Author Topic: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?  (Read 12293 times)

meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1863
• Liked: 1729
• Likes Given: 410
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #20 on: 07/31/2017 03:45 PM »
Since there have been no objections I will continue.
No, I was waiting for the diagram you promised in you last post, so that I can give a clearer explanation of why your device does not break conservation laws like you seem to think it does.

For example I can't comment on the "accelerated down the tube" because you have never described where this tube is, what is in it or where whatever is accelerating something down it (presumably a magnet) is located.

"Since the body/stator is applying the load to the rotor arms/armature then the body cannot counter rotate."
This statement in itself is similar to the statement Nomadd objected to earlier. Since the body is applying a torque to the rotor, it experiences an equal an opposite counter-torque. Saying "can't counter rotate" sounds like you are saying that the counter-torque does not exist because of magic, but even more confusing because it sounds like their is some sort of magical restriction on direction it is actually rotating in, when the relevant discussion is about its  angular acceleration. You also should clarify what direction you mean when you say counter-rotate. Note how I refer to clockwise and counter-clockwise (assuming a view from above) to keep it clear.

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.
Did you even read my previous posts? It is clear in the video that the rotor will slow down (accelerate counter clockwise) and then speed back up (accelerate clockwise)  the body clearly has the opposite accelerations at the same time. At points, it gets a bit confusing because of the external torques applied by the string which (along with some air drag torques) is the source of all angular momentum present in the device when you turn it off.

Bob012345

• Full Member
• Posts: 582
• Liked: 125
• Likes Given: 219
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #21 on: 07/31/2017 05:24 PM »
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.

I object to the description of how the device works. There are many statements of exactly what is purported to be happening but no data to prove it. Jerky video isn't good data. I think this is a complicated system but the beauty of physics is that general principles allow one to cut through all the complexity. I agree with Meberbs that this is just a system getting net angular momentum from the earth through torque provided by the string. It's that simple.

« Last Edit: 07/31/2017 05:27 PM by Bob012345 »

chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #22 on: 07/31/2017 06:00 PM »
And the thrust bearing?

meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1863
• Liked: 1729
• Likes Given: 410
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #23 on: 07/31/2017 06:07 PM »
And the thrust bearing?
For the third time: Friction would apply a torque.

chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #24 on: 07/31/2017 06:10 PM »
So it's not the string?

Bob012345

• Full Member
• Posts: 582
• Liked: 125
• Likes Given: 219
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #25 on: 07/31/2017 06:17 PM »
And the thrust bearing?

Same.

meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1863
• Liked: 1729
• Likes Given: 410
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #26 on: 07/31/2017 06:21 PM »
So it's not the string?

If you hang the device using a string connected between the body and the ceiling, the body will eventually come to rest from torques provided by the string, resulting in the body+rotor system having net angular momentum.

If you get rid of the string, turn the device upside down, and rest it on a bearing, the body will also come to rest but from the friction forces in the bearing this time, which cause torques that again result in body+rotor having net angular momentum.

Bob012345

• Full Member
• Posts: 582
• Liked: 125
• Likes Given: 219
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #27 on: 07/31/2017 06:26 PM »
So it's not the string?

It's the fact that the system is connected to the earth either by string or bearing. Since you seem to want to generate 'field propulsion' my suggestion is to study the two potential candidates being discussed in this forum, Mach Effect Thrusters or the Woodward effect and the EMDrive. Mach effect may be easier to invent a macro scale device without dangerous and expensive high tech equipment. If you love to build stuff, that might be a useful avenue to explore. Just make sure you understand the concept of the 'Dean Drive' and avoid trying to build that, since it would never work.
« Last Edit: 07/31/2017 06:30 PM by Bob012345 »

chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #28 on: 07/31/2017 06:34 PM »
Look, I know how you feel, I've been there. It is difficult to think that such a simple device can achieve what you see on the video. Now you will have to take my word for it, it is NOT the string. I have checked, double checked, and triple checked it. I understand it's all that you've got to say that it doesn't work. On a positive note, since the diagram was of a device suspended by a piece of string, I no longer have to supply it. Would it not be prudent to allow me to finish and then have your say?

meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1863
• Liked: 1729
• Likes Given: 410
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #29 on: 07/31/2017 06:42 PM »
Look, I know how you feel, I've been there. It is difficult to think that such a simple device can achieve what you see on the video.
What I see on the video is a device that obeys basic physics exactly as expected and does nothing useful.

