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.