### Author Topic: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?  (Read 12001 times)

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« on: 07/23/2017 05:39 PM »
Hi,

I have a device that I think will be of interest.
I have attached a video so that you can see how it works; only lasts 62 seconds so please view until the end when transfer of momentum takes place.
Brief explanation as follows: as rotor arms decelerate, conservation of momentum dictates that body cannot rotate in opposite direction.
As rotor magnet and body magnet are forced together the load to the DC motor rises.
Due to armature reaction as the load increase the magnetic neutral axis moves against the direction of rotation as the main field flux lines distort.
As rotor tube magnet passes across the body magnet it is propelled down the tube away from the body magnet   ( ignore change in angular momentum).
Load rapidly collapses causing magnetic neutral axis to move in the direction of rotation as the field flux lines shorten, which will pull the body in the direction of rotation.
As the body attempts to move in the direction of rotation the rotor arms begin to accelerate and push against the body, stopping the body from moving forward.
Now that there is no counter rotation of the body, we have a small window of opportunity so if we turn the power to the motor off as the rotor arms accelerate we can transfer the rotor arms momentum onto the body by means of collision enabling the body to rotate in the same direction as the rotor arms.
Slightly more complicated than this but should give you a good understanding of how it works.

I will attempt to answer any questions you may wish to ask to the best of my ability.

#### meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1789
• Liked: 1615
• Likes Given: 389
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #1 on: 07/23/2017 05:56 PM »
I will attempt to answer any questions you may wish to ask to the best of my ability.

Here are a few questions:

Have you taken even an introductory course in physics?

Have you heard of the principles of conservation of momentum and conservation of angular momentum?

Can you not recognize the transfer of angular momentum through the wire connected to the ceiling?

If yes to any of the above, why do you think that this device is anything other than a noisy toy?

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #2 on: 07/23/2017 06:13 PM »
yes
yes
string will apply restoring force to the body when it is not in rest position. this applies to both directions
force pairing would suggest that the body would counter rotate when the rotor arms are accelerating which it does not.

#### Robotbeat

• Senior Member
• Posts: 28466
• Minnesota
• Liked: 8331
• Likes Given: 5479
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #3 on: 07/23/2017 07:08 PM »
Sounds like a New Physics thread.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

#### meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1789
• Liked: 1615
• Likes Given: 389
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #4 on: 07/23/2017 07:16 PM »
string will apply restoring force to the body when it is not in rest position. this applies to both directions
What do you mean "both directions" do you mean clockwise and counterclockwise torques? If you look at the string in the video, it has more than just "2 directions" of motion. It is acting like both a regular pendulum (in multiple axes) and a torsional pendulum.

force pairing would suggest that the body would counter rotate when the rotor arms are accelerating which it does not.
If you actually were telling the truth to the first 2 questions you would realize that there is no reason for your device to be an exception. Also, It clearly does counter rotate when you turn it on, and when you turn it off, the end to the jerky motion from your motors stops driving the 2 parts to be rotating at different rates, and lets friction cause the 2 pieces to rotate together with the net angular momentum they had acquired through the string connected to the ceiling.

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #5 on: 07/23/2017 08:50 PM »
the body counter rotates in the first instance because i have to push the magnet down the tube to allow it to start  they are very strong magnets)
there is no counter rotation of the body when the power is switched off? are you referring to the bounce back of the rotor arms which should be expected when the transfer of momentum has occurred. This is something you should be aware of?
The body starts in its rest position and is in the rest position when the power is switched off so there is nothing acquired from the string.
When the rotor arms impart their momentum onto the body, the body rotates almost one full turn against the restoring force of the string and the wire, it is clear that the  body does not.

#### meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1789
• Liked: 1615
• Likes Given: 389
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #6 on: 07/23/2017 09:05 PM »
I cannot parse your post because half of it is ungrammatical, and what is left appears to be statements that directly contradict the video.

Among the problems (particularly evident in your first post) is that you appear to think that people are mind readers. You generally do not clearly describe your device (e.g. you keep referring to "the body" without clearly stating what part it is). You also use relative terms like "forward" with no indication what direction "forward" is supposed to be.

I see nothing interesting or useful about the device in your video.

If you do not demonstrate at least the ability to communicate in clear, coherent sentences in your next post, I fully expect a mod to come by and delete this thread as a waste of time.

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #7 on: 07/25/2017 12:51 PM »
In response to your comments regarding the string, the device operates in the same manner on a thrust bearing. Just curious; what would you expect to happen to the body (stator) when the rotor arms (armature) accelerate?

#### meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1789
• Liked: 1615
• Likes Given: 389
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #8 on: 07/25/2017 03:15 PM »
When you turn it on, and the arms start accelerating, I expect the wood piece with the motor attached (what I am assuming you call the body/stator) to rotate in the opposite direction. At least until torque from the string takes effect, resulting in rotation in the other direction. This is exactly what happens.

On a bearing, The counter torque applied would be from friction and therefore proportional to angular velocity rather than angular displacement, but the effect would be similar, and difficult to distinguish, since the jerky part of the motion and whatever is causing it appear to bring in some amount of chaos to the system. (Chaos is a formal concept where slight changes in the initial condition significantly effect the evolution of the system)

• Senior Member
• Posts: 3246
• Boca Chica, Texas
• Liked: 5382
• Likes Given: 340
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #9 on: 07/25/2017 03:26 PM »
didn't get much further than "as rotor arms decelerate, conservation of momentum dictates that body cannot rotate in opposite direction" since that'd exactly opposite what conservation of momentum "dictates".
The Bugs Bunny school of physics isn't really the best place to learn it.

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #10 on: 07/25/2017 06:19 PM »
WHAT?! The body (stator) applies the braking force to the rotor arms (armature). Therefore conservation of momentum (exchange of momentum) means that as the rotor arms slow the momentum must be exchanged with the body. This is Sophomore physics at its best.

Okay, imagine that you are on a sphere in space. We will add gravity so that you have grip. You are standing on a red dot for point of reference. You start to run away from the red dot (forget direction). The sphere will now begin to counter-rotate in the opposite direction to you. You then decide the stop. You now apply a braking force which means your momentum will now exchange onto the sphere. You will be at rest and the sphere will be at rest; that is conservation of momentum.

Now please stop with the insults, you're just shooting yourself in the foot. Hopefully this will enable you to move onto the next part of the explanation. If you have any problems please contact me, and if I will explain it to you if I am able.

#### meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1789
• Liked: 1615
• Likes Given: 389
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #11 on: 07/25/2017 06:55 PM »
Your description of running on the sphere is correct, but it contradicts the statement Nomadd quoted. I think I now see what you meant but that is not what you wrote.

I also think I figured out your confusion with the device you built.

When you turn it on, angular momentum is split between the body and the arms.

As the device continues, the body comes to rest due to forces such as air resistance and forces in the string that transfer momentum to the ceiling. The motor ensures that the arms keep spinning so the device as a whole obviously has net angular momentum, acquired from the external interactions.

Since the device now has net momentum, when you turn it off the 2 parts lock together and the body accelerates and the arms slow to match rates.

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #12 on: 07/26/2017 01:50 PM »
I have read the initial posting, and the explanation could have been written far better. I apologize for any confusion that this may have caused.
I understand your comments concerning the string, but the amount of restoring force in the string would have to be quite considerable for it to produce the end reaction, and as I have earlier mentioned, the device works equally well when placed on a thrust bearing so that there is no restoring force at all since it is not attached to a string.
We may have to return to the deceleration of the rotor arms at a later stage, but I would like to move on and address the acceleration of the rotor arms. If I could leave you with something to think about, so that I can relate to it, you probably are aware of this experiment, but there may be some people viewing this thread that are not.
If you hold a slinky with an outstretched arm and allow it to fully extend so that the end of the slinky is around a foot from the floor, when you let go of the slinky you will observe that the bottom of the slinky 'levitates' for a moment and defies gravity. The physics behind it is quite simple; the elastic potential of the stretched slinky is released when you let go, so that the bottom of the slinky is travelling upwards with the same amount of force as gravity is pulling it down. Therefore, the bottom of the slinky will remain in its position until the slinky has returned to its original shape, and then it will fall to the ground. I would like to refer to this when I contact you again. I am busy all today so it will probably be some time tomorrow.

#### meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1789
• Liked: 1615
• Likes Given: 389
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #13 on: 07/26/2017 02:17 PM »
I understand your comments concerning the string, but the amount of restoring force in the string would have to be quite considerable for it to produce the end reaction
You can see that at 4 seconds into the video, the restoring force on the string is already reversing the direction of the wooden part's rotation.

, and as I have earlier mentioned, the device works equally well when placed on a thrust bearing so that there is no restoring force at all since it is not attached to a string.
And as I already mentioned, a bearing still involves a force known as friction that will provide a counter torque leading to a similar effect.

If you hold a slinky with an outstretched arm and allow it to fully extend so that the end of the slinky is around a foot from the floor, when you let go of the slinky you will observe that the bottom of the slinky 'levitates' for a moment and defies gravity.
Yes, that is quite an interesting experiment, at least as far as it shows that basic physics sometimes gives results that initially seem unintuitive, but I see no relevant relation between it and yours. You have yet to point out anything in your experiment that operates even slightly different from what would be predicted by basic physics, or any useful effect of your device.

