Is this sorta mechanical component ever made?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the concept of deriving normal reaction forces from internal stress within a body, rather than through conventional means like friction or spring compression. The original poster questions whether any mechanical arrangement exists that can achieve this without resulting in net motion, using the example of an explosion in a rigid container to illustrate their point. Participants clarify that internal forces in a system will always sum to zero externally, which challenges the idea of reactionless propulsion or energy generation. The conversation highlights the misunderstanding of stress and force diagrams, emphasizing that normal reactions typically arise from external interactions. Ultimately, the complexity of the question leads to confusion, with a suggestion for clearer explanations or diagrams to facilitate understanding.
dE_logics
Messages
742
Reaction score
0
When a force falls on a body, it gets a normal reaction.

Conventionally this normal reaction can be given by friction, spring compression, chemical reaction, motion etc...

Now...have we ever made such an arrangement that this normal reaction is derived from the stress on a body...nothing else...or at at least some amount of normal reaction is derived from the stress in the body.

Just for examples sake...suppose a bomb explodes in a rigid container...all the the shock wave will be absorbed or normal reaction will be given back to that shock wave from the container's reaction to the stress made by the shockwave...or the strength of the container will give the normal reaction. In this case there's no net motion but there's a normal reaction cause of the rigid container (considering a perfectly homogeneous explosion, i.e shockwave completely distributed in space evenly).

If the explosion would not have been homogeneous, there would have been a net displacement, same for any force applying in one direction

What I am asking here is...has any arrangement been made so as to derive this normal reaction from the stress in the body even though the force is in one direction and without giving the total arrangement a net motion (small amount of motion is ok).

If you don't get it pls respond.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I guess not.
 
You seem to be implying some sort of reactionless propulsion or energy generation. If so, you are misinterpreting the free body diagram of the forces. Internal forces will not ever sum to anything but zero externally on a continuous basis.
 
dE_logics said:
Conventionally this normal reaction can be given by friction, spring compression, chemical reaction, motion etc...

Now...have we ever made such an arrangement that this normal reaction is derived from the stress on a body...nothing else...or at at least some amount of normal reaction is derived from the stress in the body.
Emphasis Added

Spring compression is stress. When you place an object on a flat table the normal reaction is due to stress. This happens all the time.

However, if russ_watters is correct and you are asking about some sort of reactionless propulsion then you really misunderstand stress.
 
russ_watters said:
You seem to be implying some sort of reactionless propulsion or energy generation. If so, you are misinterpreting the free body diagram of the forces. Internal forces will not ever sum to anything but zero externally on a continuous basis.

When you shoot a bullet the force is internal.
 
DaleSpam said:
Emphasis Added

Spring compression is stress. When you place an object on a flat table the normal reaction is due to stress. This happens all the time.

However, if russ_watters is correct and you are asking about some sort of reactionless propulsion then you really misunderstand stress.

The reaction is to be derived from the internal stress of the body.
 
Do you mean like in a bouncing ball?
 
dE_logics said:
When you shoot a bullet the force is internal.

Yes. And the forces sum to zero in that case too (hence recoil).
 
Integral said:
Do you mean like in a bouncing ball?

No...like an explosion in a contained rigid chamber...the reason why its shockwave did not pass though the chamber is cause the normal reaction was given by the chamber.
 
  • #10
So are you just asking if anyone has ever made an explosion in a rigid chamber? If so, the answer is yes.
 
  • #11
:smile: :smile: :smile: :smile:

No man!...I used that to explain my point.
 
  • #12
OK, why don't you try a different explanation. I don't think anyone understands your question. A free-body diagram might help more than words.
 
  • #13
Agreed. We're only guessing at your point - you are being very vague.
 
  • #14
I believe the OP is attempting a net-unidirectional force through some type of exotic internal manipulation(explosive or otherwise)
In other words, a forced displacement of the center-of-mass and, more so, in a continuing, net-unidirectional force outcome within a closed-system.

That's a hard call...
 
Back
Top