "No, you're just too f'ing stupid to understand why it won't work."
 
  • #11
The reason it won't work is because it would violate the law of preservation of momentum. That is sufficient proof.

However, to elaborate the main axis of rotation around which the 40 disks rotate is neutral. all 40 disk assemblies weigh the same and no net positive force vector exists (regardless of the imbalance of each disk assembly).
 
  • #12
a1call said:
The reason it won't work is because it would violate the law of preservation of momentum. That is sufficient proof.

He tried that. The twit diverted it by invoking the 5th Dimension (who, by the way, will probably want royalty payments for this).
 
  • #13
The animation reminds me of tht old PM machine with the balls running in and out of curved spokes on a wheel. The outer balls are supposed to provide more 'leverage' than the inner balls. The fallacy is that there are more inner balls at anyone time than outer balls.

Actually, the animation / simulation thing is introduced far too readily in many posts on PF - by people who really want to know about Science. The subject of this thread is only an extreme version.
It's so easy to draw a sky hook but so difficult to make one! I regularly fly in dreams - and I'm convinced about it at the time.
 
  • #14
Danger said:
He tried that. The twit diverted it by invoking the 5th Dimension (who, by the way, will probably want royalty payments for this).

Ya know come to think of it they did right that song "up up and away" maybe the answer lies within the harmonics of tune lol
 
  • #15
mick10 said:
Ya know come to think of it they did right that song "up up and away" maybe the answer lies within the harmonics of tune lol

:smile:

Do me a huge favour here, please. Force him to read this thread so I can tell him to his face what a moron he is.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
You could try some mental judo.

Tell him he's doing it wrong, and it will generate a sideways force not a force along the axis. When he wants to know why, just say "it's obvious from looking at your video" :devil:

(Of course it won't actually generate any force at all.)
 
  • #17
Thread closed.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad What Experiments Demonstrate Time Dilation?
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
Graduate Bernoulli, lift and cause & effect
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
Undergrad Help with a debate on atoms at work?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
High School Need help explaining river-boat problems
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
7K
Graduate Twistors and celestial holography
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
Work done by a force slowing an object
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Undergrad Why does changing the mass of a flying ball affect its trajectory?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Help me out and tell me why this machine won't work
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Graduate Why is there no distance-measure in the standard model?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Undergrad Debunking the Myth: Birds in a Truck Riddle Explained by Basic Physics
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
10K