Propellantless propulsion

[Quantum Spider]

Quantum Dynamics Enterprises, Inc is proud to present C.I.D. centrifugal impulse drive. Patent pending.

Inventor: Harry Paul sprain.



BREAKING NEWS:
The device is at Georgia Institute of Technology College of Engineering. Under the management of Prof. Mitchell Walker for testing.


Here is a video that shows the torsion balance apparatus. The device is on one end a counterweight is on the other. It's hanging from a fishing line from the ceiling connected to the center of a 2 x 4.

 It is allowed to hang overnight until it is completely stationary no potential energy in the string to cause it to move left or right.

 The machine is started it begins to move slowly gaining momentum and accelerating as it revolves around the room until the tension in the fishing line becomes so great it can no longer rotate. The power is turned off the balance is stabilized and it slowly unwinds oscillating back and forth over the zero mark but eventually settling down and stopping right where it began.


And if the thrust is pointed straight up it doesn't rotate at all. And if the thrust is pointed straight down it doesn't rotate at all.

In this video, I taped up rotor arms to stop them from being thrown out. And CID does not move left or right on torsion balance.



Newton said that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I've discovered how to only cause one action and dampen the reaction by holding the magnet on the rotor in equilibrium between centrifugal force and the opposing magnetic field. As the rotor magnet travels in this equilibrium state it causes no effect on the overall device it's as if it doesn't exist. Until it reaches the gap where there is no magnetic field centrifugal force violently throws it out but it can only travel so far until the back end of the rotor arm stops it imparting all that potential energy into thrust.


So we basically have electricity turned directly into thrust with no propellant.

Sincerely,
Harry Sprain

[meberbs]

Try zooming out so people can see the rest of your device. I see a horizontal gear on one part that does not seem to be connected/rotating, but I assume that you may have another on the active part you haven't shown. Something spinning would be able to cause the rotations of the beam as a whole. This is the same concept used by some satellites where gyros are used for rotation/reorientation without needing RCS propellant. This is not considered propellantless propulsion, and is not a new idea.

Unless you show the rest of the device, there is no reason to believe that this is remotely useful. (And once the rest of the device is shown, I am sure there will be more specific criticisms that can be made.)

Edit: Also, you did not show what happens once the torque from the wire slows it to a stop. If it starts going back the other way then you do not have a useful force.

[ThinkerX]

I cannot go into detail on how the device works.

And the remainder of your post is drowned out by alarm bells going off.

[Matthieu]

[Ummm im only a 13 year old so yeah. Anyway if this is related to photonic propulsion. could you alternate the the speed of the solar sail with different frequencies becasue llight becomes a certain force when there is radiation frequencies have contact with the photons as the formula P(subscript: photons) = hv/c so could you have a short burst of frequncies to  alternate the speed of light like a throttle on a plane. But i have read that the solar sail has t be 10km by 10km and a micron thick so may be next time. But that was my idea on slowing down probes when they enter to Mars. Thanks i am open to emails  and twitter math031 

[JohnFornaro]

I cannot go into detail on how the device works.

And the remainder of your post is drowned out by alarm bells going off.

I was wondering what all that ringing was. 

Hopefully more info will be forthcoming sooner rather than later.

[meberbs]

...
The machine is started it begins to move slowly you can follow its movement from the laser pointer. It makes almost 3 complete revolutions accelerating the entire time until the tension in the fishing line becomes so great it can no longer move.

 Now of course you'll say it's gyroscopic rotation that would be true except I can turn the thrust the other direction with the mass still rotating the same direction that it was before and go the opposite direction another three revolutions until finally the tension in the fishing line becomes so great it causes of the device to stop and just sit there until turned off. And then it slowly unwinds back to the zero position.

And if the thrust is pointed straight up it doesn't rotate at all. And if the thrust is pointed straight down it doesn't rotate at all. Even if I double the rpm speed. So I ruled out gyroscopic progression.

I also ruled out gyroscopic progression because the mass that actually spins is plastic and weighs less than 2 pounds and is only 6 inches in diameter and rotating at at 150 RPM hardly enough to produce gyroscopic progression.

The term is gyroscopic precession, not "gyroscopic progression" and that is not what I am thinking is the cause. A horizontally oriented 2 pounds at 3 inch radius rotating at 150 rpm can cause a rotation as seen in the video of about one rotation per 5 minutes for about 23 pounds at 2 feet or about 10 pounds at 3 ft radius. That is just conservation of angular momentum, not precession, which is a different effect.

The description of you experiments also seems off. I previously said that it should stop and hold if the effect is real, but I was assuming large damping forces resulting in an overdamped device. Now that you have shown a wider view of the test setup, I see significant mass, and no sources of significant damping, so it appears that your device is very underdamped. In this case you should see oscillations around the equilibrium point (I'd guess at least half-turn or larger amplitude for your setup) where the equilibrium point is is what would determine if it was a real effect or not.

Since your description is not consistent with what the experimental setup should produce, either your setup is flawed, or your description is wrong.

Also, since you are new around here I should let you know that mods tend to remove threads when people make claims about magic devices and then don't explain anything about the device.

[meberbs]

It's not gyroscopic procession because I can turn the thrust straight up and it does not rotate. I can point the thrust down and it does not rotate.

Procession is not the right word either, and precession is still not the effect I am talking about.

You will have to share the specifics of your design first, but the way I am picturing what you are saying, no rotation when pointing it up is expected, since you will have changed the axis of rotation. Your new video still does not continue long enough to show the effects I was discussing, and your previous description remains inconsistent.

[meberbs]

You called it a "taped rotor test" which to me means that a part that was spinning no longer is doing so. Please actually describe (and show) the device itself in your next post. Any further discussion without you doing so is meaningless.

[meberbs]

I don't think you'd like the list of loopholes I would require in an NDA before signing it.

Your description above for the behavior of the device still does not make sense for the underdamped system you have. Please at least try posting a video that captures the oscillations around the equilibrium point while under continuous power. At least 2 direction changes, preferably 3 or more. (This would be at least 45 minutes long to be useful based on the half oscillation period shown in the current videos. You can fast-forward to reduce video size if you want, but please include a running timer in the video then so it is obvious what the rate of time progression is)

If you are sticking with your description that it stops, then show it stopped and holding for 5 minutes after spinning through the rotation. Please also explain where all that damping force to make it overdamped is coming from.

[meberbs]

Not knowing what a damped oscillator is when you are using one is a good reason not to believe any of your claims. You clearly don't know what your expected result even looks like.

This is from physics 101 (and a torsion balance follows equations of the same form as the linear oscillator case). http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/oscda.html

[whitelancer64]

Not knowing what a damped oscillator is when you are using one is a good reason not to believe any of your claims. You clearly don't know what your expected result even looks like.

Maybe it would be better to contact Dr. Mitchell Walker and ask for his assessment. His field of expertise seems to be electric propulsion, in particular Hall Effect thrusters.

[Fan Boi]

If you believe that you have a propellant-less propulsion device, and you believe that you know how it works, why do you need funds just to publish a paper?
I wish I could answer your question about the ramifications because I would love the see the video, but I can't.

[1]

For starters, I'll say I appreciate the respect and politeness you've shown thus far in your posts, and I'm glad you posted the video for us here.

Unfortunately, your animation leads me to believe quite confidently that you're seeing a manifestation of this:



We're all probably familiar with the figure skater spinning faster as she pulls her arms in, but I believe a slight variation of that setup is applicable when examining your device

Let's say this figure skater is on very slippery ice (read: frictionless) and has no initial angular velocity. Let's say she also wants to see what's behind her. Barring any external force, the only way she may rotate the top half of her body (where her eyes are) is by rotating her lower half the opposite direction. Now, conservation of angular momentum requires that if the top half of her body gain a momentum L, then the lower half of her body must gain a momentum -L. If the top and lower halves of her body have equal moments of inertia, they the magnitudes and velocities of these rotations will be equal. If the top half of her body rotates with a velocity of ω, then the lower half of her body rotates with a velocity -ω; and by extension, if the top half of her body is ultimately displaced by a value θ once she can rotate no further, then the lower half of her body is displaced by a value of -θ. This is a problem if she wants to turn around, because every time she twists, she returns exactly to the state that she was previously in when she untwists.

The solution, then, is to give her top and bottom halves have differing moments of inertia. Then, they can move with different angular velocities, and thus be displaced by different amounts. This is okay. All we require is that conservation of angular momentum be conserved. By selectively moving her arms in and out, she can selectively alter the moment of inertia of her upper half while keeping her lower half unchanged. By maximizing her upper moment of inertia while twisting, and then minimizing it while untwisting, the skater can actually induce a net rotation in her position. Again, this is okay. Her total angular momentum always remains zero, and she is free to completely turn around by repeating this flappy-twisty motion as many times as necessary. She may turn around as many times as she would like by repeating this motion indefinitely. With nearly the exact same body motion (min-twist, max-untwist), the skater may rotate her body the opposite direction just as easily. And if this motion is repeated quickly enough, she may even give off the illusion of having a net angular velocity.

I suspect that your device, with shifting masses moving around a flywheel, is doing this very same trick. By shifting the position of your thrust, as you call it, you're simply shifting the time when your moment of inertia is maximized, and when the moment of inertia is minimized. Now, If the skater has a bit of traction, the she can quite easily give her entire body a net angular momentum as she's no longer her own closed system. I believe your device is doing so via the wire anchored to the ceiling of whatever building you're in. It's not actually completely free to rotate. This both dampens any subtle start-stop-start-stop motion, and also allows the system to interact with the rest planet earth. Your device is therefore allowed to actually gain a real angular momentum. I suspect that, if you were to run this device as a truly isolated system, you would notice two things. One, absolutely no net movement in any linear direction, and two, immediate cessation of all movement once the motor powered down. You might have a different orientation than you had before, but that's always been allowed.

Again, I thank you for taking the time to post more information for us, and having the courage to put your ideas up for scrutiny. I don't think this one will pan out, but I wish you luck on any future endeavors you might attempt.

[jstrout]

It sounds similar to the use of reaction wheels for controlling the attitude of a spacecraft.  These allow you to change your orientation to point in any direction, without expelling propellant.  Is this a good analogy, or am I way off base?

[1]

It sounds similar to the use of reaction wheels for controlling the attitude of a spacecraft.  These allow you to change your orientation to point in any direction, without expelling propellant.  Is this a good analogy, or am I way off base?

A reaction wheel is ultimately what this reduces to; and I have no doubt this setup could serve as a reaction wheel in space. My previous post might have been better written using a reaction wheel as a starting ground. However, this effect is a bit more subtle.

Consider that in a normal spacecraft/reaction wheel system is that reaction wheels have little need to return to their original orientation. Need to rotate the spacecraft? Simple. Just spin the wheel. What does it matter if you have a net angular displacement between the spacecraft and an object which has high rotational symmetry?

If, for whatever reason, you DID have such a requirement (such as a skater who's body will become rather unhappy if she tries to rotate one half too far relative to the other*), a simple reaction wheel would not work. A reaction wheel returning to its original orientation would cause the spacecraft to return to its original orientation as well. One might then incorrectly conclude that if there's no net displacement of the halves, there can be no net displacement of the whole. This is actually perfectly fine if we give ourselves the ability to change the physical properties of the wheel at convenient times.

In the Harry's setup above, he mentions the setup changing direction of the 'thrust' without changing the spin of the flywheel. I believe he does this by reorienting the square piece shown in his animation. This changes whether or not the moment of inertia is greatest during the 'leftward', 'rightward', 'upward', or 'downward' motion of the masses relative to the entire test setup. Thus, the anomalous motion is not simply due the built in angular momentum of the flywheel itself. The asymmetric motion of the side masses, causing a continually changing moment of inertia, are a much more likely candidate.

A second generation test device would need to be restructured such that the system itself is both rotationally symmetric AND is free to rotate about the axis of what is currently a plank of wood. I would expect to see the entire setup slowly rotating over time; in discreet 'clicks' aligned with those masses on the flywheel snapping out.

*not valid for characters in Junji Ito manga

[meberbs]

Reaction wheels can only rotate a spacecraft around its center of mass. We change our center of mass with each revolution of the rotor. Totaly different.


Harry

This just demonstrates that you don't understand what you are talking about, The overall center of mass of the system that you are rotating about is not moving, it is where the wire hangs down. Similarly the paper you posted that claims a device which supposedly breaks the very definition of conservation of momentum (propellantless thrust) somehow obeys conservation of momentum.

I believe what you are seeing is due to gravity pulling on the extended piece resulting in an extra torque, that manifests as forward motion due to the constraints of the torsion balance.

Newton said that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I've discovered how to only cause one action and dampen the reaction by holding the magnet on the rotor in equilibrium between centrifugal force and the opposing magnetic field. As the rotor magnet travels in this equilibrium state it is causing no effect to the overall device it's as if it doesn't exist. Until it reaches the gap where there is no magnetic field centrifugal force violently throws it out but it can only travel so far until the back end of the rotor arm stops it imparting all that potential energy into thrust. So we basically have electricity turned directly into thrust with no propellant.

Sincerely,
Harry Sprain

Emphasis mine.

Ignoring the reaction force part of the equation is what you are doing here. This description is plainly wrong. As a recommendation, try approaching people and saying "I don't understand why this is producing force, but it does." You will get a much better reaction from physicists and engineers than making statements like this that demonstrate a lack of understanding of Newton's laws.

[Bob012345]

It's not gyroscopic procession because I can turn the thrust straight up and it does not rotate. I can point the thrust down and it does not rotate.

If something with mass is rotating, it's going to be tough to convince people, that this is not just a variant of the Dean Drive effect.

[Bob012345]

I'm not talking about the center of balance for the whole torsion device I'm talking about the device itself sitting alone in space with another one rotating next to it to stop the counter rotating force. When that device is turned on it will begin to move through space. Not just rotate around its center of mass.

It will move through space. It will move on its own using no propellant or pushing off of anything. And I admit I have no idea what's going on I don't know why a opposing magnetic field can dampen potential energy but it does. Look at the new dampening system on the Audi TT.

And I never proclaim to be a physicist a Dr. are anything like that I'm just a simple inventor that asks a lot of questions. And everything youre talking about Prof. Mitchell Walker at the Daniel Guggenheim aerospace school has already discussed.

I didn't come here to fight for its validity I simply came here for name branding to make sure we're the first using this new technology.

If you have further questions about the operation of the device you can please contact Prof. Mitchell Walker and discuss it with him. Or just wait until he publishes his paper.

Sincerely,
Harry Sprain

Did you say magnets were involved?

[dustinthewind]

I would get a fast frame video of the exact behavior of the arms in motion.  Saying what they are doing at that speed is questionable with out direct observation in slow motion. 

How do we know the arms are not hanging out more on the bottom than the top and as a result pushing more on the air via increased velocity (omega x r = v)?  That is assuming the air flow is less than is observable with the current tinsel configuration as given.  I would assume you get the tinsel close enough to the arms and you would see some air response. 

A vacuum test would be interesting but probably not feasible.

Of course if it is moving in the opposite direction as air would blow that would surely be more interesting. 

[Bob Shaw]

Please read up on the history of the 1950s 'Dean Drive' (as championed by John W Campbell) and the tragic end of the career of Prof Eric Laithwaite.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Or launch.

[Bob Shaw]

The snapshots clearly show what happening.

Harry

See above.

[Bob Shaw]

I'm not going to be snarky, I'm not going to be sarcastic, I'm going to be kind: you're making a terrible mistake. I'm sure you're well-meaning, but past experience suggests that you're wrong. I agree that spinning things behave strangely, but they don't, ever, give you something for nothing.

Here's a suggestion: make your pitch to a billionaire. Sell your idea in secret, and send 'I told you so' messages back from Alpha Centauri B when you get there. Failing that, send them when you get to somewhere in South America with a suitcase filled with cash. It worked for Gerald Bull, until it didn't.

In the meantime... ...please think of your career-destroying posts. If you hope for any form of traditional employment then your Google CV has just had an item appended which is about in the league of the benefits to the US military which may be found by staring at goats.

Really, please stop - for your own sake.

[Quantum Spider]

Quantum Dynamics Enterprises, Inc. is proud to present C.I.D. centrifugal impulse drive. Patent pending.

Inventor: Harry Paul sprain.



BREAKING NEWS:
The device is at Georgia Institute of Technology College of Engineering. Under the management of Prof. Mitchell Walker.


Here is a video that shows the torsion balance apparatus. The device is on one end a counterweight is on the other. It's hanging from a nylon rope from the ceiling connected to the center of a 2 x 4.
https://quantumdynamicsinc.com/complete-testing-videos
 It is allowed to hang overnight until it is completely stationary no potential energy in the string to cause it to move left or right.

 The machine is started it begins to move slowly gaining momentum and accelerating as it revolves around the room until the tension in the rope becomes so great it can no longer rotate. The power is turned off the balance is stabilized and it slowly unwinds oscillating back and forth over the zero mark but eventually settling down and stopping right where it began.

[Quantum Spider]

This was tested at the Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering by Prof Mitchell Walker's team. It shows positive proof of propulsion. It uses 17 watts and produces 710 Mn of thrust without expelling mass. It was tested on the water table with sensors to measure the tiniest movement. It has been tested in every way it can torsion balance, water table, it works.
https://quantumdynamicsinc.com/test-results-from-ga-tech

[Quantum Spider]

Yes, that's my old post. we have come a long way since then. We first tested it at Ga tech in 2019 with only one ring and we could not attain a thrust vector. So went back and built a new double ring to stop counter rotation it was tested by undergraduates on the water table at GA tech with complete success. Tests showed 710 mN of thrust using 17 watts. Test 4.

Professor Mitchell Walker stands behind the report of the work his undergraduates preformed.

[gongora]

Probably because you posted it three times in different forum sections and it was the exact text of a post you made 7 years ago.

[chazemz]

I feel slighted and yet somehow pleased at the same time. I posted my patent application expecting some criticism and was met with a wall of silence. Come on guys someone must be able to find a hole or two in the application. On this particular device, it does seem a very complicated way to achieve what is shown in the video, but they will learn a lot from the experiments. The information is a little vague and I can understand the scepticism ( I am kind of with meberbs on this one). Time will tell, "from little acorns do giant oak trees grow". Dean would not demonstrate his device in public and was different to this device.