Also when you say "acceleration of the rotor arms" you are referring to the acceleration as you initially turn the device on, and not the jerky part of the motion right?
« Last Edit: 07/26/2017 02:21 PM by meberbs »

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #14 on: 07/27/2017 06:48 PM »
The time of the counter rotation can be varied depending on how far the magnets are placed down the tube, i.e. with no magnets the body will counter rotate many turns. It is the collapse of the torque reaction when the magnetic interactions begin that enables the swinging process.

However, we can use your four seconds for a thought experiment. Imagine we take the device into deep space where the external friction is approx -22kg/m^3. We have a battery fitted, and turn the device on. As you have noted, the body's counter rotation will last for four seconds, so being generous we will give the body 10 turns in that time period. Magnetic interactions will now cause the body to stop counter rotating as seen at the end of the video, and the rotor arms will accelerate and decelerate every quarter turn with a slight oscillation of the body that you have highlighted. The power is switched off at the required time and the whole device will now rotate in the direction that the rotors were, and will continue to rotate for a very very and just for effect I will add another very long time. The device will of course eventually come to rest, but I feel that this would not be in my life time.

A thrust bearing, as you have noted, will apply friction to the device as long as the device is moving. A bearing can apply resistance to movement, but to the best of my knowledge can not exert a restoring force to the device.

As for usefulness, please refer to the thought experiment, i.e. transfer of energy/momentum from battery to the device.

Yes, acceleration of rotor arms every quarter turn after load collapse.

#### meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1789
• Liked: 1615
• Likes Given: 389
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #15 on: 07/27/2017 07:42 PM »
The time of the counter rotation can be varied depending on how far the magnets are placed down the tube, i.e. with no magnets the body will counter rotate many turns. It is the collapse of the torque reaction when the magnetic interactions begin that enables the swinging process.
You are probably going to have to draw a diagram to clarify what you are talking about here.

However, we can use your four seconds for a thought experiment. Imagine we take the device into deep space where the external friction is approx -22kg/m^3.
Remember when my first question was whether you had taken a basic physics course? I have to ask that again, because friction is a force, and you just gave a density. (Density being important for calculating the "air resistance" force, but correct terminology is essential for communication.)

As you have noted, the body's counter rotation will last for four seconds,
I stated that the body turned around due to the torque applied from the string at 4 seconds into your video. In space, (ignoring the negligible external forces) the counter rotation would last until you turn the device off from basic conservation of momentum. When you turn off the device, it stops moving (energy is dissipated with the friction between the 2 parts)

Also, magnetic interactions have nothing to do with why the body portion comes to a stop in your video.

A thrust bearing, as you have noted, will apply friction to the device as long as the device is moving. A bearing can apply resistance to movement, but to the best of my knowledge can not exert a restoring force to the device.
Why does it matter if it is a restoring force? It still applies a torque to the device which is where it gets its net angular momentum before you turn it off.

As for usefulness, please refer to the thought experiment, i.e. transfer of energy/momentum from battery to the device.
But the correct result of the thought experiment is that it stops moving when you turn it off, so this isn't a real use.

Yes, acceleration of rotor arms every quarter turn after load collapse.
"load collapse" is not a phrase that has any meaning here.
Also, you say "yes" to it being the initial acceleration, but then you say "every quarter turn" which implies you are using "acceleration" to refer to the jerky part of the motion.
« Last Edit: 07/27/2017 08:02 PM by meberbs »

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #16 on: 07/28/2017 03:13 PM »
You are probably going to have to draw a diagram to clarify what you are talking about here.
If you cannot visualize what will happen without the magnets, I don't think the diagram is going to help.

Also, magnetic interactions have nothing to do with why the body portion comes to a stop in your video.
This statement is illogical; if the magnets are taken away then it is impossible for the body to remain in its rest position. Also, if you are to make such as statement, could you at least add support to your argument. However, at least we have made progress in that you do recognize that the body does stop.

Why does it matter if it is a restoring force? It still applies a torque to the device which is where it gets its net angular momentum before you turn it off.
The lack of a restoring force is everything - for the body to remain stationary, it is unable to overcome the friction of the thrust bearing.

"load collapse" is not a phrase that has any meaning here.
Also, you say "yes" to it being the initial acceleration, but then you say "every quarter turn" which implies you are using "acceleration" to refer to the jerky part of the motion.

This pedantic manner is helping no one. I do not wish to be like two bald men fighting over a comb. So, if we could move on and maybe find some common ground.
Therefore, if I can ask a question, is it theoretically impossible for the rotor arms to accelerate (in the jerky bit) without applying an opposite force to the body?

#### meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1789
• Liked: 1615
• Likes Given: 389
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #17 on: 07/28/2017 04:40 PM »
You are probably going to have to draw a diagram to clarify what you are talking about here.
If you cannot visualize what will happen without the magnets, I don't think the diagram is going to help.
I cannot see any magnets in the video, and you seem to have trouble describing things with words. Your "descriptions" of your device are all worded in such a way that they can't be understood by anyone who doesn't already know exactly how the device was built, making them fairly useless. From your descriptions, I can't even tell whether you are talking about permanent magnets, electromagnets, ones attached to the body, ones attached to the arms, or ones that have some freedom of movement.

To paraphrase, "Often times a diagram is worth a thousand words."

Also, magnetic interactions have nothing to do with why the body portion comes to a stop in your video.
This statement is illogical; if the magnets are taken away then it is impossible for the body to remain in its rest position. Also, if you are to make such as statement, could you at least add support to your argument. However, at least we have made progress in that you do recognize that the body does stop.
" if the magnets are taken away then it is impossible for the body to remain in its rest position" is illogical. Objects that have nothing to do with magnets are very good at staying in their rest position. I have a feeling you meant to say something different, but you have again failed at communicating whatever that was.

As for support to my statement, magnetic forces still obey conservation laws, so unless you have set up the magnets on the device to basically be a compass (so they exchange momentum with the Earth's fields) then they can't be responsible for bringing only the body to rest without bringing the rotor to rest. The body coming to rest is quite clearly due to external forces that you keep insisting on discounting for no apparent reason.

Why does it matter if it is a restoring force? It still applies a torque to the device which is where it gets its net angular momentum before you turn it off.
The lack of a restoring force is everything - for the body to remain stationary, it is unable to overcome the friction of the thrust bearing.
The body in the video obviously doesn't "remain stationary", it accelerates from interaction with the rotor and then comes to rest from the external forces. If it was on a bearing, it would also obviously come to rest from the friction, because that is what friction does. (Although due to the jerky motion, some interesting looking effects might happen related to the difference between kinetic and static friction.)

"load collapse" is not a phrase that has any meaning here.
Also, you say "yes" to it being the initial acceleration, but then you say "every quarter turn" which implies you are using "acceleration" to refer to the jerky part of the motion.

This pedantic manner is helping no one. I do not wish to be like two bald men fighting over a comb. So, if we could move on and maybe find some common ground.
Finding common ground will have to involve us both using words and phrases that we both understand the meaning of. This is pretty much the basis of communication. When I point out that you are using terms that have no apparent meaning to anyone but you it is not being pedantic, it is pointing out that there is a failure of communication.

Therefore, if I can ask a question, is it theoretically impossible for the rotor arms to accelerate (in the jerky bit) without applying an opposite force to the body?
First, I should mention that when I say "jerky" I mean both the colloquial understanding of the term, and the formal physical definition of jerk, which is "rate of change of acceleration"

In the jerky parts, acceleration rapidly changes between counterclockwise and clockwise (Looking down from above). This basically causes a vibration (on top of the other motion), which results in an opposite vibration in the body. Depending on the details of what is happening, sometimes things are in a roughly steady state where the net is no acceleration. Other times such as when you first turn it on, there is a net clockwise acceleration of the arms, resulting in a counterclockwise acceleration of the body. Later on, the net direction of acceleration depends on factors such as the external forces involved, and the current relative motion of the body and rotor since the motor output likely varies with this.
« Last Edit: 07/28/2017 04:46 PM by meberbs »

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #18 on: 07/29/2017 11:45 AM »
If we now look at the role that the magnets play in the deceleration of the rotor arms in the "jerk" process. We are on the new physics thread so this will allow us the freedom to "ski off piste" if necessary, but at the moment we can just concentrate on old physics.

The rotor arm magnet rotates into the repelling magnet field of the body magnet. As the distance between the two magnets decreases, the repelling force will increase. The repelling force of the body magnet will act upon the rotor arms, causing them to decelerate which can easily be seen on the video. If we apply third law, the rotor arm magnet must therefore apply the same increasing repelling force on the body magnet. This repelling force must therefore restrict the body's attempts to counter rotate. Since the body/stator is applying the load to the rotor arms/armature then the body cannot counter rotate.

Regarding a diagram, I agree that this will be useful. I type with my two index fingers and as you have noted my thoughts do not easily convey onto the screen. I will provide you with a diagram shortly and if you are in agreement with the above, we can then move on to the next interaction of the quarter rotation.

#### chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #19 on: 07/31/2017 11:58 AM »
Since there have been no objections I will continue. We are at the point where the rotor arm has just enough momentum left to move across the body magnet. The magnetic potential energy in the body magnet and the rotor magnet is released and the rotor magnet is accelerated down the tube, which you can hear on the video. The motor is now free to accelerate and again, using classical physics, we know what should happen. As the rotor arms accelerate a force should be applied to the body causing the body to counter rotate. But as you can see in the video, the body does not counter rotate. This means that there is a counter force acting on the body which stops it counter rotating. There is a slight oscillation in the body but, if we refer to the slinky experiment, we can use statics to explain this process.

I will pause for the moment. If I receive no further objections to the above then I will continue to the next set of interactions.

Tags: