Ghideon

Here is an attempt at showing some basic flow of fluid in hydraulics. Two pistons with different area in a simplified setup, connected via a thinner pipe. Somewhere along the pipe there is a flow gauge. In the right piston there is a pressure gauge*. There are three scenarios**. The first scenario is stationary. In the second scenario enough force is used so that the mass m is moving vertically at constant speed. The third scenario is again stationary. Any fluid is flowing from left to right cylinder is passing the flow gauge. In scenario 1 and 3 the registered flow will be zero, forces balances the mass m. The gauge will register a flow > 0 in scenario 2. @esposcar: according to you there is no flow of fluid in scenario 2, the gauge should register no fluid passing, how is that possible? *) Not yet used, added for later use depending on answers. **) I try to not include unnecessary details at this point, such details include, but are not limited to: Between 1 and 2 (and also between 2 and 3) there's acceleration of the mass m. Forces F are not equal. Pressures P are not equal. Mass of fluid os not shown.

When the excavator piston is extended, how do you think the hydraulic oils is moved inside the system? Teleportation? How about addressing the issues I've already told you about?

By now several different* issues highlighted, I have tried to use both logic and some Math. May i suggest that you address those issues before asking for more issues to be pointed out? Note my earlier comments, the device can not work as described and there are issues independent of how the cylinders works internally. Sorry, my bad, I used a small quote from the page and included a link as reference. My intention was not to suggest that all content or pictures on the page was of good quality. I should probably have used another source in this case or checked the whole page for quality issues before referencing it, I did not intend that other parts of the page should be used. Sorry @studiot for confusing the discussion. Including the obvious one that reactionless device is not possible, regardless of how it is constructed.

Can't you at least disclose part of the idea here?

One* issue is missing the mass on top of each cylinder when calculating acceleration on each side. Those masses are accelerated upwards then pistons are moving. I repeat: remove the numbers and use symbols. *) There are many more issues ...

If I interpret "a sufficient sized gravity well" as "close to a black hole" then a short* attempt to explain would be: For an observer far away from the black hole the time would seem to slow down for the individual heading towards the black hole. When the individual is close to the event horizon of the black hole the distant observer would see individual age slower and slower; time "almost" freezes but it would not seem to stop completely**. But to the individual close to the black hole the time still runs as usual, a watch would seem to run at normal speed with time passing at one second per second in that frame. As far as I know, when the individual close to the black hole looks up, the incoming light would look blue shifted and distant events would seem to happen faster. For more details the concept of proper time might be of interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time *) The math of GR including Schwarzschild coordinates, Kruskal–Szekeres coordinates and more explains details. But I better leave those topics to other forum members with more knowledge. **) There are also red shift and other effects due to strong gravitation, out of scope for this simple post

Good explanation. +1 Note that the photon is not a valid frame of reference in relativity. As far as I know the math of SR and GR does not describe what is happening from the photons point of view.

The above is a key issue when analyzing this setup. The complete system is supposed* to accelerate because work done by one part is less than work done by the other part. Acceleration to the right requires: [math]W_{right}>0, W_{left}>0[/math] [math]W_{right} - W_{left} > 0[/math] Then by reducing the negative impact of the left cylinder so that [math]W_{left}=0[/math] we have [math]W_{right} - 0 > 0[/math] [math]W_{left}=0[/math] could be achieved by [math]D=0[/math] so that [math]W = F * D = F * 0 = 0[/math] Which implies that the system should work using one cylinder if it works with two. Working with the above might help to highlight issues with the basic assumptions. Note the earlier issue where a one cylinder setup was rejected (quoted below for convenience). First an agreement: confirmation requested response: How can the standalone cylinder move in the opposite direction? Then some hesitation: And then rejection of the one-cylinder case: and *) Again, according to interpretations of the descriptions, not according to Newton.

Show the math of this specific part without any unnecessary things. Do not use numbers. Use letters to show the formulas for the two sides. Then we will check what happens when we remove the "loosing" side of the equation.

(bold by me) This is a more interesting discussion, it can be analysed without going into details about the internals of the cylinders. If i get the math correctly there is a left and a right side and the amount of acceleration the system will generate is based on the difference of the "work" done on each side. So if one side does zero work then you have the maximum amount of acceleration. Or from the bold text above, of one pascal equation is zero.

Please respond to the issue regarding the drilled hole; why does it not matter where the hole is drilled? Then why is the result not compatible with mainstream physics? Please also review the issues I raised earlier. The rig should work with only one cylinder if your idea is working as you describe.

If you drill a hole in the bottom the cylinder will be drained faster than if you drill for instance halfway up on the side. Gravity and density of the fluid have an impact Hint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_law First one have to understand enough physics and what the math is supposed to describe. What if the mathematic formulas and calculations are correct but applied incorrectly?

Here is another description of the flow: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pasc.html: You have posted in speculations section of this forum, where certain rules apply.

No, this is speculation. You have to show how the system works. When the pistons reach the stoppers are the fluid in the same location as initially, or has the fluid moved? But Ok, here is one: from: https://www.hwhcorp.com/ml57000-012-ch1.htm

Then you will have to account for that: -The level of fluid will rise in the cylinders and since gravity is included this affects the force required. -When force is applied the fluid will have to be accelerated since it is moving through the cylinder. The fluid will gain momentum. Or, explain why these effects can be neglected.

Isn't it more obscure? Because in a real experiment one would have to account for the turbulence in the system. That is probably not an easy task to calculate. Next: Is the fluid in the cylinders massless?

Why use propellers? How will the analysis of the device differ from when magnets were used?

The first that I can think of in the above context is Curling. I never think of Curling for four years and then during the winter Olympics I watch lots of it. I think it depends on the production; usually skilled commenters analyse and describe the intriguing details of the game. The same could be said about biathlon. I don't watch much sports frequently but probably I've spent most time on motorsports and Ice hockey (both on TV). Where I grew up Ice Hockey and motorsports were common activities and it probably had an impact. But now-days I believe I'm drawn more to big championships and events rather than specific sports.

While waiting for an updated model with math to investigate I reread some posts. Here is another source of confusion that needs to be addressed. The one-cylinder analysis I used to highlight issues: (bold by me in the quotes) First an agreement: confirmation requested response: How can the standalone cylinder move in the opposite direction? Then some hesitation: And then rejection of the one-cylinder case: and Again; please supply a consistent description of how the device is designed to work. Of course devices like this cannot work. To be able to answer what is wrong with this specific idea one has to have a consistent description of the idea.

Probably obvious but I'll add an additional comment anyway; the section "Experiments that Apparently are NOT Consistent with SR / GR" is supporting SR. The initial part of the section 10. "Experiments that Apparently are NOT Consistent with SR/GR" reads (bold by me): From there the chapter lists several experiments that might look like SR/GR inconsistencies and why no inconsistencies are found. Example:

I've only very limited knowledge about aerodynamics but I'll add some thoughts so others may fill in. The shape of the frisbee is an airfoil* in cross-section so the frisbee's ability to generate lift is similar to an air plane wing. Hence a frisbee shaped vehicle would have pretty much the same pros or cons as an airplane wing regarding the ability to allow for easier launch into orbit. And since the frisbee (or any airfoil shape) needs to move at a certain speed relative the air to be able to generate lift I believe a few issues arise: 1: To reach orbit the vehicle have to leave the atmosphere so the ability to lift is reduced as altitude is gained. 2: A lot of fuel is required to move fast enough to generate lift. 3: A large enough structure going fast enough will be affected by drag and get heated. Think for instance of the space shuttle returning to earth. My answer would be: using the aerodynamics of a frisbee is not a practical approach to launch anything into orbit. Notes: -I have no calculations art this time to support my claims above. -The spinning of the frisbee imparts a stabilizing gyroscopic force but does not add lift as far as I know. -wikipedia/Frisbee -wikipedia/Airfoil

You might want to check this discussion:

Please do not use numbers, use symbols such as forces F1 and F2 and the math required to describe relations, for instance F1=F2, F1=2 * F2 or similar. When describing where and when the formulas apply, please get the details right: (bold by me) That contradicts your earlier explanations of the setup. I specifically asked about the timing of the acceleration: The answer: I followed up to be sure before attempting further analysis: Your answer: Please supply a consistent description of how you expect the device to work.

Please provide a reference. Google: professor columbia university gives many hits Google: professor columbia university wolf adler gives no reliable-looking results. Good point, I'll try to help OP on that by supplying an example that seems more reliable. Here is a more pop-sci text from an interview with Fredrik Ullén: Söderbaum: Is it true that you become smarter by playing an instrument? Ullén: Children who play an instrument actively also become better at other school subjects, and they perform better statistically in IQ-tests of general talent. So there’s a chance that musicianship has positive influences –– but studies can be equivocal and it’s important to remember that the children who begin playing an instrument are often the ones without difficulties in other school subjects. The strongest indicator of positive influences because of musicianship is on linguistic abilities, and not your general IQ. Söderbaum: Does the brain develop as much by singing as by playing an instrument? Ullén: You can see effects on the brain when practicing both singing and playing an instrument, but the effects on the brain are not the same. Instrumentalists show other abilities in parts that control dexterity, while singers show abilities in parts that have to do with the voice. Reference: https://lamusikgy.wordpress.com/2018/01/18/fredrik-ullen-neuroscientist-and-concert-pianist/ ------------ Professor Fredrik Ullén's research focuses on the neuropsychology of expertise, in particular musical expertise. Here are some publications: https://ki.se/en/neuro/ullen-laboratory?_ga=2.264983052.223962401.1553205478-7530909.1553205478 Ullen's college Töres Theorell also have some publications, I haven't had time to locate many english sources. Here's a link to an english book on books.google containing references to Theorell. From there it might be possible to find English material regarding Theorell work on health and music.

Ok. Let’s combine some basic math and empirical setups to check the idea: We assume the propulsion device works as described and it’s internal parts are configured to make the device, mounted on a rig, accelerate to the right. Note: we do not have to agree yet about how the device is supposed to work internally or how to analyse it, we only assume that it is capable of accelerating to the right for some time*. Since it is a reactionless device the rig, as a complete system, is not applying any force to anything outside of the rig. Internally there are many forces such as fluid pressure and magnetic forces, some of which we may not agree upon yet. But again, from the outside, the propulsion device accelerates using zero force and it is applying zero force to its surroundings during acceleration. This is a central part. The propulsion device is mounted solid inside a cart. The total mass is m. Wheels are ideal; there is no friction. When the propulsion device is activated the cart will move to the right without anything pushing the cart. Also, the cart isn't pushing against anything. 1, First experiment: The device is activated and the rig behaves as expected and moves right. Newton’s 2nd law states that the vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration a of the object: F = ma. In this case the sum of the forces F is zero so the acceleration according to Newton is zero. Remember, we look at the complete moving rig from the outside where no forces are acting**. Experiment says: F=0, m>0, a>0 which is a contradiction since Newton says F=0 means a=0. We have two options; the device idea is invalid or Newtons laws are wrong. 2, second experiment. Attach the cart to a Dynamometer (Spring Balance). The propulsion device is activated and the cart tries to accelerate to the right. Since the cart is held back by the spring there should be a reading on the scale. But then the only force acting on the rig is the dynamometer pulling to the left, there is no force pointing to the right. But if the dynamometer is reading >0 then according to Newton and F equals m times a the rig must accelerate to the left. It cannot be stationary while affected by only one force. Remember, the propulsion device should accelerate the the rig without any force. Again we have a contradiction; math shows that the idea is not compatible with Newton, or Newtons laws are wrong. I am pretty convinced that Newton is correct***. If you still are unable to spot any issues with the propulsion device, please submit the calculations as seen from the outside when the device is operating. (Or please supply proof that newton is wrong****). *) as we agreed when discussing the four scenarios earlier **) except for the force on the wheels / ground bot that force is not affecting the experiment. But if normal force should be an issue then we can make the experiment in space instead. ***) There's of course also the possibility that my analysis is incorrect; It's tricky to try to use descriptions from the (invalid) device idea together with mainstream concepts and still produce a logic outcome. ****) I assume Newton to be a good enough approximation at this point. At this low velocity (v=0) we do not have to use relativistic corrections.