Author Topic: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?  (Read 6253 times)

Offline chazemz

  • Member
  • Posts: 90
  • england
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #40 on: 08/04/2017 02:17 PM »
I wasn't intending on entering it for any physics prize.
 You're missing the point here. If you are of a certain level of physics, you do not need me to help you with the explanation (or at least shouldn't).
 There are people, however, who may not be in that position. The formula is intended to help with the explanation and therefore must match it. Since I have used 'the body' in the explanation, so 'the body' is used in the formula. Any reasonable person would understand this. If the formula can help a single person (and I mean literally one person) to understand how the momentum transfers through the system then I am a happy man.
 However, on a technical basis, you are correct. Anyway, have you got anymore comments on your 'string theory'?
P.S. I have not claimed to be breaking conservation of momentum.

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #41 on: 08/04/2017 02:26 PM »
Then what exactly is it you are claiming that this device is doing?
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Online meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1330
  • Liked: 1223
  • Likes Given: 313
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #42 on: 08/04/2017 02:28 PM »
P.S. I have not claimed to be breaking conservation of momentum.
Your device starts at rest with no angular momentum.
It ends with net angular momentum.
You claim that this would happen even in space where nothing else could apply a torque to it.
If true, this would violate conservation of angular momentum.
It is not true, because the string applies torque.

Offline chazemz

  • Member
  • Posts: 90
  • england
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #43 on: 08/04/2017 03:42 PM »
I did say that a battery was fitted.

Online meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1330
  • Liked: 1223
  • Likes Given: 313
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #44 on: 08/04/2017 03:47 PM »
I did say that a battery was fitted.
How is this in any way relevant? Batteries store energy, not angular momentum.

Offline chazemz

  • Member
  • Posts: 90
  • england
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #45 on: 08/04/2017 04:30 PM »
Interesting.

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #46 on: 08/04/2017 04:33 PM »
Interesting.

Is it?

What exactly are you claiming your device does?
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 561
  • Liked: 116
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #47 on: 08/04/2017 05:01 PM »
I wasn't intending on entering it for any physics prize.
 You're missing the point here. If you are of a certain level of physics, you do not need me to help you with the explanation (or at least shouldn't).
 There are people, however, who may not be in that position. The formula is intended to help with the explanation and therefore must match it. Since I have used 'the body' in the explanation, so 'the body' is used in the formula. Any reasonable person would understand this. If the formula can help a single person (and I mean literally one person) to understand how the momentum transfers through the system then I am a happy man.
 However, on a technical basis, you are correct. Anyway, have you got anymore comments on your 'string theory'?
P.S. I have not claimed to be breaking conservation of momentum.

I assume you are responding to me but in general it helps if you quote to whom you are responding to. I'm glad that you see that the formula is not technically correct. Consider that in order to enlighten people, it is better to use formulas that are correct and sensible rather than formulas that appeal to a lay persons potential miscomprehension's.

I think the string is acting like a spring, storing up energy and releasing it and the earth is yielding up some angular momentum to the system through the torque that the string has.

Consider a simple experiment. Hang an object by a string. Input some angular momentum by spinning the object with your hand. Watch as the object eventually stops spinning and then begins spinning in the opposite direction. How is it able to do that if the string is not an agent capable of doing the things we have been telling you specifically, able to apply a torque to the object?
« Last Edit: 08/04/2017 05:28 PM by Bob012345 »

Offline Jim Davis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
  • Liked: 77
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #48 on: 08/04/2017 05:40 PM »
Have you considered suspending your device from two strings, parallel to each other and about a centimeter apart? If, after you turn your device on, the strings twist around each other, you will know that the stings are applying a torque when the device is turned off as they unwind.

Offline chazemz

  • Member
  • Posts: 90
  • england
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #49 on: 08/05/2017 10:53 AM »
I think the string is acting like a spring, storing up energy and releasing it and the earth is yielding up some angular momentum to the system through the torque that the string has.

I totally agree with your comments on winding a string. We can all remember winding a swing when we were children and then letting it spin as it unwound. This is what Jim Davis is referring to but, of course, we need to wind to unwind.

I will go through the video in detail :-
1) The body is at rest and the nearest tube magnet has been pushed down the tube to allow for starting.
2) Power is switched on, the rotor arms accelerate and the body counter-rotates, winding the string.
3) Jerk cycle takes effect, resulting in no counter-rotation of the body.
4) The string now unwinds, so the device swings back and forth (string winding and unwinding) until it returns to its rest position (i.e. string is not wound).
5) Transfer of momentum as observed, device moves in the direction of the rotor arms.

If you turn the power off when the device has returned to its rest position at exactly the moment the tube magnet begins to accelerate down the tube when facing the body magnet, the device will not move, so there is no stored energy in the string at this point.

If I can return to the thrust bearing, a thrust bearing can only apply friction, it cannot operate as a spring.
 
Have you considered suspending your device from two strings, parallel to each other and about a centimeter apart? If, after you turn your device on, the strings twist around each other, you will know that the stings are applying a torque when the device is turned off as they unwind.

Thanks for the suggestion. I have referred to it in my earlier remarks.

Online meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1330
  • Liked: 1223
  • Likes Given: 313
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #50 on: 08/05/2017 01:16 PM »
5) Transfer of momentum as observed, device moves in the direction of the rotor arms.
Yes, transfer of angular momentum that ultimately came from the Earth through the string, making your device effectively useless.

If you turn the power off when the device has returned to its rest position at exactly the moment the tube magnet begins to accelerate down the tube when facing the body magnet, the device will not move, so there is no stored energy in the string at this point.
If you are watching the video carefully, you can see the the body + arms clearly have net clockwise angular momentum as the body returns to the rest position. The forces with the magnets are just transferring angular momentum back and forth between the arms and body. There is no magic point like you just described.

If I can return to the thrust bearing, a thrust bearing can only apply friction, it cannot operate as a spring.
It doesn't matter if it doesn't operate as a spring. For the 4th or 5th time: It still provides a torque.

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 561
  • Liked: 116
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #51 on: 08/05/2017 06:07 PM »
I think the string is acting like a spring, storing up energy and releasing it and the earth is yielding up some angular momentum to the system through the torque that the string has.

I totally agree with your comments on winding a string. We can all remember winding a swing when we were children and then letting it spin as it unwound. This is what Jim Davis is referring to but, of course, we need to wind to unwind.

I will go through the video in detail :-
1) The body is at rest and the nearest tube magnet has been pushed down the tube to allow for starting.
2) Power is switched on, the rotor arms accelerate and the body counter-rotates, winding the string.
3) Jerk cycle takes effect, resulting in no counter-rotation of the body.
4) The string now unwinds, so the device swings back and forth (string winding and unwinding) until it returns to its rest position (i.e. string is not wound).
5) Transfer of momentum as observed, device moves in the direction of the rotor arms.

If you turn the power off when the device has returned to its rest position at exactly the moment the tube magnet begins to accelerate down the tube when facing the body magnet, the device will not move, so there is no stored energy in the string at this point.

If I can return to the thrust bearing, a thrust bearing can only apply friction, it cannot operate as a spring.
 
Have you considered suspending your device from two strings, parallel to each other and about a centimeter apart? If, after you turn your device on, the strings twist around each other, you will know that the stings are applying a torque when the device is turned off as they unwind.

Thanks for the suggestion. I have referred to it in my earlier remarks.

Looking at the video closely, it looks like right at the end, it's just about to go the other way which is what I expect it to do consistent with what we have been saying. You should run the  video longer, till it completely stops.

Offline chazemz

  • Member
  • Posts: 90
  • england
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #52 on: 08/06/2017 04:01 PM »
Now that we have established that the string is not wound when the power is switched off, we can move on.

Offline chazemz

  • Member
  • Posts: 90
  • england
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #53 on: 08/07/2017 02:21 PM »
We can now briefly look at the thrust bearing. In the jerk cycle, as the rotor arms accelerate, the body is unable to counter rotate because it is unable to overcome the friction of the thrust bearing. When the power is switched off  momentum transfer takes place and the device moves in the direction as the rotor arms overcoming the same amount of friction.
Therefore I feel it reasonable to conclude, that a force is acting on the body which cancels out the force applied to the body when the rotor arms accelerate.

Online meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1330
  • Liked: 1223
  • Likes Given: 313
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #54 on: 08/07/2017 02:46 PM »
We can now briefly look at the thrust bearing. In the jerk cycle, as the rotor arms accelerate, the body is unable to counter rotate because it is unable to overcome the friction of the thrust bearing. When the power is switched off  momentum transfer takes place and the device moves in the direction as the rotor arms overcoming the same amount of friction.
Therefore I feel it reasonable to conclude, that a force is acting on the body which cancels out the force applied to the body when the rotor arms accelerate.
You still seem to be having trouble understanding how to communicate clearly. For example "When the power is switched off  momentum transfer takes place" it is unclear what you mean. Momentum transfer from the arms to the body, or from the Earth to the body through the bearing. (The actual answer is that momentum would have already transferred from the Earth to the arms through the bearing and body. When you turn off the device some of the momentum in the arms then transfers to the body. I can't tell if you understand this from your wording.)

Your last sentence appears to be acknowledging what I and others have told you all along, there would be an external torque on the body from the bearing, which allows angular momentum to build up in the rotor arms. Since your device only has angular momentum at the end because of its physical connection to the Earth, your device does nothing useful.

Offline chazemz

  • Member
  • Posts: 90
  • england
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #55 on: 08/08/2017 12:16 PM »
All of the energy/momentum that the body requires is provided by the power supply. The device does not need anything from anywhere else ( in fact quite the reverse ). In the jerk cycle, you are interrupting this cycle at a given point and observing what nature has decided to do. I will repeat again, the string is not wound when the power is switched off.

Online meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1330
  • Liked: 1223
  • Likes Given: 313
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #56 on: 08/08/2017 01:43 PM »
All of the energy/momentum that the body requires is provided by the power supply.
Batteries do not store momentum in any form. Your statement is simply nonsense.

In your setup with the external power supply any (negligible) momentum (linear or angular) that comes from the motion of the electrons would still involve a back reaction of the power supply pushing on the Earth.

the string is not wound when the power is switched off.
What does that matter? The string has been applying torques the whole time, which on net have built up angular momentum in the device. Whether there currently is a torque being applied by the string is unrelated to whether the string has already transferred angular momentum from the Earth to the device.

You have now quite thoroughly demonstrated that you don't understand basic physics concepts. Are you willing to learn something, or are you going to keep spouting contradictory nonsense?
« Last Edit: 08/08/2017 02:44 PM by meberbs »

Offline chazemz

  • Member
  • Posts: 90
  • england
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #57 on: 08/08/2017 05:17 PM »
I am always willing to learn, however I do not think that you have anything to teach me.

Online Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8619
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 5370
  • Likes Given: 3553
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #58 on: 08/08/2017 06:12 PM »
Locked. NSF can add no further value to this device.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Tags: