Motor of linar aceleration by forces of spin by raaaid

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around a patent from 2002 related to a motor design that incorporates spinning cylinders to create linear acceleration. The author describes a conceptual mechanism involving two cylinders that can spin while being manipulated to alter their axis of rotation. There is mention of a belief that building a device capable of repelling gravity could lead to time travel, linking gravity to the expansion of matter. The author also shares personal experiences, including mental health challenges that impacted their ability to pursue the patent. The conversation touches on the appropriateness of discussing antigravity and time travel within the forum context.
sea_wizard
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
heres a patent i got in 2002 of which first i lost property for not paying the 20euro it costed and second got retired in 2003, deciding not go on with the reclaim.

imagine two motor cylinders that beside its normal armonic movement can spin.
imagine the cilinders as two cigaretes you hold in each hand, let's take a look at one of the cigaretes: you hold it in the middle with two fingers pointing with the filter at 3 o clock then you make it spin until 9 (always holding it in the middle), then from 9 to 12 at the same time you spin it you displace the spinning axe as away from the filter as posible (you spin it and push it at the same time) then from 12 to 3 recover the spinning axe to the center of the cigarete, and then so on again.

physical explanation: imagine two persons very strong standing in a platform in empty espace. They have stones tigth to the end of ropes and start making the stones turn faster and faster compensating each other reaction, they also give rope away so the platform starts balancing back and forward, now imagine that when the stones are at 3 and 9 going to 12 the two persons recover suddenly all of the rope ending the stones above their heads being the axe of spin and the center of gravity in the same vertical.


by the way according to mr raaid mustafa if you buid a device that can repel gravity what you are really building is a time machine.
still strikes me the coincidence of the name and the believe that gravity is the expansion of matter

the reason for forgetting this patent is that when i got first the property of the patent i got my first psycotic episode (unusual 28 with no family antecedents).one year later after calling the office of patents they explain me two steps to take first retiring the patent second reclaim, first step is been taken then have my second psycotic episode as i don't want a third my claim of the patent will not be taken ever more
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Originally posted by sea_wizard
by the way according to mr raaid mustafa if you buid a device that can repel gravity what you are really building is a time machine.
still strikes me the coincidence of the name and the believe that gravity is the expansion of matter
That person is, of course, you. You were already asked to leave.

Futhermore, I hope you understand that antigravity machines and time travel does not belong in this forum. If you would like to discuss it, please post in the theory development forum.
i got my first psycotic
I can't say I'm surprised.

- Warren
 
no he's not me (unless he is my future self, he he)

i don't remember being invited to leave, but if you want me to leave

ill leave i wouldn't bare to upset you pblackff
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
9K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Back
Top