Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by exchemist

  1. On what basis do you welcome us? You've only just joined. And who is "we", please?
  2. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "peer-reviewed" in this case. Peer review is a process carried out when a piece of research is written up and submitted for publication, to make sure the research is sound and properly explained. In your case, you haven't written up or otherwise dlsclosed the details of your device, as you don't want to put it into the public domain. So how can anyone review it? You seem, rather, to be inviting the people here to just agree with you that it is possible to have a reactionless thruster, when on the face of it it isn't. Obviously we are not going to do that. Hence the scepticism about your claims and the attempts to guess at what is really going on in your device. I don't see any way out of the dilemma. Nobody can review a black box. Which is why, instead, I have been trying to dispel some of the misconceptions you seem to have about the physics of the setup, without asking you to reveal too many details. I am willing to carry on with that, as there are some issues left dangling at the moment. If you want to abandon that discussion then fair enough, but I think the responses you are going to get anywhere else will be similar to those here.
  3. @Aquatek, I've answered your 3 questions and explained that momentum is conserved in inelastic collisions. Are you intending to respond, to explain why you asked me those questions?
  4. exchemist


    My use of the term "addendum", in the 4th post of this thread, was qualified to make clear it was not intended to signify something added algebraically. Let's not descend to word games.
  5. Why not make it a dwarf-throwing contest, to get some of that true Antipodean flavour?
  6. exchemist


    Shall we see how many posts we can generate on this fascinating topic? 😃 Exactly. But it's just not how I have generally thought about it, given that we tend to use algebraic expressions without units until we have a specific application for them.
  7. exchemist


    As an addendum, in the form of a piece of explanatory text, rather than as part of the algebraic expression. This I think is how most people see them. But logically you must be right, I think.
  8. Oh I'm not complaining about him. He was a good tutor and still remembers me when I show up for college functions. I remember once I was reading a book about electron spin resonance and querying something I didn't understand, which also baffled him, so he picked up the phone and just rang the author (a don at another college) - and got the answer on the spot! I thought that was pretty cool. By the way, nothing gay about him: he even tried to get my then girlfriend into bed, at one point....(it was the 70s)
  9. Bye bye Theorist, Amber, Tyler Shaw, Spencer 666, TheBrokenSoul, Sustainer, James Blunt, etc., etc., etc. Until next time, eh? 😉
  10. I remember one physical chemistry tutorial in which white rum (!) was broached at about 3pm and I staggered out of the door at 7, to get my gown for dinner, and really had to concentrate quite hard not to bump into either of the doorposts, thinking : "left a bit, right a bit, right a bit more, no right you fool, steady.........." etc. But that tutor was notorious. And it was the 70s: things will be more strait-laced now. He's still alive, amazingly, after all that liver abuse.
  11. Especially when it comes to the drink involved...................🙂 Well, only sometimes.
  12. Sure. Or if there is an electrical coil, it may be that means vibration makes it move or something. (I think we had one of those a while back.) That's why I'm all the more keen to get this momentum aspect brought to a head. At this time of year it seems to be traditional for someone to pop up with a perpetual motion machine, a free energy device or some other thing that is claimed to break the laws of physics. I tend to regard straightening these out as a sort of Christmas puzzle.
  13. Well, I can understand someone who thinks he has invented something not wanting to share all the details. I think we can get further by focusing on momentum. I've come across people before who have proposed impossible things because they have a blind spot about some aspect of basic physics, whether it be the 2nd Law of TD or, in one memorable case, someone who simply did not believe in the conservation of angular momentum. Anyway, I am keen to see @Aquatek's response to my last post. Perhaps this will smoke out his attitude to momentum in his device.
  14. Yes, I think our poster has been looking at it from the viewpoint of energy rather than momentum. This may have led him to overlook some aspects.
  15. Aha I see. So you have a working fluid, in effect, that is recycled, being accelerated by the thruster and then decelerated, 3/4 by the KE converter and 1/4 by the right hand wall of the box. So that deals with my query about the box blowing up. Fair enough. A word about Inelastic collisions: these do not conserve kinetic energy, because they convert some of it to heat. However they do conserve momentum. This is why your idea that the KE converter experiences no force from the exhaust it intercepts can't be correct. I am not sure your 3 questions are very relevant to this issue, but maybe you will explain why you think they are if I answer. So here goes: 1) total momentum of the ball + box system before the collision is m1v1 +m2v2 = 1x10 + 1x0 = 10kgm/sec, in the direction of motion of the ball (momentum is a vector). This is conserved during the collision, whether elastic or not. If the ball sticks to the box, then after the collision we have one mass of 2kg, still with a momentum of 10kgm/sec. So v = 5m/sec, still in the direction of motion of the ball. (Note, in passing, that the kinetic energy of the system has decreased from 50J to 25J, so 25J have been converted to heat). 2) if the ball is 3kg and the box still 1kg then total momentum before is 3x 3.333 +1x0 ~10kgm/sec, in the direction of the ball. After the collision we have a single 4kg mass. So v =10/4 = 2.5m/sec, again in the direction of motion of the ball. 3) Initial momentum is zero so this is conserved after the throw, i.e. 100xv1 +100xv2=0. Therefore v2 = -v1. So if v1 = 10m/sec for the ball then you recoil at v2= -10m/sec, in other words at 10m/sec in the direction opposite to that of the motion of the ball. What light does that shed on the problem of your thruster setup?
  16. Thanks for the responses. From your answer to the first question I have the feeling the K E converter must be converting the exhaust stream via a phase change of some kind, to avoid the thing blowing up. But no matter, the important thing is you are saying there is nothing leaving the box, so we can rule out anything leaving it possessing residual momentum. Regarding the second question, you say this KE converter stands directly in the exhaust stream, reduces its momentum to a quarter of what it was, and yet does not experience any force from the gas it intercepts. That, I am afraid, is just not credible. Even if, as I now suspect, the converter carries out some kind of phase change (condenses gas to liquid, converts a stream of electrons to electric current, or even absorbs 3/4 of a beam of "exhaust" light) the momentum of the intercepted exhaust will exert a force on it: F = d(mv)/dt.
  17. exchemist


    Yes, in a way I suppose they are, though I had never thought about it like that.
  18. It is certainly a poster previously banned, on numerous occasions, from several other forums I belong to. However I don't know if he has history here.
  19. No, kinetic energy would not be lost due to the phase change. The phase change would release Latent Heat, that's all, though the volume reduction would allow a sealed system to run a bit longer before blowing up or splitting from the accumulated water inside. I do not see why you can't confirm: (1) whether or not the exhaust intercepted by the KE converter leaves the box, and (2) whether, if you put the KE converter on castors, you would expect it to move or not. Neither of those things involves disclosing anything material regarding your invention. If you can answer these questions then I think we will be making progress in analysing the system correctly. Because as it stands, it looks nuts. I agree with @swansont that the key to the analysis is momentum rather than energy, which is why I am asking these two questions.
  20. I think something is wrong with this diagram, or rather the accompanying labels. There is no way for the KE converter to avoid exerting a force on the enclosure, if it reduces the force on the back wall to 25% of the value at the jet nozzle. The force is equal to the the rate of change in momentum. If the KE converter reduces the force to 25% , it must absorb 75% of the momentum. This must generate a rightward force on the enclosure that is the missing 75%. You can't avoid that because of conservation of momentum, so far as I can see. If the KE converter imparts no force on the enclosure then you are telling us you could mount it on castors and it would not move, in spite of being directly in the path of the exhaust stream. That can't be right. Or is that really what you claim? You don't tell us how this KE converter works, but my guess is it diverts some of the exhaust out of the enclosure in some way. If you have measured a net thrust from the assembly, my guess would be that the diverted exhaust stream has retained a bit of rightward momentum and it is that which is producing the net thrust leftward thrust. If, on the other hand, there is truly no gas escaping from the enclosure at all, then the thing will blow up after a short while, due to build up of exhaust pressure in the enclosure. Unless I suppose the exhaust is steam and you condense it in the converter, in which case you can buy yourself some time before it fills up with water, before it blows up or stops functioning. Which is it?
  21. Yes, my understanding is one needs to distinguish between phase velocity, which is what changes with refractive index, and front velocity, which as I recall remains at c. But this is from a while ago now so I may be mis-remembering.
  22. I think I read recently that fire engines can't be electric, due to the power demand of the pumps. It may be that emergency vehicles should use whatever system is developed for lorries, for which batteries seem to too heavy. Hydrogen, perhaps, or some kind of renewable biofuel. But diesel fuel will around for a few decades yet, so exempting emergency vehicles so they can continue to use it would be quite rational.
  23. You can produce thrust (i.e. a force) without exhaust if the force is generated via a field of some kind, rather than kinetically. But as you give no details of the operating principle it is impossible to comment any further on the science. If you want to commercialise this invention without patenting it, then the best thing to do may be not to discuss it publicly until you are ready to offer it commercially. On the other hand that may carry some risk (only you can judge how much) that someone else meanwhile patents the same thing independently and stops you commercialising it. Some inventors make a "defensive disclosure" to prevent that possibility. (Once the invention is in the public domain, nobody can patent it.)
  24. OK, you seem to be in need of medical help, so I won't bother you further.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.