Move in Space without mass exchange

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a thought experiment involving two electric motors connected by a bar, exploring the possibility of moving in space without mass exchange. Participants examine the implications of motor rotation and the resulting forces within the system, questioning the feasibility of achieving motion through this method.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a method where rotating one motor causes the entire system to rotate in the opposite direction, potentially allowing for movement without mass exchange.
  • Another participant challenges the assumption that the active motor is stationary, suggesting that the entire system's center of mass remains unchanged due to Newton's third law.
  • There is a mention of reactionless drives and the limitations of flywheels and reaction wheels in changing the position of the center of mass.
  • A participant raises the question of what happens when a motor is turned off, implying that it would not maintain its motion indefinitely and would affect the system's dynamics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the feasibility of the proposed method for movement, with some asserting that the center of mass cannot be moved in this manner, while others explore the implications of the thought experiment without reaching a consensus.

Contextual Notes

The discussion does not resolve the assumptions regarding the behavior of the motors and the forces involved, particularly in relation to Newton's laws and the concept of reactionless drives.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring concepts in mechanics, propulsion systems, and theoretical physics, particularly in the context of motion in space and the implications of Newton's laws.

Irvin Atkins
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
I came up with a system that allows you to move in space without exchanging mass. Where did I make a mistake?
I did a thought experiment and I can't figure out what the mistake is.

1725794016815.png


There is a system of 2 electric motors weighing 1 kg each with batteries in the Earth's orbit.
The motors are rigidly connected by a 1-meter-long bar.

If one motor starts rotating in one direction on a signal, the entire system should start rotating in the opposite direction around(???) the motor's rotation axis.
After rotating the system 180 degrees, we start rotating the motor in the opposite direction to stop the system from rotating.
As a result, we have a system in the same state but shifted 1 meter to the side.

Repeat the same with the second motor.

If this works, then you can make the motors' rotation axes perpendicular and move in any direction without exchanging masses.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are assuming that the active motor is stationary.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters and Nugatory
Irvin Atkins said:
If this works, then you can make the motors' rotation axes perpendicular and move in any direction without exchanging masses.
That would be a reactionless drive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionless_drive

Flywheels cannot move the centre of mass of the machine.
Reaction wheels are used on satellites to maintain, or to change the orientation, not the position of the centre of mass.
 
Whatever force the active motor exerts on the rest of the machine, by Newton's third law the rest of the machine must exert an equal and opposite force on the active motor. Thus as @Frabjous says above the active motor is not stationary - the boom and passive motor moves one direction, the active motor moves in the other, and as @Baluncore says the center of mass of the system stays put.

It's also worth taking a moment to think about what happens when a motor is turned off. Does it keep spinning on impossible unrealistic frictionless bearings or does it slow down and stop? Of course it's the latter, meaning that now the rest of the machine is exerting a force on the motor to slow it down, by the third law there's an equal and opposite force on the rest of the machine, and these will end up reversing the initial kick from starting the motor up in the first place.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
The forum rules do not allow discussion of reactionless drives so this thread is closed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
596
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
692
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K