Now you will have to take my word for it, it is NOT the string. I have checked, double checked, and triple checked it.
Sorry, "taking your word for it" isn't an option. Exactly what did you check to show that the string that is obviously providing torque isn't providing a torque?

On a positive note, since the diagram was of a device suspended by a piece of string, I no longer have to supply it.
The string is not the important part of the diagram, I can see that clearly enough in the video. The diagram is needed for the tubes, magnets, electromagnets, etc that you have failed to effectively describe with words.

chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #30 on: 08/01/2017 07:07 PM »
So, as the magnets are forced together, load is applied to the motor. If we look at armature reaction, we will see that, due to the load, the main field flux lines will distort and shift the Magnetic Neutral Axis in the opposite direction to rotation. As stated earlier, the body cannot move since it is effectively pushing against itself. It is easier to visualize the movement of the M.N.A so that when the tube magnet accelerates down the tube, load will rapidly drop which will cause the main field flux lines to shorten and the M.N.A will now move in the direction of rotation. This will drag the body in the direction of rotation.

We now have the required situation where the body is attempting to move in the direction of rotation. At the same time the rotor arms apply the counter force as they accelerate.

So there you have it. A very simple device. Everything that has been explained is known and can be easily accessed. All the information can be easily found on the internet  or in any electrical engineering textbook.

I am amazed at the mention of dean drive. You make reference to a device that famously did not work because it was suspended from a string (i.e. no contact with the ground) and yet almost in the same breath you are arguing that the only reason the device works, as in the video, is because it is suspended from a string?

Always remember that a thrust bearing will apply an equal amount of friction in either direction. May I suggest that you now do some easy searching so that you may understand more clearly what I have stated. The various websites etc. will explain it in far more detail than me.

meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1863
• Liked: 1729
• Likes Given: 410
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #31 on: 08/01/2017 07:26 PM »
As stated earlier, the body cannot move since it is effectively pushing against itself.
What? the motor drive pushes against the rotor.

Always remember that a thrust bearing will apply an equal amount of friction in either direction.
This statement makes no sense. it only applies torque that counters the rotation of whatever is on top of it.

Now how about you actually respond to any of the issues that have been pointed out to you, or actually providing a diagram like you promised?

Bob012345

• Full Member
• Posts: 582
• Liked: 125
• Likes Given: 219
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #32 on: 08/01/2017 07:27 PM »
So, as the magnets are forced together, load is applied to the motor. If we look at armature reaction, we will see that, due to the load, the main field flux lines will distort and shift the Magnetic Neutral Axis in the opposite direction to rotation. As stated earlier, the body cannot move since it is effectively pushing against itself. It is easier to visualize the movement of the M.N.A so that when the tube magnet accelerates down the tube, load will rapidly drop which will cause the main field flux lines to shorten and the M.N.A will now move in the direction of rotation. This will drag the body in the direction of rotation.

We now have the required situation where the body is attempting to move in the direction of rotation. At the same time the rotor arms apply the counter force as they accelerate.

So there you have it. A very simple device. Everything that has been explained is known and can be easily accessed. All the information can be easily found on the internet  or in any electrical engineering textbook.

I am amazed at the mention of dean drive. You make reference to a device that famously did not work because it was suspended from a string (i.e. no contact with the ground) and yet almost in the same breath you are arguing that the only reason the device works, as in the video, is because it is suspended from a string?

Always remember that a thrust bearing will apply an equal amount of friction in either direction. May I suggest that you now do some easy searching so that you may understand more clearly what I have stated. The various websites etc. will explain it in far more detail than me.

I do not believe the Dean Drive was suspended from a string at all. It was purported to sit on a desk or a scale. Not sure where you got that from. My bigger point is that you have shown us a very complicated device. Counter-rotating parts with moving magnets and fields and such hanging from a string or mounted on a bearing is not what I call simple. You have given us a verbal description of how it works and a Youtube video. That's not sufficient especially when simple physics strongly suggests a different explanation. If you are that confident your device is generating net momentum on its own, go show it to some professionals who can do a detailed analysis. I'm trying to save you time. If you won't believe me, which is fine, then I suggest you write and publish a detailed paper with all the tests procedures, calibration results and experimental details included.
« Last Edit: 08/01/2017 07:34 PM by Bob012345 »

chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #33 on: 08/02/2017 05:57 PM »
For the benefit of people who do not know, Dean Drive was an oscillating thruster of some notoriety, around the 1960s. A couple of his devices were tested and found not to work because they were suspended off the ground.
No oscillating thruster will work if suspended because it has no contact with the ground.

With regards to your comment of 'if you are sure', I do not have the equipment to be 100% sure, but I am comfortable to use the phrase 'is looking promising'. As far as I am aware, no other device has so far been able to achieve the observed reaction on the video, when suspended.

The issue that has been highlighted that the method of suspension is responsible for the observed reaction presents me with a problem as NASA's breakthrough propulsion program specifically states that it is a requirement for any device to be suspended so as to negate any oscillating thrusters. I hope you do not feel offended, but I must go with NASA here since they have a lot of experience in this matter.

Sketch of device from below attached.

meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1863
• Liked: 1729
• Likes Given: 410
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #34 on: 08/02/2017 06:35 PM »
The diagram helps a lot.

Here is a basic test that would put this issue to rest. Remove the magnets from the arms (or the one on the body, whichever is easier), and then test the device again. You may need to wait a different amount of time (my guess is a bit longer) for the body to come to rest because of the removal of the jerky part of the motion.

Other than the removal of the jerky motion, the end result will not significantly change, demonstrating that the momentum is transferred through the string.

chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #35 on: 08/03/2017 01:24 PM »
Because of the need to push past the repelling magnetic field of the body magnet, the power supply settings are such that if I were to remove the body magnet, the motor would accelerate very quickly and hence so would the body. The body would become snagged in the power input wires so at the moment it really isn't a viable option. Thank you for the feedback though, and if you or anyone else has any more suggestions, please feel free to air them.
We do, however, have a set of interactions that we can now look at, and don't forget we are starting with a deceleration (it is very easy to look at this back to front).

If we say the magnets are M:
the Field Flux is FF
the Body is B
and the Rotor Speed is N
We now have..

-N + (M+-M) + (FF+-FF) + (B+-B) + N = 0

Or in a simple visual sense - a five ball Newton's cradle. The brackets are the three center balls. So, the -N ball decelerates, the three middle balls remain static, and to conserve (transfer) momentum, the N ball must accelerate.
I know this is a very simplistic explanation but it does conform with everything we know.

meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1863
• Liked: 1729
• Likes Given: 410
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #36 on: 08/03/2017 02:01 PM »
Because of the need to push past the repelling magnetic field of the body magnet, the power supply settings are such that if I were to remove the body magnet, the motor would accelerate very quickly and hence so would the body. The body would become snagged in the power input wires so at the moment it really isn't a viable option.
Have you tried this, or are you just guessing?

The torque provided by the string in your setup seem like it should be sufficient to turn the body around before this becomes an issue.

I'd appreciate it if you stopped trying to make arguments that read "this device obeys conservation of momentum, therefore it breaks conservation of momentum."

The description you just wrote down shows that the angular momentum of the body must always be equal and opposite to the angular momentum of the rotor unless their is an external torque applied to the system. There obviously is an external torque applied from the string.

chazemz

• Member
• Posts: 90
• england
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #37 on: 08/03/2017 02:49 PM »
I have tried it, the body just keeps counter rotating.
I am unaware that newton's cradle breaks conservation of momentum? Could you please explain?

meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1863
• Liked: 1729
• Likes Given: 410
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #38 on: 08/03/2017 02:52 PM »
Your entire claim in this thread is that you have built a device that violates conservation of momentum.

You haven't but you refuse to accept any of the explanations of why you haven't.

Bob012345

• Full Member
• Posts: 582
• Liked: 125
• Likes Given: 219
Re: Field Propulsion? Reactive Mass?
« Reply #39 on: 08/03/2017 04:26 PM »
Because of the need to push past the repelling magnetic field of the body magnet, the power supply settings are such that if I were to remove the body magnet, the motor would accelerate very quickly and hence so would the body. The body would become snagged in the power input wires so at the moment it really isn't a viable option. Thank you for the feedback though, and if you or anyone else has any more suggestions, please feel free to air them.
We do, however, have a set of interactions that we can now look at, and don't forget we are starting with a deceleration (it is very easy to look at this back to front).

If we say the magnets are M:
the Field Flux is FF
the Body is B
and the Rotor Speed is N
We now have..

-N + (M+-M) + (FF+-FF) + (B+-B) + N = 0

Or in a simple visual sense - a five ball Newton's cradle. The brackets are the three center balls. So, the -N ball decelerates, the three middle balls remain static, and to conserve (transfer) momentum, the N ball must accelerate.
I know this is a very simplistic explanation but it does conform with everything we know.

Sorry but this equation makes no physical sense. You are mixing different concepts with different units like they just add up.

Tags: