Author Topic: Propellantless propulsion  (Read 39088 times)

Offline CoolScience

  • Member
  • Posts: 37
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #40 on: 08/29/2023 11:03 pm »
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.

Offline CoolScience

  • Member
  • Posts: 37
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #41 on: 08/30/2023 02:23 am »
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.

Offline CoolScience

  • Member
  • Posts: 37
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #42 on: 08/30/2023 05:17 am »
"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.
« Last Edit: 08/30/2023 05:18 am by CoolScience »

Online daedalus1

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 927
  • uk
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #43 on: 08/30/2023 06:19 am »
Shouldn't you prove how these laws can be violated first?

Online daedalus1

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 927
  • uk
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #44 on: 08/30/2023 06:44 am »
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 .

Online daedalus1

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 927
  • uk
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #45 on: 08/30/2023 06:50 am »
That's being pedantic. We can pointlessly argue the definition of small, it's relative.
You are avoiding the main point.

Online daedalus1

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 927
  • uk
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #46 on: 08/30/2023 07:30 am »
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.

Online daedalus1

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 927
  • uk
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #47 on: 08/30/2023 07:54 am »
Come back when you've identified the origin of the forces.

Online daedalus1

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 927
  • uk
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #48 on: 08/30/2023 08:16 am »
That's not what I said.
You must identify the origin of the forces yourself. Then have others check your conclusions.

Offline laszlo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 904
  • Liked: 1211
  • Likes Given: 513
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #49 on: 08/30/2023 01:50 pm »
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.

Offline laszlo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 904
  • Liked: 1211
  • Likes Given: 513
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #50 on: 08/30/2023 02:15 pm »
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.

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2267
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1774
  • Likes Given: 2866
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #51 on: 08/30/2023 03:07 pm »
So far you have failed to address several experimental flaws that were pointed out.
Quote
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.

Offline laszlo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 904
  • Liked: 1211
  • Likes Given: 513
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #52 on: 08/30/2023 03:16 pm »
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.


Offline laszlo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 904
  • Liked: 1211
  • Likes Given: 513
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #53 on: 08/30/2023 03:18 pm »

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.

Offline CoolScience

  • Member
  • Posts: 37
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #54 on: 08/30/2023 03:20 pm »
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.

Offline chazemz

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 145
  • england
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #55 on: 08/30/2023 05:00 pm »
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?

Offline chazemz

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 145
  • england
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #56 on: 08/30/2023 06:01 pm »
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.

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11002
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 7293
  • Likes Given: 70075
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #57 on: 08/31/2023 06:35 pm »
Moderator:
I perceive enlightening discussion has ended, and members are now talking past each other.  Thread locked.
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.) My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!" Yes, there are God-given rights. Do you wish to gainsay the Declaration of Independence?

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47363
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80181
  • Likes Given: 36311
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #58 on: 02/06/2024 01:40 pm »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0