### Author Topic: Reactionless device using the principle of Pascal for fluids  (Read 2823 times)

#### meberbs

• Full Member
• Posts: 1959
• Liked: 1871
• Likes Given: 433
##### Re: Reactionless device using the principle of Pascal for fluids
« Reply #60 on: 03/14/2019 12:07 am »
You nailed it.

And just after that, you contradicted yourself, because you have posted a zillion times, wasting your precious time, with someone CLEARLY not interested in listening.

Can this thread please be closed before Meberbs loses more of his time (because he feels compelled to correct Espocar's nonsense) for no good reason at all?
Good point, I saved time on my initial response, but failed to follow through when my prediction came true. No more posting in this thread for me, unless there is a radical change in Esposcar's behavior. (I reserve the right to make a short response like this though.)

#### JohnFornaro

• Not an expert
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9179
• Delta-t is the salient metric.
• Planet Eaarth
• Liked: 625
• Likes Given: 341
##### Re: Reactionless device using the principle of Pascal for fluids
« Reply #61 on: 03/14/2019 05:08 pm »
Sorry, esposcar, but your device and your description of the device does not make any sense.  Build it, and you will find that it does not work as you describe.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

#### esposcar

##### Re: Reactionless device using the principle of Pascal for fluids
« Reply #62 on: Today at 12:48 am »

You have not understood anything. Its acellerated and then what happens after acceleration, what comes?? constant speed. I find here a big lack of knowledges about basic things. Understand the device and the make the critic, I would suggest you. The clue of the system is the transfer. And maths are on the pics, so you did not red anything.

By the way, what empirical or mathematical argument have your colegge given? no one, just insisting like a mantra one and another time, that it violates a device like that Newton law and is unable to show me why not

You keep using the word "math", & don't think we share a common definition.  Your step 1 has a semblance of a free body diagram with static forces displayed at time T=+0, but there is a huge gap to step 2 & 3.  Show me your math of how you get to 100 m/s instantaneously?  Tell me mathematically what is happening in that bendy pipe of your diagram that allows it move with the system to get to 100m/s.   Show me your math for the work done by the piston imparting momentum into the fluid flow out of the cylinder and into the bendy pipe.  Please do so in vector form for x/y/z components of the fluid flow.  Show me that & I'll retract my math criticisms.

I may have slept through my college history class when they taught me about the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor, but I was pretty awake through my engineering calculus/differential equations, statics, dynamics, fluid dynamics, materials, & thermodynamics that I think I still recognize "math" when I see it.  Your steps 1-3 do not contain consequential math.
This is another version of the invention that has nothing to do with fluid transfer. This is the first model in history of a workable reactionless device without any doubt. Tell me what you miss here. Thing to consider. The black balls are inelastic, so they will get attached to their correspondant piston-pushers after the hit. The white balls are elastic, and will get the force and the momentum fully, as when a ball hits another in billiards. And finally the white balls will hit a type of hydraulic stopper to stop the balls soft and absorb all the momentum. The balls are floating because there is no gravity, the enviroment is space. The hole system will have an extra force coming from no Newton reaction of 20 Newtons to the right. Of course it can generate much more force, just make one of the input pistons much more smaller than its pair and propulse the black balls much more fast to have a higher force of pushing.
« Last Edit: Today at 12:50 am by esposcar »

Tags: