What do you think of a reaction motor that works only with spinning pistons?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a proposed reaction motor utilizing spinning pistons and counter-rotating cylinders to create centrifugal force. The concept involves manipulating the center of gravity through spinning motions, which the creator believes could generate movement despite potential contradictions to Newton's third law. Participants express skepticism about the feasibility of achieving a net force, citing previous experiences with similar designs that resulted in balance rather than propulsion. Suggestions for constructing the device include using gears and weights to explore the concept further. Ultimately, the consensus is that experimentation is necessary to validate the idea.
antonio gonzalez
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
ill explain how it works:
two cilinders are counter rotative now ill explain what it does one of them represented by a cigarete or similar

take the cigarete by the center with the filter aiming at 9 oclock, spin it holding it by the center till the filter points at 3 oclock (going counterwise)

them from 3 to 12 move your hold to the cigarete from the center to the extreme(oposite to the filter) at the same time you spin it till 12

then fom 12 to 9 return the hold of the cigarete to the center and repit the process

you have centrifugal force that pulls the object on one side of the circle (from 3 to 9) and balance in the othe half (from 9 to 3)

what do you think?

who could i contact in order to build it with spinning piston cilinders? (the pistons would move and recenter the center of gravity from the spinning axe and to it
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I had a similar idea in high school; only done with three gears. I thought I would get a linear force that would tend to move the device in the direction of the offset of weight.

Turned out, when I constructed the device, that it exactly balanced. Took as much force to reset the weights as was provided by the offset. So my guess is that your device would balance, with no offset forces; if that was your assertion. :smile:
 
i would like to be able to build this to check myself but the problem is that this device is very difficult to build since has an asimetric movement because there's one half of turn acumulating momentum and the other half making all the movement of the piston,
you couldn't posibly have built this device in high school only similar as you say

the problem is that this would contradict Newtons third principle but since there's no obvious mistake in my engine i think its worth the try

the problem is that i don't know how to build it
 
Take three gears 000 like the zeros. Put weights on the left-most and right-most gears so that the weights are offset to the right. Hold the middle gear and rotate the other two around it. You will see that the weights will be pointing to the right during the long stroke and to the left during the short stroke.

This gets you the same thing as slipping the cylinder in a rotating hub. All the peices you need are in a simple erictor set.

I don't think it will result in a linear force, but you need to try it. It is the only way you'll ever know for sure.

Vern
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top