[chazemz]

I would like to add a couple of things. Why did you not use a wireless switch for the power on and off? This would avoid any contact with the device. The back swing when the power is switched off just does not look right. Why the horseshoe shaped outer feature to the rotating magnet?

[Quantum Spider]

Hello everyone latest news. WE have built a double CID design that elevates the counter rotation.
https://quantumdynamicsinc.com/

Harry Sprain

[Quantum Spider]

And a special thank you to the moderators for unlocking this post. Cheers!

H.P.

[Quantum Spider]

In this test, we have removed the rotor magnets completely. We ran CID at a very high RPM and there is still no gyroscopic precession.

[Quantum Spider]

We thought maybe the weight of the rotor was needed for gyroscopic precession. So we put the rotor magnets back on. But we tapped the rotor arms in so they could not fly out. Now it's the same weight as normal. Let us see what happens.



Absolutely no movement! So we can rule out gyroscopic precession. Do we all agree?

H.P.

[Quantum Spider]

The last tests at Ga tech 2019 could not find a thrust vector.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/4mo89poj37gazmeof887z/GaTech-CID-water-table-report.-2019.pdf?rlkey=0mo6io1rosrurgn1yma2bkkw0&dl=0


So we moved on and built this with what we had learned in 2019. We then took CID 2 back to Ga tech and retested on the water table.




Adding another ring canceled counter rotation.

[Quantum Spider]

Here is a test where we pointed the force strait up. No rotation.

[Quantum Spider]

This is the final test we performed in-house before bringing it to Ga Tech. CID 2 on torsion balance, remote start.
Interestingly it moves about the same distance as when on the water table. If we sat and waited CID would return to the start position.

[InterestedEngineer]

Did you try 4 different orientations 90 degrees apart to preclude interactions with Earth's magnetic fields?

[InterestedEngineer]

This is the final test we performed in-house before bringing it to Ga Tech. CID 2 on torsion balance, remote start.
Interestingly it moves about the same distance as when on the water table. If we sat and waited CID would return to the start position.

Is this the proof of function video?

[Quantum Spider]

https://quantumdynamicsinc.com/complete-testing-videos

[InterestedEngineer]

You've got what might be a major problem with the water bath, and ironically it's what another propellantless drive theory uses to justify its mechanism!

Note the boat mechanism is repeatable pretty easily, the Rindler part hasn't been replicated yet.

https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2018/03/
https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2017/01/
https://www.wtamu.edu/~dcraig/PHYS4310/2008/Casimir_Maritime_1996.pdf

In the case of your water experiment, you have a boat with waves.

The apparatus necessarily induces vibrations in the liquid due to the asymmetric nature of the oscillation. Those vibrations will hit a harmonic with a nearby wall and cause pressure from the water to build up on one side and not another.

You can see this in one of the videos, but alas only two corners of the mechanism box.  One side has standing waves in the water and the 90 degree side to that first side to it does not.  Need a video of the opposite side of the harmonic waves (aka one that shows all 4 sides during the experiment).  Harmonic waves on one side are a tell-tale sign of this happening.  It's an interaction between the vibrations, the device under test, and the walls of the water table.

You could potentially control for that by doing the test in the same orientation but at all 4 corners of the water table.  You'd need videos of all 4 sides of the mechanism while doing so.

It's possible that is also happening in air, or with the overall mechanism itself, in your air tests, but it won't be visible (and the vibrations would go right through the saran wrap or the box).

[InterestedEngineer]

In you analysis of the mechanism, it would appear you neglected the momentum it takes to push the magnet back to its original position.

Granted this momentum is acting in a different xy orientation and on a different time frame (slower) than the initial high speed change of momentum.   Would have to dive into some gnarly equations or numerically simulate the mechanism to show whether this counteracts the initial quick change in momentum. I think it probably does if you do the center of gravity parts of the calculation correctly.

Regardless, I didn't see the math that accounts for the return momentum. If your theory is correct it's less than the initial quick change of momentum and in a different axis, but the theory can't be correct if you didn't account for it all.

I may have completely missed that calculation.  If you could point to the time in the video where you go over that I'd appreciate it.

[Quantum Spider]

https://quantumdynamicsinc.com/cid-theory

Magnets like springs.

[Quantum Spider]

https://quantumdynamicsinc.com/complete-testing-videos

Please see the video rotor magnet is never pushed all the way back in. It stays in equilibrium between the opposing magnet force and centrifugal force, never slamming back in.

H.P.

[chazemz]

You have a patent pending. Has it been published yet? If so could you provide the application number so that people can view it. If not maybe you could scan and upload some of the documents as you will have tried to explain how it works in your application. You have spent a lot of time and effort on this, people will be rightly sceptical on just a video.

[chazemz]

At the moment you have rotation not thrust. A good idea would be to place a second device on the other end of your balance beam then see what happens? Make certain they rotate in the same direction.

[chazemz]

Thank you for sharing your patent application it is an interesting read. To establish whether your device is producing thrust you are using the wrong experiment. Get yourself a square or oblong sheet of wood ( you are using magnets ) and suspend it from the ceiling by four lengths of string ( one in each corner ) making sure it is level. You now have a make shift level pendulum. Attach your device to the wooden platform in the center and turn it on using a wireless switch. If you achieve a sustained deflection ( not an oscillation ) you really do have something. I am going to bow out of this thread for now but may I wish you every success with your endeavours.

[Quantum Spider]

That would be the pendulum test yes we did that. It deflected to one side and sort of oscillated but stayed on one side. You can see the laser is pointing at string. CID is turned on it stays on one side of the string never oscillating back and forth.



H.P.

[Quantum Spider]

Here are some pictures of me building CID 1.

[Quantum Spider]

More pictures building CID 1

[Quantum Spider]

CID 1

[Quantum Spider]

More pictures of CID #1 

[Quantum Spider]

OLD CID first attempt.

[Quantum Spider]

OLD CID photos.

[Quantum Spider]

Should I keep posting pictures?

H.P.

[InterestedEngineer]

https://quantumdynamicsinc.com/complete-testing-videos

Please see the video rotor magnet is never pushed all the way back in. It stays in equilibrium between the opposing magnet force and centrifugal force, never slamming back in.

H.P.

pushed slowly or slamming is the same thing, just spread out over time.

Your rotating frame just makes this thing confusing and hard to analyze

Why not just a spring with a weight on the end, a plate to impact upon, where the spring is slowly re-wound and then released using a cam and an electric motor?  What's the difference?

or, someone standing on skateboard using their left arm to hit their right arm.

[InterestedEngineer]

Should I keep posting pictures?

H.P.

No, you should answer the specific questions / problems posed, using quoting so we know what you are answering.

The only added picture needed is a photo in the water bath showing all 4 sides while in operation, to see what the standing waves in the water look like.  Everything else is pretty clear from the pictures you have posted.

[Quantum Spider]

Thank you for your post I will try this test you have suggested. But I don't think the results will be any different from the pendulum tests that showed CID stayed on one side of the line and never oscillated back and forth.

H.P.

[CoolScience]

Thank you for your post I will try this test you have suggested. But I don't think the results will be any different from the pendulum tests that showed CID stayed on one side of the line and never oscillated back and forth.

H.P.

I don't know what test you are referring to, as far as I can tell you were not asked by anyone here to do some specific test, but to address the basic problems of your description of the device and similar questions you have not acknowledged.

The number of ways for the tests you have described so far to produce a false positive is too long to list. People on this forum have previously demonstrated how both linear vibrations and static mass shifts can invalidate torsion pendulum results by producing false positives. Something spinning has so many ways that it would cause problems that there is simply no reasonable way that you can have a valid test.

Yes, that's my old post. we have come a long way since then. We first tested it at Ga tech with only one ring and we could not attain a thrust vector. So went back and spent 6 months building a new double ring to stop counter rotation and tested it on the water table at GA tech with complete success. Professor Mitchell Walker stands behind the report.

You are making a really strong assertion about this professor here. Looking at information online, he clearly has a lab that he may have rented to you, but there is a giant gap between renting out lab equipment and actually standing behind claims that simply do not make sense, are contrary to all known physics, and lack any evidence of reasonable quality to support the strong assertions you keep making. Unless you can provide some actual evidence of his support of your ideas, this is at the level that could be considered slander, smearing his name. All of the research I can find from him is about real propulsion systems and related concepts that don't ignore conservation of energy and momentum.

[Quantum Spider]

Thank you for your post I will try this test you have suggested. But I don't think the results will be any different from the pendulum tests that showed CID stayed on one side of the line and never oscillated back and forth.

H.P.

I don't know what test you are referring to, as far as I can tell you were not asked by anyone here to do some specific test, but to address the basic problems of your description of the device and similar questions you have not acknowledged.

The number of ways for the tests you have described so far to produce a false positive is too long to list. People on this forum have previously demonstrated how both linear vibrations and static mass shifts can invalidate torsion pendulum results by producing false positives. Something spinning has so many ways that it would cause problems that there is simply no reasonable way that you can have a valid test.

