Reaction torque propulsion concept

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
77 replies · 15K views
Ray Payette said:
Thanks for your interest.

Please bear with me for I'm not a scientist nor an engineer so I think in a different way than you do. To me a couple has a moment and it produces a contrary an opposite couple that has an opposite moment. I have a working model that demonstrates it. To me it is quite simple.

However I will try and answer you in your own logic. Please give me some leeway.
Just be aware that in science, a working model without a mathematical model explaining it isn't worth a whole lot. We need numbers because the numbers are the quantitative description of the logic that sounds so good in your head.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ray Payette said:
Thanks for your interest.

Please bear with me for I'm not a scientist nor an engineer so I think in a different way than you do. To me a couple has a moment and it produces a contrary an opposite couple that has an opposite moment. I have a working model that demonstrates it. To me it is quite simple.

However I will try and answer you in your own logic. Please give me some leeway.
Physics does not allow any leeway. I am an engineer. I am sometimes accused of being a scientist [which really makes me mad because I have no clue why things work the way they do]. I cuss theorists on a daily basis because they are more forgiving than the real world ever permits. Every transaction in mechanics suffers from energy loss. Every attempt to convert angular momentum [which is fairly efficient] into a vector force suffers from this these annoying losses termed kinetic energy [vibration] and friction. For the most part, they just make things get hot. I would be very wealthy if I knew how to circumvent those effects.
 
I am not an engineer nor a scientist and I have decided not to act in that way. I am an inventor and I have a real working model that proves what I have said and for me it is sufficient. Furthermore I have indicated the physics principles involved. I will not discourse how "static" forces can be considered "dynamic" forces; this distinction is not of my concern. Since it is easy for an engineer to draw up a mathematical model, let them work on it and still explain how the invention works, because it really does!

There may be a loss pf energy and it may not be particularly efficient, but in space ANY other means of propulsion will be a considerable help.

The invention does not work by expulsion (rockets) nor by traction, it should be for scientists and engineers to tell me how it works.

Marconi probably nerver knew that short waves could be transmitted over the horizon because they bounced on the F2 layer of the ionosphere. I have demonstrated a new propulsion system and it is for others that have other kinds of knowledge to fully explain it. Dismissing my invention because I don't have a complete scientific explanation would be similar to dismiss Marconi's invention because he didn't know about the F2 layer.
 
Last edited:
All kidding aside Ray, it just aint possible. If you have a working model, I will be the first to volunteer [given the chance] suspending belief in the so-called laws of physics. Aspiring to understand how things work, to become an engineer or scientist, is the very reason people enter the field. Navigating that mine field does not make you numb to possibilities. It does, however, sharpen your ability to recognize what is usually found when following hoofprints.
 
Ray Payette said:
I am not an engineer nor a scientist and I have decided not to act in that way.
In that case, I can assure you that you will neer be taken seriously. Further, without bothering to learn the science and engineering behind it, I can assure you that you won't ever really know what your device is doing. Not a good way to approach the issue.

In your video, with all the vibration (you can see the motors shaking in all 3 axes - and quite a bit in the yaw axis), its impossible to show that the effect you are talking about is what is really causing it to move.
 
I question whether anyone who would say "we have a hard time conceiving that rotary motion can be translated into linear motion" is really an engineer. Converting rotary motion into linear motion is goes back to before Archimedes.

I will also point out that he has a "working model" but don't post any actual pictures of the working model on his website. Also he notes that it can only be tested "in space". If that is the case, how does he know his model works?
 
I recognize that I lack the scientific credibility, but I don't have 3 years to devote to learn it (at a basic level). My strategy is to interest people that are much more qualified than me to do the scientific research.
True my model vibrates, that is the essence of my invention; I could not use reaction wheels that are used in satellites because they cost $50,000 each and they produce very little power, however they do not vibrate. I used eccentric loads that vibrate but that produce the required power for the demo. I invested my money in preparing patent applications and right now I don't have any money or ressources to invest in research. Then I will be able to hire scientists and engineers and to purchase lab equipment to do the proper research.
Most R&D is done the other way around, you get a doctor in physics who devises a concept, who gets the funding for the university lab and who then applies for a patent when this is complete. I did not have that luxury.
I am appealing to engineers and scientists to help me with this project.
 
