Id appreciate feedback to develope an idea

[eosphorus]

i have a flat box in which i put a spinning beam hold by the center

i putweights on the beam that can run longitudinally on the beam so when the beam spins the centrifugal force send them away from the center

i tight a cable to a corner of the box and the weights in such a way that when the weights are in the end of the beam, as it spins the cable tenses and pulls the weights to the center

in this way the weights increase the radius during 3/4 of spin due to centrifugal force and decrease the radius during 1/4 of turn due to string tension

what i expect is some thrust in the direction of the quarter of turn whes there's tension on the string

 

[DaTario]

I am not sure I have well understood your project.

Best regards

DaTario

 

[eosphorus]

i can not attach the draw i made for being to big so i put it here:

[crackpot forum url deleted]

[Moderator note: There's no excuse for that. If you can't draw it simply and resize it to fit the attachment limit (just how BIG is this drawing anyway), then use one of the freebie image upload area and point the url to that. Citing a link to a crackpot forum is not allowed.]

 

[DaveC426913]

OK, so you've set a rod in circular motion inside your box, and you've got a brake on it. So, at some point the box will jerk rotationally. Yup. No problem.

If you put some angular momentum into a system, you can reasonably expect to extract a small amount of it through some delayed mechanism. What's the big deal?

Or are you thinking this is some sort of perpetual motion device?

 

[eosphorus]

http://www.2and2.net/Uploads/Images/File1931.jpg

im in the top of a tower and two cannons are shot underneath me, one to the left and one to te right, I am united to the cannonballs by a cable and i give away cable or take it with a spool lests look at the drawing:

the cannonball i shot in trajectory 3, a straight one, i give away as much cable as needed so the tension of the cable is 0

the tension in trajectory 1 the circular one the tension is constant of 10000 N so the tension is the same the one that pulls up that the one that pulls down

but in the trajectory 2 the one that is first an outwards spiral and then and inwards one the tension that pulls down is of 1 N while the one that pulls up is of 10000 N

i would be virtually shot up in trajectory 2 with almost no reaction or it being a virtual vector

 

[eosphorus]

the idea is to get a thrust engine that sends no mass away

im not saying there's no reaction and of course you need energy to power it

the reaction would be the same than a person who sits on a spinning chair and by spinning on his hands a wheel rotates the chair

he doesn't rotate a mass on the oposite sense of the chair but there's still a reaction

 

[DaveC426913]

the idea is to get a thrust engine that sends no mass away

Except the heat and gasses from the firing mechanism. Once you run out of fuel to fire your masses and retrieve them, you're dead in the water.

And don't forget that to fire those masses forward, all your thrust will push your vehicle backward, thus no net gain.

Consider: the masses exiting and returning result in zero-sum. Eliminate them. Point the cannon toward the rear, and you'll make better use of the escaping heat and gasses - you'll be converting them *directly* into movement.

 

[eosphorus]

yes but imagine my drawing as an engine where the cannonballs are pistons

it could work from solar energy so it could travel very far

also remember that for the cannon that shoots forward there's another that shoots backwards so the horizontal component nulifies its only the vertical compnent of the tension the one to look at

 

[DaveC426913]

You're still trying to use gadgetry to obfuscate the basic mechanisms involved. You put energy into the system initially (and now you're talking about powering it with solar power). What you'll get out of it is the work that can be done from these two sources. Everything else is merely a way of trying to store that energy. Your system is going to throw a whole lot of momentum around, all of which (not including the initial and solar energy) will net to zero.

Why don't you just use it to power a flywheel? Same principle as what you're proposing (storing energy as angular momentum), but a flywheel is more efficient and much simpler.

And yes, the vehicle will travel for a while. But you're still not getting out more than you put in.



Proposal #2:

If your goal is to get a vehicle to travel a long ways, frankly, you don't need a mechanism at all!

You're allowing for frictionless parts, right? (Otherwise your idea falls flat, right?)

So here's my nigh-perpetual motion device: three wheels on the bottom of a board. Give it some initial energy (just as in your proposal) - give it a push. With frictionless bearings and wheels, it will travel quite a distance - farther than your device.

 

[enigma]

If you push something forward in space, you go backwards.

You're forgetting Newton's second law.