Yes, that's my old post. we have come a long way since then. We first tested it at Ga tech with only one ring and we could not attain a thrust vector. So went back and spent 6 months building a new double ring to stop counter rotation and tested it on the water table at GA tech with complete success. Professor Mitchell Walker stands behind the report.

You are making a really strong assertion about this professor here. Looking at information online, he clearly has a lab that he may have rented to you, but there is a giant gap between renting out lab equipment and actually standing behind claims that simply do not make sense, are contrary to all known physics, and lack any evidence of reasonable quality to support the strong assertions you keep making. Unless you can provide some actual evidence of his support of your ideas, this is at the level that could be considered slander, smearing his name. All of the research I can find from him is about real propulsion systems and related concepts that don't ignore conservation of energy and momentum.

You have not viewed all the testing and information and yet you have some comment. Please review all information before posting.


Have you visited the website? Did you see the report from GA tech and the videos on the water table?
www.quantumdynamicsinc.com

And we didn't just RENT the space, Dean. walker's undergraduates performed the test. It's not like we went there and tested it ourselves.  We never touched it! We just stood around and watched.
We paid The Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering at Ga Tech to test it for us. We wanted an independent non-biased test.

Smearing his name. His quote to me "I stand behind my report" his undergraduates made. I have been working with Dean. Walker for over 7 years.
H.P.

[Quantum Spider]

[InterestedEngineer]

Thank you for your post I will try this test you have suggested. But I don't think the results will be any different from the pendulum tests that showed CID stayed on one side of the line and never oscillated back and forth.

H.P.

which post.

[Quantum Spider]

Thank you for sharing your patent application it is an interesting read. To establish whether your device is producing thrust you are using the wrong experiment. Get yourself a square or oblong sheet of wood ( you are using magnets ) and suspend it from the ceiling by four lengths of string ( one in each corner ) making sure it is level. You now have a make shift level pendulum. Attach your device to the wooden platform in the center and turn it on using a wireless switch. If you achieve a sustained deflection ( not an oscillation ) you really do have something. I am going to bow out of this thread for now but may I wish you every success with your endeavours.

This one.

[Quantum Spider]

That would be the pendulum test yes we did that. It deflected to one side and sort of oscillated but stayed on one side. You can see the laser is pointing at string. CID is turned on it stays on one side of the string never oscillating back and forth.



H.P.

And I responded with this.

[CoolScience]

You have not viewed all the testing and information and yet you have some comment. Please review all information before posting.


Have you visited the website? Did you see the report from GA tech and the videos on the water table?
www.quantumdynamicsinc.com

You do not know what I have or haven't viewed. I find your attempt to dismiss me by making inaccurate assertions that you can't possibly know to be rather rude. My post was asking about what experiment in this thread you were referring to, as I hadn't noticed the one in chazemz's post, so the fact that I have in fact looked at your website is irrelevant. Not a worthwhile experiment in my opinion anyway as it still has numerous ways to result in a false positive, just like every other one you have done.

Others have already pointed out ways the water table experiment can produce false positives that I find no need to add to. 

If the magnitudes of the angular momenta of the counterrotating masses are the same, the net angular momentum could be close to zero. This is because the angular momenta point in opposite directions and can partially or fully cancel each other out, resulting in a reduced net angular momentum.

In a closed system where no external torques are acting, the total angular momentum remains constant. This means that even though the individual angular momenta of the counterrotating masses might vary, their sum (taking direction into account) will remain constant over time.

Remember that angular momentum is a vector quantity, and the directions of the angular momenta matter when determining their net effect on the system's total angular momentum.

These things are all true about linear momentum as well. Your entire claim is that you can violate this by some magic process of spinning things around. This simply is not possible.

[Quantum Spider]

We believe the opposing magnetic field is somehow dissipating the centrifugal force, damping it like a shock absorber like on the Audi TT. So instead of slamming the magnet back in "reaction" it is held in equilibrium between the centrifugal force and the opposing magnetic field. The recently published paper shows how magnets can be used as springs.



H.P.

[InterestedEngineer]

We believe the opposing magnetic field is somehow dissipating the centrifugal force, damping it like a shock absorber like on the Audi TT. So instead of slamming the magnet back in "reaction" it is held in equilibrium between the centrifugal force and the opposing magnetic field. The recently published paper shows how magnets can be used as springs.

H.P.

Would this prototype work if it used springs instead of magnets?

[Quantum Spider]

I don't think so, how could you get the dampening without creating friction from the rotor arm touching the springs? On CID the magnets on the rotor never touch the opposing magnet so there is no friction only the damping effect.

H.P.

[CoolScience]

I don't think so, how could you get the dampening without creating friction from the rotor arm touching the springs? On CID the magnets on the rotor never touch the opposing magnet so there is no friction only the damping effect.

H.P.

The problem with your thinking seems clear from this. You seem to think that damping somehow dissipates momentum without transferring it anywhere. This is simply false, damping simply transfers momentum, same as any other force. The momentum will go from whatever is being damped to the damper and/or whatever the damper is attached to. It does not matter whether the damping is from magnetic force, friction, or some fluid. Any closed system will maintain constant total momentum, and therefore produce zero net propulsion. Also I don't think you understand the difference between damping and spring forces, but this isn't the place to explain that, plenty of resources on those topics are available online, I can point you to some if you would like.

[Quantum Spider]

I'm sorry are you trying to say that the Audi TT's shock absorbers do nothing more then transfer the bumps from the road through the shock absorber without dissipating the energy at all. then what is the purpose of the shock absorber? The momentum will go from whatever is being dampened to the dampener and or whatever the dampener is attached to true the energy of this case goes through the magnetic field and that is the dampener

[Tommyboy]

I'm sorry are you trying to say that the Audi TT's shock absorbers do nothing more then transfer the bumps from the road through the shock absorber without dissipating the energy at all. then what is the purpose of the shock absorber? The momentum will go from whatever is being dampened to the dampener and or whatever the dampener is attached to true the energy of this case goes through the magnetic field and that is the dampener

Shock absorbers still transfer all the momentum, they just stretch it over a longer time frame thus reducing the shock.

[Quantum Spider]

And we could be doing something just as similar with the magnetic field.

[Quantum Spider]

I'm sorry are you trying to say that the Audi TT's shock absorbers do nothing more then transfer the bumps from the road through the shock absorber without dissipating the energy at all. then what is the purpose of the shock absorber? The momentum will go from whatever is being dampened to the dampener and or whatever the dampener is attached to true the energy of this case goes through the magnetic field and that is the dampener

Shock absorbers still transfer all the momentum, they just stretch it over a longer time frame thus reducing the shock.

It seems there might be a slight misunderstanding in your statement. Shock absorbers work by dampening the oscillations and vibrations caused by the compression and extension of a vehicle's suspension system. While they do affect how forces are transmitted through the suspension, they don't transfer momentum in the same way that, say, a collision would.

Momentum is the product of an object's mass and its velocity, and it is conserved in a closed system unless acted upon by external forces. Shock absorbers do not change the total amount of momentum in a system; rather, they affect how forces are absorbed and transmitted through the suspension system. When a vehicle encounters a bump or a road irregularity, the suspension compresses, and the shock absorbers dissipate the energy by converting it into heat. This process does spread out the impact force over a longer time frame, which leads to a smoother ride and reduces the jarring effects on the vehicle and its occupants.

So, in summary, shock absorbers don't transfer momentum; instead, they help manage and dampen the forces generated by the vehicle's motion over uneven surfaces.

[Quantum Spider]

I'm sorry are you trying to say that the Audi TT's shock absorbers do nothing more then transfer the bumps from the road through the shock absorber without dissipating the energy at all. then what is the purpose of the shock absorber? The momentum will go from whatever is being dampened to the dampener and or whatever the dampener is attached to true the energy of this case goes through the magnetic field and that is the dampener

Shock absorbers still transfer all the momentum, they just stretch it over a longer time frame thus reducing the shock.

It seems there might be a slight misunderstanding in your statement. Shock absorbers work by dampening the oscillations and vibrations caused by the compression and extension of a vehicle's suspension system. While they do affect how forces are transmitted through the suspension, they don't transfer momentum in the same way that, say, a collision would.

Momentum is the product of an object's mass and its velocity, and it is conserved in a closed system unless acted upon by external forces. Shock absorbers do not change the total amount of momentum in a system; rather, they affect how forces are absorbed and transmitted through the suspension system. When a vehicle encounters a bump or a road irregularity, the suspension compresses, and the shock absorbers dissipate the energy by converting it into heat. This process does spread out the impact force over a longer time frame, which leads to a smoother ride and reduces the jarring effects on the vehicle and its occupants.

So, in summary, shock absorbers don't transfer momentum; instead, they help manage and dampen the forces generated by the vehicle's motion over uneven surfaces.

And opposing magnetic fields dissipate the energy by?? Who knows?

[Quantum Spider]

I'm happy to answer any and all questions.

I have been working on this for over 10 years and the experiments have surprised me.
when two permanent magnets with the same polarity repel each other due to their magnetic fields, there is indeed an exchange of energy. As the magnets are forced closer together against the repulsive force, work is done to overcome this force, and potential energy is stored in the magnetic field.

If the magnets are then allowed to move apart, the stored potential energy can be released as kinetic energy. The rotor being thrown out. If the magnets are brought together again, the potential energy is once more converted into kinetic energy as they move apart.