To HallsofIvy,
You want to look at actual pictures, please look at my videos:
http://www.spacecrab.com/images/FrictionTest.mpg
and others on the Web site.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Patent Process
You may ask why didn't I propose my project to obtain R&D funding? First, I didn't have ANY scientific credibility so it is very likely that I would vave been refused however good the idea is. Secondly any disclosure of the invention would automatically forfeit any rights to it; if I talked about it before I filed for a patent I would have lost all my rights.
 
By conservation of momentum, you cannot propel anything without propelling something else in the opposite direction. Ray, you don't know physics. You should learn some. It will keep you from wasting your time trying to invent stuff that will never work.
 
krab, the hovercraft advances because because of reaction couple reactions, in other words each motor turns a loads thereby producing couples; the hovercraft turns in the opposite direction. The law of conservation of momentum is strictly followed.
When this is done in succession by two similar torques, the rotation is in essence translated into a linear motion.

Since you claim to be an authority in physics, please explain why the hovercraft advances, given that I have shown in the video that there is no traction or explusion involved.
 
Ray, you say you recognize that you lack scientific credibility, then you make claims about how your device works. Don't you see the contradiction there?

You say you hope to hire scientists and engineers to develop this further - here you have scientists and engineers telling you (for free) that this doesn't work. Don't you see the contradiction there? If you want, you can pay me some money and I'll tell you the same thing. Would you believe it then? Is there anything that you could be shown that would convince you?

The engineering math that describes what is going on isn't that complicated, but it'd take me a couple of hours to do it, and I don't want to right now. Any halfway competent engineering sophomore should be able to oblige for $20 or $30 in beer money. My recommendation to you is that you find someone willing to do the math for you (or better yet, build a simple computer model), and then listen to them when they tell you it doesn't work.

Your device is so chaotic that its tough to know exactly what is going on, but I believe I have the answer:
Since you claim to be an authority in physics, please explain why the hovercraft advances, given that I have shown in the video that there is no traction or explusion involved.
Its the pitch. The vibration is causing the hovercraft to pitch, and the pitching motion is lifing the skirt in the back, where air escapes, pushing the hovercraft forward.

Whether its that or another consequence of the vibration, I am confident that if you stiffen the motor mounts to reduce the vibration, the forward motion will disappear.

Several experiments you can do which may help you see what is happening:
-Try turning on one motor at a time.
-Try reversing one or the other.
 
Last edited:
I do not have the scientific credibility doesn't mean I know nothing about physics. It means that I don't have official degrees that can attest to it. Historically that has been a trait of many inventors, starting with Edison.
I don't rely on scientists and engineers to tell me it doesn't work. I rely on the physical evidence to prove that it works. When they will be able to explain correctly why it works, then I will be convinced. Until then the facts are amply sufficient.

So far everyone is trying to prove that it doesn't work. Please explain why it does work, because it does. That is a fact.
 
The problem is there is no scientific model except for the "friction" walkers to show that an invention like this does work. We have given several suggestions and you may have considered them briefly but then tossed them aside. And also without actually bieng able to put it through some tests we can't prove it either way. We can suggest ways for you to test it, but other than that we can't do anything.
 
I do agree that more testing is in order, however I do not have the ressources nor the funding to do serious research.
Thanks anyhow!
 
Actually, I think it would be easy to test. Set up a test where the device must lift itself off the ground [including it's entire power system] and remain suspended indefinitey without need for refueling.
 
This is not an anti-gravity device!
 
Ray Payette said:
So far everyone is trying to prove that it doesn't work. Please explain why it does work, because it does. That is a fact.
Many of us have done both, and you won't listen to either. I don't think there is anything more we can do here for you. Sorry.
 
This is not an anti-gravity device!

The point is that it would be creating constant energy from nothing, that's the whole basis around a PPM. It doesn't have to "remove" the pull of gravity.

Please explain why it does work.

It doesn't work. Your machine is pushing against the ground and expeling air, although it is a very small amount its still happening.
 
Last edited:
I never claimed that it doesn't require energy. Where did that notion come from? The model uses a 9 volt battery and it creates no energy whatsoever.

The model is a hovercraft that floats on a cushion of air. That is not what propels it.
 
