Author Topic: Propellantless propulsion  (Read 39087 times)

Offline Bob Shaw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 725
  • Likes Given: 671
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #20 on: 10/21/2016 11:38 pm »
The snapshots clearly show what happening.

Harry

See above.

Offline Bob Shaw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 725
  • Likes Given: 671
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #21 on: 10/22/2016 12:00 am »
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.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10139
  • US
  • Liked: 13703
  • Likes Given: 5873
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #22 on: 08/26/2023 02:16 am »
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.

Offline chazemz

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 145
  • england
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #23 on: 08/26/2023 02:43 pm »
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.

Offline chazemz

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 145
  • england
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #24 on: 08/26/2023 07:07 pm »
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?

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2267
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1774
  • Likes Given: 2866
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #25 on: 08/27/2023 02:38 am »
Did you try 4 different orientations 90 degrees apart to preclude interactions with Earth's magnetic fields?

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2267
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1774
  • Likes Given: 2866
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #26 on: 08/27/2023 02:41 am »
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?

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2267
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1774
  • Likes Given: 2866
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #27 on: 08/27/2023 03:15 am »
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).
« Last Edit: 08/27/2023 03:30 am by InterestedEngineer »

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2267
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1774
  • Likes Given: 2866
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #28 on: 08/27/2023 03:22 am »
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.

Offline chazemz

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 145
  • england
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #29 on: 08/27/2023 07:40 am »
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.

Offline chazemz

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 145
  • england
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #30 on: 08/27/2023 09:05 am »
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.

Offline chazemz

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 145
  • england
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #31 on: 08/27/2023 05:48 pm »
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.

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2267
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1774
  • Likes Given: 2866
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #32 on: 08/28/2023 01:02 am »
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.
« Last Edit: 08/28/2023 04:28 am by InterestedEngineer »

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2267
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1774
  • Likes Given: 2866
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #33 on: 08/28/2023 01:04 am »
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.

Offline CoolScience

  • Member
  • Posts: 37
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #34 on: 08/28/2023 08:50 pm »
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. :D 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.

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2267
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1774
  • Likes Given: 2866
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #35 on: 08/29/2023 12:35 am »
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.

Offline CoolScience

  • Member
  • Posts: 37
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #36 on: 08/29/2023 05:45 pm »
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.

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2267
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1774
  • Likes Given: 2866
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #37 on: 08/29/2023 07:08 pm »
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?

Offline CoolScience

  • Member
  • Posts: 37
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #38 on: 08/29/2023 08:06 pm »
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.

Offline Tommyboy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 308
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 373
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: Propellantless propulsion
« Reply #39 on: 08/29/2023 09:26 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
Shock absorbers still transfer all the momentum, they just stretch it over a longer time frame thus reducing the shock.

Tags:
 

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