While this situation doesn't involve the same kind of energy dissipation seen in processes that produce heat through resistance (like with eddy currents), it still involves the transfer and conversion of energy within the magnetic field itself.


H.P.



Force = (40 kg × 9.81 m/s²) × 0.1016 meters / 60 seconds

Calculating the value: Force = (392.4 N) × 0.1016 m / 60 s Force ≈ 0.66306666667 N  663mN

[CoolScience]

I'm sorry are you trying to say that the Audi TT's shock absorbers do nothing more then transfer the bumps from the road through the shock absorber without dissipating the energy at all. then what is the purpose of the shock absorber? The momentum will go from whatever is being dampened to the dampener and or whatever the dampener is attached to true the energy of this case goes through the magnetic field and that is the dampener

You are confusing momentum and energy, they are distinct concepts that are not interchangeable. Transferring all of the momentum somewhere always happens, though the rate can be different. Momentum is mass times velocity (a vector quantity), kinetic energy is 0.5 times mass times velocity squared (a scalar). So when transferring momentum from one object to another of different mass, there will be a difference of energy, typically a dissipation of some of that energy to another form of energy like heat. If you need this explained to you in any more detail, you should go find a good tutorial or take a class. This is not the forum for this.

It seems there might be a slight misunderstanding in your statement. Shock absorbers work by dampening the oscillations and vibrations caused by the compression and extension of a vehicle's suspension system. While they do affect how forces are transmitted through the suspension, they don't transfer momentum in the same way that, say, a collision would.

This statement is simply false.

Momentum is the product of an object's mass and its velocity, and it is conserved in a closed system unless acted upon by external forces. Shock absorbers do not change the total amount of momentum in a system; rather, they affect how forces are absorbed and transmitted through the suspension system. When a vehicle encounters a bump or a road irregularity, the suspension compresses, and the shock absorbers dissipate the energy by converting it into heat. This process does spread out the impact force over a longer time frame, which leads to a smoother ride and reduces the jarring effects on the vehicle and its occupants.

This paragraph seems to use the words energy and momentum correctly.

So, in summary, shock absorbers don't transfer momentum; instead, they help manage and dampen the forces generated by the vehicle's motion over uneven surfaces.

This statement replaces the word energy in the previous paragraph with the word momentum. This statement is now entirely untrue. Momentum is a vector quantity

And opposing magnetic fields dissipate the energy by?? Who knows?

For any given scenario, this could be answered by anyone with sufficient background in electrodynamics. Simplest would be cases where changes in magnetic field (due to magnet or a reference object moving) induce a current which experiences resistance dissipating the energy into heat. The momentum will still 100% exist, as momentum cannot disappear, though it can be cancelled out with an opposite momentum, such as 2 balls rolling at each other.

[Quantum Spider]

I apologize for any confusion in my previous responses. To clarify, when two permanent magnets with the same polarity repel each other due to their magnetic fields, there is indeed an exchange of energy. As the magnets are forced closer together against the repulsive force, work is done to overcome this force, and potential energy is stored in the magnetic field.

If the magnets are then allowed to move apart, the stored potential energy can be released as kinetic energy. The rotor being thrown out. If the magnets are brought together again, the potential energy is once more converted into kinetic energy as they move apart.

While this situation doesn't involve the same kind of energy dissipation seen in processes that produce heat through resistance (like with eddy currents), it still involves the transfer and conversion of energy within the magnetic field itself.

[Quantum Spider]

Distance: The force between repelling magnets decreases as the distance between them increases. This means that as the magnets move farther apart, the force they exert on each other decreases.

[Quantum Spider]

I want you DIY scientist to build your own CID. I want other people to build and test it just like the EM drive.

[Quantum Spider]

We store potential energy and then release it.

[Quantum Spider]

We believe the opposing magnetic field is somehow dissipating the centrifugal force, damping it like a shock absorber like on the Audi TT. So instead of slamming the magnet back in "reaction" it is held in equilibrium between the centrifugal force and the opposing magnetic field. The recently published paper shows how magnets can be used as springs.

H.P.

Would this prototype work if it used springs instead of magnets?

The magnet field is dissipating and storing potential energy so energy is conserved.

[Quantum Spider]

I don't think so, how could you get the dampening without creating friction from the rotor arm touching the springs? On CID the magnets on the rotor never touch the opposing magnet so there is no friction only the damping effect.

I should have said how do you get the energy transfer from the springs to the magnet and force it back to center with friction.

H.P.

The problem with your thinking seems clear from this. You seem to think that damping somehow dissipates momentum without transferring it anywhere. This is simply false, damping simply transfers momentum, same as any other force. The momentum will go from whatever is being damped to the damper and/or whatever the damper is attached to. It does not matter whether the damping is from magnetic force, friction, or some fluid. Any closed system will maintain constant total momentum, and therefore produce zero net propulsion. Also I don't think you understand the difference between damping and spring forces, but this isn't the place to explain that, plenty of resources on those topics are available online, I can point you to some if you would like.

The magnetic field both dampens and stores potential energy like a spring and releases it at the magnetic gap.

[Quantum Spider]

I'm sorry are you trying to say that the Audi TT's shock absorbers do nothing more then transfer the bumps from the road through the shock absorber without dissipating the energy at all. then what is the purpose of the shock absorber? The momentum will go from whatever is being dampened to the dampener and or whatever the dampener is attached to true the energy of this case goes through the magnetic field and that is the dampener

You are confusing momentum and energy, they are distinct concepts that are not interchangeable. Transferring all of the momentum somewhere always happens, though the rate can be different. Momentum is mass times velocity (a vector quantity), kinetic energy is 0.5 times mass times velocity squared (a scalar). So when transferring momentum from one object to another of different mass, there will be a difference of energy, typically a dissipation of some of that energy to another form of energy like heat. If you need this explained to you in any more detail, you should go find a good tutorial or take a class. This is not the forum for this.

It seems there might be a slight misunderstanding in your statement. Shock absorbers work by dampening the oscillations and vibrations caused by the compression and extension of a vehicle's suspension system. While they do affect how forces are transmitted through the suspension, they don't transfer momentum in the same way that, say, a collision would.

This statement is simply false.

Momentum is the product of an object's mass and its velocity, and it is conserved in a closed system unless acted upon by external forces. Shock absorbers do not change the total amount of momentum in a system; rather, they affect how forces are absorbed and transmitted through the suspension system. When a vehicle encounters a bump or a road irregularity, the suspension compresses, and the shock absorbers dissipate the energy by converting it into heat. This process does spread out the impact force over a longer time frame, which leads to a smoother ride and reduces the jarring effects on the vehicle and its occupants.

This paragraph seems to use the words energy and momentum correctly.

So, in summary, shock absorbers don't transfer momentum; instead, they help manage and dampen the forces generated by the vehicle's motion over uneven surfaces.

This statement replaces the word energy in the previous paragraph with the word momentum. This statement is now entirely untrue. Momentum is a vector quantity

I meant energy.

And opposing magnetic fields dissipate the energy by?? Who knows?

For any given scenario, this could be answered by anyone with sufficient background in electrodynamics. Simplest would be cases where changes in magnetic field (due to magnet or a reference object moving) induce a current which experiences resistance dissipating the energy into heat. The momentum will still 100% exist, as momentum cannot disappear, though it can be cancelled out with an opposite momentum, such as 2 balls rolling at each other.

I meant permanent magnets. I know electromagnets create eddy currents.
However, the eddy currents in permanent magnets are extremely small. And there is no resistance dissipating the energy into heat.

[CoolScience]

Momentum is indeed a vector quantity defined as the product of an object's mass and velocity, while energy is the capacity to do work.

Shock absorbers don't affect momentum transfer but instead absorb and dissipate the energy.
That's all I'm saying.

So you are saying that your device does in fact conserve momentum and therefore does nothing useful whatsoever? Because that is true, but then why are you wasting our time and your own?

And opposing magnetic fields dissipate the energy by?? Who knows?

For any given scenario, this could be answered by anyone with sufficient background in electrodynamics. Simplest would be cases where changes in magnetic field (due to magnet or a reference object moving) induce a current which experiences resistance dissipating the energy into heat. The momentum will still 100% exist, as momentum cannot disappear, though it can be cancelled out with an opposite momentum, such as 2 balls rolling at each other.

I meant permanent magnets. I know electromagnets create eddy currents.
However, the eddy currents in permanent magnets are extremely small. And there is no resistance dissipating the energy into heat.

I was talking about permanent magnets too. I gave the example of 1 permanent magnet moving by something metal like a wire loop as it is a simple example. If you had 2 equal permanent magnets on a track (so they cant flip around) with repelling sides facing each other moving towards each other, unless they physically collided, they would generally swap momentum fairly efficiently, leaving as fast as they entered conserving momentum and energy. More detailed descriptions would require defining the specific materials involved. There are many other examples that could be discussed, but none of them are relevant to the actual topic of this thread, which is your original claim that spinning magnets makes conservation of momentum stop applying. It seems you have now admitted that momentum will not magically dissipate, and therefore your device does nothing so we can put an end to this discussion.

Also, please stop with the numerous replies one after another, the edit function exists, and 5 short posts in a row make it harder for people to follow what you are saying, and effectively act like spam. If you are quoting different posts, writing separate replies sometimes makes sense.

[Quantum Spider]

Momentum is indeed a vector quantity defined as the product of an object's mass and velocity, while energy is the capacity to do work.

Shock absorbers don't affect momentum transfer but instead absorb and dissipate the energy.
That's all I'm saying.

So you are saying that your device does in fact conserve momentum and therefore does nothing useful whatsoever? Because that is true, but then why are you wasting our time and your own?

And opposing magnetic fields dissipate the energy by?? Who knows?

For any given scenario, this could be answered by anyone with sufficient background in electrodynamics. Simplest would be cases where changes in magnetic field (due to magnet or a reference object moving) induce a current which experiences resistance dissipating the energy into heat. The momentum will still 100% exist, as momentum cannot disappear, though it can be cancelled out with an opposite momentum, such as 2 balls rolling at each other.

I meant permanent magnets. I know electromagnets create eddy currents.
However, the eddy currents in permanent magnets are extremely small. And there is no resistance dissipating the energy into heat.

I was talking about permanent magnets too. I gave the example of 1 permanent magnet moving by something metal like a wire loop as it is a simple example. If you had 2 equal permanent magnets on a track (so they cant flip around) with repelling sides facing each other moving towards each other, unless they physically collided, they would generally swap momentum fairly efficiently, leaving as fast as they entered conserving momentum and energy. More detailed descriptions would require defining the specific materials involved. There are many other examples that could be discussed, but none of them are relevant to the actual topic of this thread, which is your original claim that spinning magnets makes conservation of momentum stop applying. It seems you have now admitted that momentum will not magically dissipate, and therefore your device does nothing so we can put an end to this discussion.

Also, please stop with the numerous replies one after another, the edit function exists, and 5 short posts in a row make it harder for people to follow what you are saying, and effectively act like spam. If you are quoting different posts, writing separate replies sometimes makes sense.

"spinning magnets makes the conservation of momentum stop applying."

I've never mentioned anything about spinning magnets. Or conservation of momentum.

[Quantum Spider]

This is what we believe is happening.

Final Note. While the above analysis is far from complete this author emphasizes that no
conservation laws of physics are violated. Some of the energy supplied by the motor is
ultimately transferred to creating the unidirectional impact.

[Quantum Spider]

1. Energy supplied by the motor turns the rotor.

2. By the motor turning the rotor you compress the magnet like a spring as it is being forced into the repulsive magnetic field of the stator.

3. Once you reach the gap in the magnetic field the rotor arm is thrown out.

4. All energy is conserved.

5. Rotational force has been converted into lateral force.

Not violating any laws of thermodynamics. We have simply converted energy.

[Quantum Spider]

This is what AI says:
The process described follows the principles of energy conservation and does not violate any laws of thermodynamics. Here's a breakdown of the steps:

Energy is provided to the motor, causing the rotor to turn.

As the motor turns the rotor, the magnet experiences compression similar to a spring. This compression occurs because the magnet is pushed into the repulsive magnetic field generated by the stator.

When the rotor reaches the gap in the magnetic field, the compressed magnet's repulsive force is released, propelling the rotor arm outward.

Throughout this process, the total energy remains constant, adhering to the principle of energy conservation.

The rotational force of the rotor's movement is transformed into lateral force as the rotor arm is propelled outward.

In summary, the described mechanism converts rotational energy into lateral force by utilizing magnetic interactions, and it abides by the fundamental laws of thermodynamics.

This is what another AI said:
The motor input energy initiates the rotation of the rotor.

This rotational motion of the rotor leads to the compression of a magnet, analogous to compressing a spring. This compression occurs due to the rotor's movement against the repulsive magnetic field generated by the stator.

Upon reaching the gap in the magnetic field, the compressed magnet's potential energy is released, resulting in the rapid extension of the rotor arm.

The entire process ensures the conservation of energy, in accordance with the fundamental principles of energy preservation.

The original rotational force of the rotor gets ingeniously transformed into a lateral force, evident in the outward propulsion of the rotor arm.

In this sequence, energy conversion occurs by cleverly utilizing magnetic interactions, all while adhering to the well-established laws of thermodynamics.

[CoolScience]

"spinning magnets makes the conservation of momentum stop applying."

I've never mentioned anything about spinning magnets. Or conservation of momentum.

You keep describing a device that is spinning and supposedly does magic using magnets.

You either don't know what the words you are using mean or you are lying, because you have repeatedly claimed to have violated conservation of momentum. The title of this thread you have created is "Propellantless propulsion." This is the literal definition of violating conservation of momentum. In the first post you state "Newton said that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I've discovered how to only cause one action and dampen the reaction" The equal and opposite reaction that statement from Newton is precisely a statement of the law of conservation of momentum. These are definitions, there is no arguing around this.

This is what we believe is happening.

Final Note. While the above analysis is far from complete this author emphasizes that no
conservation laws of physics are violated. Some of the energy supplied by the motor is
ultimately transferred to creating the unidirectional impact.

If conservation laws are not violated, then no net force can be produced without pushing off something external or expelling propellant. There is no such thing as a "unidirectional impact," as again that is the literal definition of violating conservation of momentum.

Your claims are equal to stating that 1+1=3. It is simply wrong by definition.

By the way, any propellantless device can trivially be converted into a perpetual energy generator, you just have to specify how much momentum out of nothing is generated per amount of energy input. Equivalent is force per power input, as those are the rates of change of momentum and energy respectively. But until you start acknowledging the meanings of the words you are using, that math would be pointless to provide.

Also, you mentioned thermodynamics a couple times here, that is simply irrelevant and a further indication that you don't actually know what you are talking about.

[Quantum Spider]

Then my only reply to you is to sit back and watch. I wish you the best bye.

[daedalus1]

Shouldn't you prove how these laws can be violated first?

[Quantum Spider]

We have a prototype that for whatever reason is showing a thrust and we have tested it many many ways and have spent 100's of thousands of dollars. Just because we don't understand the math that makes it work does not mean it doesn't.

1. Please explain how CID rotates when operating normally. But if you tapped the rotor arms in so that they cannot be thrown out there is no rotation. What changed in the system to stop it from rotating? It weighs the same the rotor speed is the same. Why isn't it rotating like normal on the torsion balance?

And the same thing on the water table we tapped up the rotors and there was NO movement. Then we untapped the rotor and CID moved across the water table.

Please explain to me why it's doing this. Nothing in the experiments changed only the rotor's movement.

Then we rotated CID so the thrust was pointed straight up there was no rotation when on the torsion balance. Why? nothing has changed in the system except for the orientation of CID? Why won't it rotate? And the same thing happens when pointed down. but point it left or right and it rotates just fine. Please explain that.

It must be we have a thrust that is controlled by the orientation of CID. What else could explain this?

[daedalus1]

The forces are tiny and are probably outside forces.
That is why you must explain how you can break physical laws first if you are claiming that outside forces are not present .

[Quantum Spider]

Ga tech test shows 710 mN using 17 watts. Not small.

[daedalus1]

That's being pedantic. We can pointlessly argue the definition of small, it's relative.
You are avoiding the main point.

[Quantum Spider]

I don't know what is happening. I'm not claiming to break anything. We have observed CID doing these things, shall we just ignore it because science tells us no?

I'm watching it with my own eyes. I can feel CID want to leave my hand when I release it, on the torsion balance, it speeds up.

You can see it in the videos, it starts off very slow and accelerates. I'll mention again does not rotate if the thrust is pointed straight up or down. Why? explain it to me. The gyroscopic precession stopped because I rotated it. How?
No, the only explanation is we have unidirectional thrust.

We took all the magnets off the rotor and ran CID at a very high RPM while on the torsion balance and there was no rotation of the torsion balance.


When we tapped the rotor arms in so they could not be thrown out when on the torsion balance there was NO rotation. Same RPM speed everything is identical in the test except the tapped rotor arms.

And you can't say rotors are reacting with the air like propellers it's in a sealed box.

Another torsion balance test we did was to leave the rotor magnet as normal. But run CID at a very RPM so centrifugal force holds all the magnets out and the torsion balance will not rotate.

[daedalus1]

I don't have to explain anything to you. You are the one with claims, it's up to you to do the explaining.
First you must explain where the forces come from if they don't break laws of physics. If they do break laws of physics you must explain how.

[Quantum Spider]

I don't have to explain anything to you. You are the one with claims, it's up to you to do the explaining.
First you must explain where the forces come from if they don't break laws of physics. If they do break laws of physics you must explain how.

We don't have all the information now. We don't know where the forces are coming from or how they are affecting CID. We are going by what we have observed during testing and have duplicated. Getting the same results many times. That is the scientific method. I am a practical scientist like Faraday. I take a hands-on approach to experimentation and connect theoretical ideas with real-world observations. What do I see, how does it react in the real world?


what we know is CID on torsion balance or water table will not move if the rotor arms are tapped in? However, will move if rotor arms are not tapped in and left to operate as normal.  Nothing else in the system changes, but now it rotates. Why? And how?

[daedalus1]

Come back when you've identified the origin of the forces.