This was a major problem on the very first spacewalk. One of the astronauts had to tighten a bolt (or something like that... twist a widget), but they forgot to give him footholds to hold himself steady. He was trying to twist the bolt, and hold onto the outside of the spacecraft to keep himself from spinning in the opposite direction. He gave up, exhausted, after 3 or 4 hours.

 

[eosphorus]

my point is to make an engine that sends no mass away to accelerate

this is regarded as imposible because of Newton but then what happens with a gyro hanged on a string by its extreme, it will spin with precesion but no mass is spinned the oposite sense

i think I am really building this device

i would need a string that winded by itself in a spool(with a spring) so the string doesn't mix up with the spinning wheel

 

[DaveC426913]

Not that I'm trying to discourage you, I just am wondering if I'm missing what you feel you've discovered.

"... an engine that sends no mass away to accelerate ... this is regarded as imposible because of Newton ..."

Not true.

You are putting energy into the system when you initially spin up the gyro. Yes, you can get that energy to do work in the form of movement, at least until you use up you supply of energy.

Am I missing something?

 

[DaveC426913]

If you are intent on building it, I have some advice that will increase your likelihood of success:

The gadget you've designed exploits some fundamental principle (say, perhaps, angular momentum) - what principle is, is currently unknown (I'm not saying you've discovered a new one, I'm just saying we haven't actually zeroed in on exactly where you're gainnig the energy from). But that principle has nothing to do with the details of your device, and everything to do with mass, force and movement. and that can be generalized.

Your gadget is likely more complex than it needs to be in order to exploit the principle. The simpler your engine, the less can go wrong (in terms of loss through heat, friction and engineering challenges, etc.) So try to boil down your device to its most basic elements and work towards isolating that underlying principle. The closer your device gets to exploiting the principle directly, the more efficent its conversion to useful work.

For example, if the principle works in a gadget that uses the energy stored in spinning mass, it should work on, say, a gyroscope, if it were designed the right way. It is way easier to get a gyroscope going without loss due to heat or friction or engineering challenges than your use of cannon and cannonballs.

It also means you can solve the whole thing on paper, where things don't break or get stuck or operate poorly. If you try to build it, you will get bogged down in engineering issues rather than principles of physics.

 

[ZapperZ]

my point is to make an engine that sends no mass away to accelerate

this is regarded as imposible because of Newton but then what happens with a gyro hanged on a string by its extreme, it will spin with precesion but no mass is spinned the oposite sense

i think I am really building this device

i would need a string that winded by itself in a spool(with a spring) so the string doesn't mix up with the spinning wheel

In this, and also in previous threads that you have started, you were given plenty of advice to look into elementary intro physics text to get you off this over-unity "experiments" that you keep coming up.

For example, your "example" of the gyroscope here is a clear indication that you have not understood basic Newton's laws. A gyroscope already spinning is equivalent to a mass already moving with no net force acting on it. This means that it will continue to spin, the same way the mass will continue to move, until a net torque or force acts on it. THere is no need for either of them to give off mass. There's no "propulsion" needed.

However, when you CHANGE something, or have to work against a force, THEN you need propulsion. A rocket has to keep on ejecting mass in the form of gas because it either needs to accelerate the rocket, or to do work against gravity! If you have a gyroscope that isn't already spinning, you have to put a TORQUE onto the gyroscope to make it start spinning and pick up angular speed. This is where you either need something external, or the object has to eject mass to cause a momentum, or angular momentum change.

Again, you have been given ample leeway here in presenting your question. Each one of them keeps coming back to the SAME thing, and the same basic physics principles. There is only so much that this forum can do before you yourself have to put in your own effort in learning these things. After more than several months since you first got here (in your various other incarnations), haven't you noticed that there has been NO progress at all in your understanding?

Zz.

 

[eosphorus]

zapperz I am studying and i believe most of what i study but though i have no right to express it here i have the right to believe that actual science is a matrix to keep the world away from a revolution

for example i can't discuss here that i raised the center of gravity slightly by use of gravity by using a balance, i choose to believe my eyes before books, i suppose you think I am dislearning XD

the set up about i ask now is this:

i have a spinning beam hold on its center and two weights can move longitudinally along the beam

when vertical both weights are at distance of 20 cm but when horizontal one is at 10 cm and the other is at 30 cm

angular momentum is conserved as a whole but i want to test if some artificial gravity appears similar to the one of 2002 rotational ship

 

[eosphorus]

in fact if some thrust appeared maybe electrons in atoms follow the pattern i draw creating an aceleration in a fixed direction by every single atom

that would explain than an atom of h2 falls at the same rate than an atom of plumb, for every electron propelling there's a proton to be propelled so the ratio weight-thrust is always kept constant

 

[FredGarvin]

zapperz I am studying and i believe most of what i study but though i have no right to express it here i have the right to believe that actual science is a matrix to keep the world away from a revolution

Damn this is gooooood readin' here. That made me laugh. I am anxiously awaiting a response to this one.

for example i can't discuss here that i raised the center of gravity slightly by use of gravity by using a balance

So you raised something by using a lever? Oh, but gravity was pulling the one end down which brought the other end up? So how did gravity pull down the other side? Did you have to put a weight on that side?

 

[eosphorus]

no what i did is buid a balance with the center of gravity and the spinning axe in the same position( i made sure of this by turning it upside down)

then i added a vertical cigarrete in the axe as the fiel rising the center of gravity slightly and the balance would still work

from a 45º position it would go to horizontal what means that gravity raised slightly the COG

of course once the balance levels this potential energy is spent

but i have made at least one experiment obtaining results opposite of those expected by mainstream

 

[DaveC426913]

I think the point is that all of this information is available to you in basic physics books. Once you study up on it, you'll find your own questions answered.

And that way, if you choose not to believe what the books say (like you choose not to believe what forum members are telling you) - well, the only time wasted will be your own.

 

[G01]

no what i did is buid a balance with the center of gravity and the spinning axe in the same position( i made sure of this by turning it upside down)

then i added a vertical cigarrete in the axe as the fiel rising the center of gravity slightly and the balance would still work

from a 45º position it would go to horizontal what means that gravity raised slightly the COG

of course once the balance levels this potential energy is spent

but i have made at least one experiment obtaining results opposite of those expected by mainstream

I am no physics expert. Being just a student myself I am still learning, but I BELIEVE, and maybe someone farther along in their physics education can confirm or deny this, but I believe that this change in height of the balance changed because you spinned theaxe in a way that the momentum vector pointed straight upward and the axe was sitting on an incline and began to tilt. As it tilted, the momentum vector "wanted" to stay pointing straight upward and "pulled" the axe off of the balance a little and the balance went back to horizontal as the axe was "pulled" off it and at horizantal the axe"s momentum vector is pointing straight upward and with less tendency to change so the vector stopped "pulling" up any higher, but pulled enough to keep it there. (Until the axe stopped spinning of course)

I really am not sure about this. Please someone confirm this for me. It sounds much more plausible than anti gravity


Eosphorus, I commend your yearning to discover something new. Any true scientific mind wants to discover new things. You never hear a scientist say, "I never want to discover anything new in my career."
Your problem is that you need to know what is already known. Before making a new theory of antigravity, make sure that this phenominon isn't alreadyexplained bya much simpler theory. Good luck to you in you studies.

 

[DaveC426913]

PLEASE. AXES are used by fire-fighters.

It's called an AXLE.

 

[skywolf]

what if...

i was thinking about whether we would be able to see "pure" energy, that is just energy by itself
and i though what about photons
i mean, they don't travel through time (by constantly traveling through space) and they are massless

and what if... (heres where it gets crazy)
it takes a lot of energy to travel through time, that's why there is such a difference between E and mc^2
but that's why you make so much energy when you colide a particle with its antiparticle, cause if you consider them the same particle then when it reverses through time, all that is left is a lot of energy

 

[DaveC426913]

Photons are energy. Energy is photons. Energy is emissions in the electromagnetic band - anywhere from kilometres long radio, up through microwaves, visible light, UV, X-rays, cosmic rays. It's all the same thing.

And yes, it will take a lot of energy to travel thorugh time (assuming it can be done). It will also take a lot of energy to unify gravity with the other 3 fundamental forces.

 

[russ_watters]

...thats why there is such a difference between E and mc^2

Huh? As the equals sign would imply, there is no difference...