The law of conservation of momentum is WRONG practically tried.

[dE_logics]

What happens when it comes to rest relative to the boat?

There should be a net propulsion.

Where is the magnet positioned?

Attached to the boat.

 

[Hootenanny]

Fall?

Yes, or are you undertaking this experiment in an anti-gravity chamber?

Depending on the difference between masses of the ball and boat, the ball will recoil.

No, the ball will always recoil.

Now what I've done is for example...I'm on the boat and I've thrown the ball in the 'negative' direction...this will initially propel the boat in the positive direction.

Okay

If this ball collides with the boat, the boat will attain a velocity in the negative direction and it (the ball) will recoil.

Not necessarily, it depends on the collision between the boat and the ball.

 

[dE_logics]

Yes, or are you undertaking this experiment in an anti-gravity chamber?

Yes...if not...it won't matter.

No, the ball will always recoil.

Even if the ball equal to the boat + my weight? (Ok, I won't be able to throw such a heavy ball...but I'm a bodybuilder...I might be able to do that )

Not necessarily, it depends on the collision between the boat and the ball.

100% elastic...assume. Then it always will...try it...theoretically.

 

[Hootenanny]

Yes...if not...it won't matter.

What? You are undertaking this experiment in an anti-gravity chamber, or the ball does fall?

100% elastic...assume. Then it always will...try it...theoretically.

That was my point, how valid is your assumption that the collision is elastic?

 

[dE_logics]

What? You are undertaking this experiment in an anti-gravity chamber, or the ball does fall?

Ok...the ball is rolled on the floor of the boat...then it won't matter right?

That was my point, how valid is your assumption that the collision is elastic?

The invention has lots of potency.

I made an arrangement...actually in my invention there are 2 predefined arrangements which work in cycles...so there is a very powerful net propulsion using this principle, so 80-90% elasticity will work very well.

Practically...yeah I agree that I absolutely do not have resource...the collision was not even close to elastic.

So you mean to say, the invention works?...it should work...this is one of its kind, this is an ideal propulsion system.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I don't know if there is a language barrier here and some of what you are saying is lost in translation. BUt most of what you have said doesn't seem to form a coherent idea.

It appears that you are saying you have invented a new propulsion system and have come to the conclusion that the law of conservation of momentum is wrong as a result. No matter what you think you've done you haven't broken the laws of physics, and if your system isn't working, its a flaw with the system not the law.

Now unfortunately, as I'm having trouble trying to picture just what the hell you are talking about its impossible to find the flaws in the thinking.

AND EDIT: What the hell is it with people thinking magnets are magical devices that can be considered as not interacting?

 

[Hootenanny]

The invention has lots of potency.

I made an arrangement...actually in my invention there are 2 predefined arrangements which work in cycles...so there is a very powerful net propulsion using this principle, so 80-90% elasticity will work very well.

Practically...yeah I agree that I absolutely do not have resource...the collision was not even close to elastic.

So you mean to say, the invention works?...it should work...this is one of its kind, this is an ideal propulsion system.

No, the 'invention' has zero potency.

As far as I can tell your set-up is analogous to the standard problem of a person walking on a canoe. Since there is no net external force on the system (person boat or ball boat in your case) the centre of mass of the system remains stationary. Now, if the person starts to walk along the canoe (or your ball begins to roll) the boat will indeed begin to move in the opposite direction (conservation of momentum). Now, if that person stops (or your ball hits the wall), then the boat must also stop. If the person then walks the other way (or the ball rebounds), then the boat will move in the opposite direction.

The net result is that your boat will go nowhere.

 

[Doc Al]

So you mean to say, the invention works?...it should work...this is one of its kind, this is an ideal propulsion system.

It should work? Nope. I take it that you verified that it doesn't, correct? (Or is this just an experiment done "on paper"? )

This is just an elaborate mechanism for converting chemical energy (from your muscles when you threw the ball) into random thermal motion. Not a means of propulsion.

 

[dE_logics]

and have come to the conclusion that the law of conservation of momentum is wrong as a result.

No if it does not work, the law of conservation of momentum is wrong.

And it apparently is not working.



This is not my first invention you know...so I know what sort of difficulties you face, what a company wants etc...

As far as I can tell your set-up is analogous to the standard problem of a person walking on a canoe.

I'm using a ball and magnet for a reason.

The ball STOPS on the boat...if you say there's no propulsion...where did the energy go?

Since there is no net external force on the system (person boat or ball boat in your case) the centre of mass of the system remains stationary.

There is absolutely no law which adds this hindrance...its a misconception.

And if it's not working law of conservation of energy or momentum is wrong!...it's clear!

Now, if the person starts to walk along the canoe (or your ball begins to roll) the boat will indeed begin to move in the opposite direction (conservation of momentum). Now, if that person stops (or your ball hits the wall), then the boat must also stop. If the person then walks the other way (or the ball rebounds), then the boat will move in the opposite direction.

The net result is that your boat will go nowhere.

There's really a lot more to this.

Check out post 28.

It should work? Nope. I take it that you verified that it doesn't, correct?

I did it practically...no it did not work and I want to diagnose why.

If it does not work...the laws are wrong and it did not work.

This is just an elaborate mechanism for converting chemical energy (from your muscles when you threw the ball) into random thermal motion.

Thermal?...are you kidding me, we're considering elastic here and you said thermal?

 

[dE_logics]

Till now absolutely no one has proved in the invention wrong, yet they say it won't work...what is this?

 

[Doc Al]

The ball STOPS on the boat...if you say there's no propulsion...where did the energy go?

Random thermal motion.

I did it practically...no it did not work and I want to diagnose why.

Momentum is conserved.

Thermal?...are you kidding me, we're considering elastic here and you said thermal?

If you stop the ball, it's not "elastic".

Till now absolutely no one has proved in the invention wrong, yet they say it won't work...what is this?

Since the rest of us understand conservation of momentum and energy, the burden is on you to prove them wrong. But don't bother doing it here.

Playtime's over. This thread is done.

 

[Hootenanny]

This is not my first invention you know...so I know what sort of difficulties you face, what a company wants etc...

Wow! I'm really impressed.

I'm using a ball and magnet for a reason.

It doesn't matter what you used. The ball stops and ergo the boat must also stop due to conservation of momentum, is this not what you observed?

The ball STOPS on the boat...if you say there's no propulsion...where did the energy go?

The energy didn't go anywhere, the net amount of energy of the system (you, ball and boat) remained constant.

There is absolutely no law which adds this hindrance...its a misconception.

Yes there is, it's called conservation of momentum.

And if it's not working law of conservation of energy or momentum is wrong!...it's clear!

Now you're just being a crank.

There's really a lot more to this.

No there's not, it's really quite simple. That is, until you managed to over complicate things with your inadequate explanations.

Thermal?...are you kidding me, we're considering elastic here and you said thermal?

Perhaps heat in your muscles?

Till now absolutely no one has proved in the invention wrong, yet they say it won't work...what is this?

Unless I'm very much mistaken, you have done an experiment that proves it doesn't work. Haven't you?