[Quantum Spider]

Come back when you've identified the origin of the forces.

That's what we are working on. Our patent issues on Thursday so others can duplicate our experiments. That's why I'm here because our patent is being granted. And I want others to build and test it like with the EM drive.

[daedalus1]

That's not what I said.
You must identify the origin of the forces yourself. Then have others check your conclusions.

[Quantum Spider]

I don't think so, how could you get the dampening without creating friction from the rotor arm touching the springs? On CID the magnets on the rotor never touch the opposing magnet so there is no friction only the damping effect.



H.P.

The problem with your thinking seems clear from this. You seem to think that damping somehow dissipates momentum without transferring it anywhere. This is simply false, damping simply transfers momentum, same as any other force. The momentum will go from whatever is being damped to the damper and/or whatever the damper is attached to. It does not matter whether the damping is from magnetic force, friction, or some fluid. Any closed system will maintain constant total momentum, and therefore produce zero net propulsion. Also I don't think you understand the difference between damping and spring forces, but this isn't the place to explain that, plenty of resources on those topics are available online, I can point you to some if you would like.

The magnetic field both dampens and stores potential energy like a spring and releases it at the magnetic gap.

I should have said how do you get the energy transfer from the springs to the magnet and force it back to the center without friction.

[Quantum Spider]

That's not what I said.
You must identify the origin of the forces yourself. Then have others check your conclusions.

I have many other scientists working on this who are way smarter than I am. I'm just a practical inventor who is very observant. Have you read Dr. Nichols's report?

[Quantum Spider]

Did you try 4 different orientations 90 degrees apart to preclude interactions with Earth's magnetic fields?

Do you think the earth's magnetic field can move a 25kg mass? Or affect it in any way?

[Quantum Spider]

For starters, I'll say I appreciate the respect and politeness you've shown thus far in your posts, and I'm glad you posted the video for us here.

Unfortunately, your animation leads me to believe quite confidently that you're seeing a manifestation of this:



We're all probably familiar with the figure skater spinning faster as she pulls her arms in, but I believe a slight variation of that setup is applicable when examining your device

Let's say this figure skater is on very slippery ice (read: frictionless) and has no initial angular velocity. Let's say she also wants to see what's behind her. Barring any external force, the only way she may rotate the top half of her body (where her eyes are) is by rotating her lower half the opposite direction. Now, conservation of angular momentum requires that if the top half of her body gain a momentum L, then the lower half of her body must gain a momentum -L. If the top and lower halves of her body have equal moments of inertia, they the magnitudes and velocities of these rotations will be equal. If the top half of her body rotates with a velocity of ω, then the lower half of her body rotates with a velocity -ω; and by extension, if the top half of her body is ultimately displaced by a value θ once she can rotate no further, then the lower half of her body is displaced by a value of -θ. This is a problem if she wants to turn around, because every time she twists, she returns exactly to the state that she was previously in when she untwists.

The solution, then, is to give her top and bottom halves have differing moments of inertia. Then, they can move with different angular velocities, and thus be displaced by different amounts. This is okay. All we require is that conservation of angular momentum be conserved. By selectively moving her arms in and out, she can selectively alter the moment of inertia of her upper half while keeping her lower half unchanged. By maximizing her upper moment of inertia while twisting, and then minimizing it while untwisting, the skater can actually induce a net rotation in her position. Again, this is okay. Her total angular momentum always remains zero, and she is free to completely turn around by repeating this flappy-twisty motion as many times as necessary. She may turn around as many times as she would like by repeating this motion indefinitely. With nearly the exact same body motion (min-twist, max-untwist), the skater may rotate her body the opposite direction just as easily. And if this motion is repeated quickly enough, she may even give off the illusion of having a net angular velocity.

I suspect that your device, with shifting masses moving around a flywheel, is doing this very same trick. By shifting the position of your thrust, as you call it, you're simply shifting the time when your moment of inertia is maximized, and when the moment of inertia is minimized. Now, If the skater has a bit of traction, the she can quite easily give her entire body a net angular momentum as she's no longer her own closed system. I believe your device is doing so via the wire anchored to the ceiling of whatever building you're in. It's not actually completely free to rotate. This both dampens any subtle start-stop-start-stop motion, and also allows the system to interact with the rest planet earth. Your device is therefore allowed to actually gain a real angular momentum. I suspect that, if you were to run this device as a truly isolated system, you would notice two things. One, absolutely no net movement in any linear direction, and two, immediate cessation of all movement once the motor powered down. You might have a different orientation than you had before, but that's always been allowed.

Again, I thank you for taking the time to post more information for us, and having the courage to put your ideas up for scrutiny. I don't think this one will pan out, but I wish you luck on any future endeavors you might attempt.

Nothing like this at all with the counter-rotating ring. There is linear movement.

[Quantum Spider]

You've got what might be a major problem with the water bath, and ironically it's what another propellantless drive theory uses to justify its mechanism!

Note the boat mechanism is repeatable pretty easily, the Rindler part hasn't been replicated yet.

https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2018/03/
https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2017/01/
https://www.wtamu.edu/~dcraig/PHYS4310/2008/Casimir_Maritime_1996.pdf

In the case of your water experiment, you have a boat with waves.

The apparatus necessarily induces vibrations in the liquid due to the asymmetric nature of the oscillation. Those vibrations will hit a harmonic with a nearby wall and cause pressure from the water to build up on one side and not another.

You can see this in one of the videos, but alas only two corners of the mechanism box.  One side has standing waves in the water and the 90 degree side to that first side to it does not.  Need a video of the opposite side of the harmonic waves (aka one that shows all 4 sides during the experiment).  Harmonic waves on one side are a tell-tale sign of this happening.  It's an interaction between the vibrations, the device under test, and the walls of the water table.

You could potentially control for that by doing the test in the same orientation but at all 4 corners of the water table.  You'd need videos of all 4 sides of the mechanism while doing so.

It's possible that is also happening in air, or with the overall mechanism itself, in your air tests, but it won't be visible (and the vibrations would go right through the saran wrap or the box).

They accounted for the noise of the waves at Ga Tech.

The vibrations would go through the saran wrap and react with the air and it is what causes CID to spin on the torsion balance. Are you crazy?

[Quantum Spider]

At the moment you have rotation not thrust. A good idea would be to place a second device on the other end of your balance beam then see what happens? Make certain they rotate in the same direction.

No, we have thrust because we can control its direction. Point it up no rotation.

[Quantum Spider]

https://quantumdynamicsinc.com/complete-testing-videos

Please see the video rotor magnet is never pushed all the way back in. It stays in equilibrium between the opposing magnet force and centrifugal force, never slamming back in.

H.P.

pushed slowly or slamming is the same thing, just spread out over time.

Your rotating frame just makes this thing confusing and hard to analyze

Why not just a spring with a weight on the end, a plate to impact upon, where the spring is slowly re-wound and then released using a cam and an electric motor?  What's the difference?

or, someone standing on skateboard using their left arm to hit their right arm.

Because what you have described would never cause a torsion balance to rotate.

Let us take the skateboarder and attach him to the torsion balance he could hit his arms legs anything he wanted but that torsion balance will not rotate. 

So how is that like CID?

[Quantum Spider]

A fixed rod has a rotating mass at the end, can you stop gyroscopic precession by turning just the rod 90 degrees?



No, you generally cannot completely stop gyroscopic precession by just turning the rod itself by 90 degrees. Gyroscopic precession is a fundamental mechanical phenomenon that occurs due to the conservation of angular momentum. When a torque is applied to a rotating object, it causes the object's axis of rotation to change direction, resulting in precession.

In the case of a fixed rod with a rotating mass at the end, changing the orientation of the rod (such as by turning it by 90 degrees) will indeed influence the precession behavior, but it won't eliminate it entirely. The orientation change might alter the direction and rate of precession, but the underlying principle of angular momentum conservation will still cause the precession effect to occur to some degree.

To effectively counteract or minimize gyroscopic precession, you would typically need to apply external torques or forces in a controlled manner. Changing the orientation of the rod alone, while it might modify the precession behavior, won't completely eliminate the phenomenon.

So how are we stopping gyroscopic precession by simply rotating the rod 90 degrees? The orientation of CID shouldn't matter.


Now observe CID2 on the torsion balance it has two rotors so the canceling of angular momentum from the two counter-rotating rotors would mitigate the gyroscopic precession effect.

So how is CID2 moving on the torsion balance? It was remotely started so there was no outside influence.

[Quantum Spider]

https://quantumdynamicsinc.com/complete-testing-videos

Please see the video rotor magnet is never pushed all the way back in. It stays in equilibrium between the opposing magnet force and centrifugal force, never slamming back in.

H.P.

pushed slowly or slamming is the same thing, just spread out over time.

Your rotating frame just makes this thing confusing and hard to analyze

Why not just a spring with a weight on the end, a plate to impact upon, where the spring is slowly re-wound and then released using a cam and an electric motor?  What's the difference?

or, someone standing on skateboard using their left arm to hit their right arm.

Because what you have described would never cause a torsion balance to rotate.

Let us take the skateboarder and attach him to the torsion balance he could hit his arms and legs on anything he wanted but that torsion balance will not rotate. 

So how is that like CID?

The magnet arm is neither pushed slowly nor slammed back in it's never pushed all the way back in. It stays in equilibrium between the opposing magnet field and centrifugal force. Until the gap and then it's thrown out slamming hard. Then the opposing magnets slowly push it back to the center of the two forces for another revolution.

[laszlo]

Wonderful news everyone I was just contacted by the PTO our patent will issue on Thursday!

All that means is that you've filled out the forms and paid the fees. Ever since the patent model requirement was abolished in 1880 anything can be patented as long as it doesn't claim to be a perpetual motion machine, i.e., not conserving energy. It's a shame that there is not a similar law for conservation of momentum.

Anyway, the issuance of a patent is not an endorsement of the concept or device. It's simply a bureaucratic process to establish an ownership claim.

[Quantum Spider]

Wonderful news everyone I was just contacted by the PTO our patent will issue on Thursday!

All that means is that you've filled out the forms and paid the fees. Ever since the patent model requirement was abolished in 1880 anything can be patented as long as it doesn't claim to be a perpetual motion machine, i.e., not conserving energy. It's a shame that there is not a similar law for conservation of momentum.

Anyway, the issuance of a patent is not an endorsement of the concept or device. It's simply a bureaucratic process to establish an ownership claim.

OK.

[laszlo]

We have a prototype that for whatever reason is showing a thrust and we have tested it many many ways and have spent 100's of thousands of dollars. Just because we don't understand the math that makes it work does not mean it doesn't.

...

It must be we have a thrust that is controlled by the orientation of CID. What else could explain this?

The lack of understanding of the math means that you have something like the Pioneer Anomaly going on. That anomaly gave rise to theories about gravitational causes and numerology involving the speed of light and the Hubble constant. Once the math was understood it turned out that there was no anomaly at all. The positional discrepancy was caused by thermal recoil forces that had not been properly understood and modeled when the position predictions were made.

Given the admitted lack of knowledge of the math behind your device combined with the choice between new physics and an unmodeled force, Occam's Razor tells me to pick the latter.

[Quantum Spider]

We have a prototype that for whatever reason is showing a thrust and we have tested it many many ways and have spent 100's of thousands of dollars. Just because we don't understand the math that makes it work does not mean it doesn't.

...

It must be we have a thrust that is controlled by the orientation of CID. What else could explain this?

The lack of understanding of the math means that you have something like the Pioneer Anomaly going on. That anomaly gave rise to theories about gravitational causes and numerology involving the speed of light and the Hubble constant. Once the math was understood it turned out that there was no anomaly at all. The positional discrepancy was caused by thermal recoil forces that had not been properly understood and modeled when the position predictions were made.

Given the admitted lack of knowledge of the math behind your device combined with the choice between new physics and an unmodeled force, Occam's Razor tells me to pick the latter.

Great that's wonderful your opinion. But what does it have to do with me and my company? Just because you say it's not going to work I should just stop?

And Not believe what I am seeing with my own eyes. And what does my lack of knowledge of math have to do with real-world experiments? Because I don't do math as well as you CID won't work? Double Ph.D. in physics has already written a paper on what's happening. Dr. Nichols, have you read it?

you said,
"The lack of understanding of the math means that you have something like the Pioneer Anomaly going on"

Maybe there is some anomaly going on, but this time it's not a math error.

[InterestedEngineer]

So far you have failed to address several experimental flaws that were pointed out.

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.

Believe it or not we are trying to help.

[laszlo]

We have a prototype that for whatever reason is showing a thrust and we have tested it many many ways and have spent 100's of thousands of dollars. Just because we don't understand the math that makes it work does not mean it doesn't.

...

It must be we have a thrust that is controlled by the orientation of CID. What else could explain this?

The lack of understanding of the math means that you have something like the Pioneer Anomaly going on. That anomaly gave rise to theories about gravitational causes and numerology involving the speed of light and the Hubble constant. Once the math was understood it turned out that there was no anomaly at all. The positional discrepancy was caused by thermal recoil forces that had not been properly understood and modeled when the position predictions were made.

Given the admitted lack of knowledge of the math behind your device combined with the choice between new physics and an unmodeled force, Occam's Razor tells me to pick the latter.

Great that's wonderful your opinion. But what does it have to do with me and my company? Just because you say it's not going to work I should just stop?

And Not believe what I am seeing with my own eyes. And what does my lack of knowledge of math have to do with real-world experiments? Because I don't do math as well as you CID won't work? Double Ph.D. in physics has already written a paper on what's happening. Dr. Nichols, have you read it?

My point was that real scientists with PhDs in physics saw and investigated the Pioneer Anomaly for decades before finding the explanation. They saw a deceleration that they thought couldn't be there. Some came up with new physics explanations because they couldn't understand any other way that it could be happening. The real answer turned out to be a mundane explanation that just hadn't been accounted for in the modeling.

So no, I'm not saying that you should ignore seeing your test rig twirling around. I'm also not picking on anyone's mathematical skill level. I'm saying that since you have an acknowledged incomplete understanding of the math you should be aware of the possibilities lurking in the math because many professional scientists have also been caught by the unknowns hiding in the shadows of incomplete theory.

Performing real world experiments is just part of the scientific method. Understanding the results is at least as important. This includes understanding the context of the experiment. For example, after Michelson and Morley, discarding the concept of luminiferous aether was justified because theirs was the first test of the properties of the aether wind. There was no previous history of experiments that confirmed the existence of the aether wind. Your experiment, on the other hand, would require junking a theory that has been around and successfully tested for hundreds of years and has many well-developed technologies based on it. Dumping conservation of momentum needs a lot more justification than a whirligig.

Finally, I do not doubt that your gadget moves around, I just very seriously doubt your explanation. That's why I said that given the choice between your test rig's behavior being caused by a violation of conservation of momentum or by the known unknowns in the mathematical model describing the device, the latter is more likely to be correct.

[laszlo]

you said,
"The lack of understanding of the math means that you have something like the Pioneer Anomaly going on"

Maybe there is some anomaly going on, but this time it's not a math error.

If you do not understand the math than you cannot say there is no math error.

[CoolScience]

Great that's wonderful your opinion. But what does it have to do with me and my company? Just because you say it's not going to work I should just stop?

Yes you should, there is literally no chance that this works. You should definitely stop trying to make other people do work for you by wasting their time building a copy of your device.

And Not believe what I am seeing with my own eyes. And what does my lack of knowledge of math have to do with real-world experiments?

It means that you don't know what you are looking at. There are numerous ways to produce the results you have, and none of them involve actual propellantless propulsion.

Because I don't do math as well as you CID won't work? Double Ph.D. in physics has already written a paper on what's happening. Dr. Nichols, have you read it?

That paper can be summarized as "this device violates conservation of momentum without violating conservation of momentum." There is simply no way that it was written by someone with a legitimate PhD in physics, except as a joke or a "spot the errors" exercise. Problems include claiming that Newton's third law does not apply during a collision (There are 2 objects involved, and they apply equal and opposite forces to each other.) Also, it simply assumes that the rod acquires a velocity and ignores the forces that gave it that velocity to begin with, and most importantly the reaction forces the rod applies to whatever is applying force to the rod.

you said,
"The lack of understanding of the math means that you have something like the Pioneer Anomaly going on"

Maybe there is some anomaly going on, but this time it's not a math error.

No, you are not in any regime that hasn't been tested by countless other experiments. Many people who know more than you do about physics have given explanations of problems with your experiments. Your responses have either been to ignore them or assert they are wrong while demonstrating you don't understand what they said.

[chazemz]

You have done well to get your patent application granted. In the UK it would have been rejected on the basis that you cannot explain how it works and is therefore a "theory of physics". I notice you have used my reply as a quote and have still insisted that you are producing thrust. You are not and if you carried out a proper level pendulum test ( which you are not going to do ) it would show you that you are not. Why are you so reluctant to carry out the proper test?

[Quantum Spider]

You have done well to get your patent application granted. In the UK it would have been rejected on the basis that you cannot explain how it works and is therefore a "theory of physics". I notice you have used my reply as a quote and have still insisted that you are producing thrust. You are not and if you carried out a proper level pendulum test ( which you are not going to do ) it would show you that you are not. Why are you so reluctant to carry out the proper test?

I'm not reluctant, at this moment CID is elsewhere being tested. But I'm scheduling the tests you have suggested. I want to do whatever is necessary to achieve this. Any tests you suggest I will consider. I want the truth as badly as you do.
My research is open to the public.
Please experiment following my patent and recreate CID.

[chazemz]

Just be cautious and proceed keeping costs to a minimum. It is good to believe but things can get out of control very rapidly. Think Em drive. Maintain a scientific mind and if the evidence mounts, I know it will be hard, and I know it will hurt, but you have to have the courage to let go. Best regards.

[Quantum Spider]

Dean Walker's undergraduates performed the test on both CID1 in 2019 and CID2 in 2023. QDE hired Ga tech to conduct the testing.

We wanted CID independently tested by an outside source.  Dean Walker and his assistants never gave any input to the design or building of CID. CID was delivered "as is" to the lab and they tested it. And they did a wonderful job!

[zubenelgenubi]

Moderator:
I perceive enlightening discussion has ended, and members are now talking past each other.  Thread locked.