Ray Payette said:
I never claimed that it doesn't require energy. Where did that notion come from? The model uses a 9 volt battery and it creates no energy whatsoever.
You misunderstand: anything that moves has to obey conservation laws: either action-reaction (the hovercraft moves in one direction, another mass, like air, moves in the other) or it must exert a force on a stationary object like the ground. Your device, the way you describe it, exerts no force on the ground or air, so it doesn't obey conservation laws.

The propellers on your hovercraft should make it shake back and forth - when the propellers move forward, the hovercraft should move backwards and when the propellers move backwards, the hovercraft should move forward. You can see this vibration occurring in your video. The vibration is quite clearly the primary effect of your device. The secondary effect is what is making it move forward. Remember, since its a hovercraft, it takes very little energy to move it forward, but clearly there is a lot of energy in the vibration. If only a tiny fraction of the energy goes into unbalancing the hovercraft, its going to move. And that's what's happening.
The model is a hovercraft that floats on a cushion of air. That is not what propels it.
It is clear from the video that it tilts forward due to the flexible motor mounts. That very well may lift the back enough for the lifter fan to propel it forward.

Here is a math problem that hopefully you can do: assuming no friction, how much force (and then work and energy) does it take to move a 2kg hovercraft forward 2 feet in 5 seconds?

Compare that to the power output of those motors and see if you get a significant fraction of the motor power output.
 
Last edited:
The model is a hovercraft that floats on a cushion of air. That is not what propels it.

You do know that hovercrafts can still drift in a specific direction due to an imbalance in the pressure of the air under it, don't you? In fact this is pretty much inevidable seeing how you can get exactly even pressure. How do you know this isn't the cause of the movement?
 
Lemme clean that up for you, Entropy...
Entropy said:
You do know that hovercrafts can still drift in a specific direction due to an imbalance in the pressure of the air under it, don't you? In fact this is pretty much inevitable seeing as how you can't get exactly even pressure. How do you know this isn't the cause of the movement?
Indeed, it is difficult enough to get a hovercraft stable when it is flat - when it its shaking, rolling, and pitching, its just not possible.
 
Let me characterize this in another way. There are two ways to describe what is going on here:

First, take the hovercraft as a whole and find the action and reaction. If the hovercraft moves forward on a frictionless surface, something (air) must go in the other. This is the easy way - its just high-school Newtonian physics. Action:reaction.

Second, take the component parts of the hovercraft and model exactly what they are doing. This is the hard way as it requires college level engineering to describe (which isn't to say with some reading-up you can't figure it out without taking the courses: search for some info on Engineering Statics and Engineering Dynamics courses).

The problem is you think you know what the hard way will show and as a result, you're ignoring the obviousness of what the easy way says.
 
The actions are rotating loads. A motor that turns a load produces a rotating force, in other words a couple. This has to be compensated by an equal and opposite reaction, in this case a couple that turns the hovercraft in the opposite direction. That is the essence of the device. A motor turns a load; that makes the hovercraft turn in the opposite direction.

If there were a strong imbalance caused by the vibration that would push the hovercraft forward, then it wouldn’t pass the traction test. But it did.

The facts are that the hovercraft moves forward and it passed the traction test. Another fact is that there are many vibrations, but how can you explain that these vibrations propel the hovercraft forward? Old propeller planes really shake around also, but that isn’t what propels them.
 
Ray Payette said:
The actions are rotating loads. A motor that turns a load produces a rotating force, in other words a couple. This has to be compensated by an equal and opposite reaction, in this case a couple that turns the hovercraft in the opposite direction.

Ever take a physics class? The reaction happens at the same time as the action, not later.
 
Exactly, at the same time the motor turns the load the hovercraft turns in the opposite direction.
 
Ray Payette said:
Exactly, at the same time the motor turns the load the hovercraft turns in the opposite direction.

It takes energy to start this turning. It takes energy to stop it. It takes energy to keep it going because of friction. Cars are faster and more efficient.
 
Perhaps cars are faster and more efficient here on earth, but they don't work in space. This form of propulsion is an alternative to rockets.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Reaction torque in a traction system

  • PhysicoRaj
  • · Replies 10 ·
  • Mechanics
Replies
10

Reaction Torque from an Ice Auger

  • alkaspeltzar
  • · Replies 18 ·
  • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
18