Ghideon

I'll clarify my point; The saucer you are testing and describing seems to be designed opposite to what current mainstream physics would suggest. By opposite or upside down I mean a saucer shaped object vibrating/moving with a slow upstroke and a fast downstroke. This is the opposite to the design suggested by you; your version relies on a fast upstroke followed by a slow downstroke. Therefore I asked you to clarify this by describing the details about this aspect of the propulsion since your design seems to be wrong. If devices designed with a slow upstroke and a fast downstroke could work or not I had no opinion on since it did not matter. The only point I tried to make was that such a design seems to be less impossible. By stating that such devices does not work you have added one more argument against your proposed saucer. If a "correctly" designed device does not work, how would it be possible for your opposite version work in this case? Designing a more wrong version of something does not automatically make it work. The link seems to be in another language than English so I have not checked any of the material. Yes. I have tried that at a larger scale. As kids we used to run as fast as possible around a small swimming pool and then at a given signal turn around and try to swim. The force from the water was impressive. But I think I have said a few times; can you please explain how the water (or tea) analogy is explaining your proposed vertical propulsion through air?

Sorry, I don't understand*. Mistake by whom and where is the mistake made? I fail to see the connection to saucer propulsion through air or how this new analogy is supporting previous claims in this thread. I believe someone with cooking or chemistry skills may provide better answers; there are many types of jelly. A common property is, as far as I know, that jelly does not return to its original position after impact from a ship. Jelly can be cut** with a knife. Again an example of a weak or imprecise analogy does not describe the saucer propulsion. Jelly is not a useful analogy for the experiments in water. And water propulsion is not very useful when describing vertical propulsion through air. So far the provided references and analogies fail to describe how the saucer will lift, or predicts that the saucer design is invalid. Please submit an explanation that is in English, is compatible with mainstream science (or, if new concepts are needed, explained in detail with mathematic models) and is internally consistent. Another option at this time is of cause to submit a revised saucer design since the current seem to have to defy the laws of physics to be able to fly. *) Might just be language issues, English isn't my first language. **) wikipedia/Gelatin_dessert and wikipedia/Fruit_preserves_Jelly

This text contradicts this one Mixing translations with your own ideas without stating what is quoted and what is your interpretations makes discussion hard. I tried to run the wikipedia page through google translate*, the result might not be good enough; I find no support for your propulsion idea. I do not know if the word liquid in this case is applicable to gas. As I have said many times by now; horizontal movement in water is not the same as vertical movement in air. I might have missed to comment on this passage from the translated text (Sorry, I don't have time to re-read all the posts to check) That seems to imply that a quick movement in water meets greater resistance than a slow move, similar to the draft formula I used a few posts ago. Hence it looks like the saucer is designed upside down; the quick movement that generates large force must be downwards, not up. I am somewhat familiar with that. I scored depressingly low on my first physics test. I believe I have improved slightly over the years but not without considerable effort. Your experiments are cool but unfortunately lack of physics knowledge may lead to wrong interpretations of the results. During experiments in water, what mass did the boat have compared to the water? How large was the tank? Was there any waves bouncing back from the edges, disturbing the setup? Without further analysis I'd say that a floating device on water is more an analogy to a ballon with the same density as air; there is no force needed to make it hover, only to move it sideways. Again, the proposed analogy fails to prove anything regarding propulsion through air. In an early post I explained this and suggested an underwater test but that idea was rejected. It does not have to be complex. But it needs to be in english, compatible with science (mainstream or new concepts explained in detail with mathematic models) and internally consistent. At this point that seems hard; for each iteration of the various kinds of explanations there seems to be more issues added rather than any supporting evidence. *) https://translate.google.se/translate?hl=sv&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fru.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FИнерцоиды

Thanks! I had to review this, there's room for misunderstandings. The nomination for a Nobel price starts a year before the ceremony so a 1928 nomination could mean a nomination for the 1929 prize. I fail to see the connection between a nomination 1929 and a failure to receive the price due to political connections during 2nd world war. Note that the Jordan wikipedia page talks about 1950's: Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascual_Jordan I haven't had to track down original sources for the nomination procedure but I do not think Einstein could have submitted a nomination for 1954 price back in 1929. I also have not access to the source(s) listed for the Wikipedia claims regarding nominations by Einstein 1929. Einstein seems to have been an active nominator: Nominator in 9 nominations: Physics 1919 for Max Planck Physics 1924 for James Franck, Gustav Hertz Physics 1926 for Arthur Compton Physics 1932 for Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger Physics 1933 for Erwin Schrödinger Physics 1940 for Otto Stern, Isidor Rabi Physics 1945 for Wolfgang Pauli Physics 1954 for Walther Bothe Chemistry 1929 for Carl Bosch Source https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/redirector/?redir=archive/ Above is an extract from the digital nominee archive available from the Nobel Foundation. Since the organisation manages the Nobel price I have reason to believe they have pretty good access to reliable original records. Obviously there may be errors in the data (or in my research of the data). Conclusion: The official records does not support the statement made on wikipedia. I leave to other members to evaluate the reliability of the material I have provided.

Highlight by me: Ok! Before I try to find the source, are we discussing the same person? Pascual Jordan?

I never thought or said that you intended it. I just tried to provide some facts stating that Jordans political views or bias seems to have limited impact on nominations. Jordan was not nominated by Einstein, where did you read that? I found: Physics 1951 Pascual Jordan nominated by K Wagner Physics 1963 Pascual Jordan nominated by R Liljeblad

Some facts: Pascual Jordan is not listed as a committee member (wikipedia.org/Nobel_Committee_for_Physics) He has not submitted nominations according to the nobel database (www.nobelprize.org) Nominees and nominators are listed but not their political opinions. But someone interested may be able to cross reference other sources to see what kind of bias (political, national or other) there are to be found in early times*. Jordan was nominated twice. As a comparison Einstein is listed for 62 nominations. *) The names of the nominees cannot be revealed until 50 years later. (https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/)

I believe that is the expected result even without water resistance. Then why post it? Doesn't that make your claims seem less valid? The following is unclear; is the book describing a current and inertia of the water or is that your interpretation since the process is not fully described? This is a crucial question. Anyway, thanks for the reference material from the book, looks interesting! Unfortunately, I can’t see how it applies to the propulsion of the saucer, I think we have analysed how this fails already but let’s try again, this time using the material you posted. Questions: Does the the text book describe what happens if the car is running back and forth along the ship deck? Will the ship slowly move in positive x-direction? Exactly what does the textbook say regarding the inertia or stream or movement of mass of water? Note that if you want to include the movement of water* then the mass and velocity (momentum) of water must be included in the formulas. I can't see that in the book so maybe have to add that, I'm not going to do that for you. I assume the car starts to move forward resulting in the ship moving backward. Momentum is conserved, the car gains momentum in the x direction and ship gains momentum in the -x direction. Sum of momentum of ship and car is unchanged. Since car has less mass than the ship the car will move not only relative to the ship but also relative to some stationary reference point on land. Now the car stops. The braking car reduces momentum by braking which applies a force to the ship in positive x direction. This force stops the ship. Let's continue: If the car now reverses and moves back along the ship deck then the ship will move forward. When the car stops at the original position the ship will stop again since momentum is conserved. As far as I understand now two things can happen: 1: Car and ship has gained no distance in x-direction relative to a fixed point on land. This happens when water resistance can be neglected or when the ship is symmetrical. This is similar to the situations you posted where the little car could not function in space. It could not propel itself. 2: Car and ship gains distance in x-direction. i think this may happen to an asymmetric ship but I do not know. On solid ground this is possible given there’s a difference between static and kinetic friction. The car then would move at different speed going back and forth. In liquid or gas your reference article from Russian Wikipedia stated that it is not possible. If the ship is allowed to change its form** then movement is indeed possible. Now an obvious statement: the ship analogy fails because gravity can be neglected. To fix that imagine a wire is attached to the ship. To keep its position the ship has has to apply some force, for instance mg. If the ship fails to apply this force to the wire the ship will be moving left (neg. x direction). I believe this setup makes the analogy more correct since saucer is moving up, fighting gravity. How does this situation compare to your propulsion method? Ok, but please explain how that is relevant to the saucer moving through air. I have at several times pointed out how the analogies fails. This one fails since your feet are pushing against the ground unless you are in the water. I'm getting the feeling that the same failed arguments are repeated over and over, you need to come up with better explanations or some applicable model that can be examined. If new theorem is needed to support your ideas, then derive it and post it here. Or ask questions about water movement and momentum in a separate thread. *) Note that a constant movement of water to the left of course results in a ship moving right. That can be achieved by using a propeller. **) I have experienced this fully submerged in a pool of water. By applying force to the water and moving body parts back and forth I can propel myself forward, it’s called swimming.

I'd expect you to explain that in the context of your saucer propulsion method. But I'd say that the important question is where the saucer goes while creating the "waves". What mass does the saucer have in your assumptions? Is the mass negligible*? You seem to forget that gravity does not take a pause while the saucer performs the up- and downstroke. The saucer must overcome gravity and generate an upwards draft of air. I have already pointed out that a car traveling on a horizontal road is not a valid analogy. Umbrella analogy fails because the person holding the umbrella pushes against the ground. In my previous post I tried to use a simple scientific/engineering approach. Basically: -Research the topic, in this case the explanations of saucer propulsion. Not easy when you jump between various kinds explanations... -Locate reasonably reliable sources describing the physic involved in the concepts required by the saucer propulsion. -Create a simplified view of the propulsion method to be able to apply basic math. (I do not have the time or motivation to create a computer simulation or do a more advanced study on this right now) -Use the mathematic model to make predictions about the outcome of a saucer attempting to fly. -Compare predictions with the experimental results. In this case the mainstream science seems to suggest that the saucer cannot fly and videos from experiments confirms this prediction. In a real case, some kind of review of the model is necessary, there is no guarantee at all that my quick attempt produced a valid model. Maybe you could try something similar? It does not need to be fancy at all. Can you provide, or at least show some attempts at trying to provide, a model that describes how the saucer is following a self-generated upwards wind (or "wave" as seems to be what you call it now) while respecting the laws of physics? If you continue to fail to provide, or fail to at least try to provide, a consistent answer including valid references and/or evidence I'm afraid the thread will be closed soon. *) if so you could fill the saucer with helium to create a balloon that is lighter than air, but in that case the propulsion you suggest is rather pointless.

Ok, yet again an explanation is provided describing how you believe or wish the saucer to be able to fly. Is there any possibility that there are no links because physics does not work the way the design requires? Lets do summary of what I think we have at this point: -Bird analogy: failed because a bird wing changes form. A bird folds the wings on upstroke to reduce drag on downstroke -Car analogy: failed because the car moved across a solid, fixed surface. -Static vs kinetic friction: failed because the reference posted states that air does not behave like that. Draft: failed because saucer design is based on a quick upstrokes and a slower downstrokes which according to draft formula makes it impossible for the saucer to lift. Umbrella pushed upwards analogy: fail, because you push your feet against solid ground. It might be that the saucer actually is intended to rely on a combination of the concepts. But that does not make some of the invalid concepts disappear. The saucer still has to overcome the fact that draft that was supposed to help, but now seems to reduce the possibility of propulsion. Let’s analyse the draft for a while. I have asked for some model or at least some attempt at a proper analysis but so far I haven’t seen any (the failed analogies and videos does not count). It seems like I have to provide some kind of model myself* instead. This will be a very quick and crude attempt, since it is actually your task to create a model. Disclaimer: I do not work with these kind of things daily so the probability for errors is large. First try to simplify the setup as much as possible to create a problem that can be statically analysed. The dynamics of the airflow, turbulence etc can wait. To create a static situation, we try to separate the forces acting during upstrokes from forces acting during downstrokes. The saucer is not flexible, it moves up and down without bending significantly. Only draft is analysed. See attached calculations below. Here is a short explanation: According to draft we have a lifting force from the air on the saucer downstroke and a force down from air on the upstroke. Indexes used: AD=air during upstroke AU=air during downstroke SU=saucer during upstroke SD=saucer during downstroke That gives two formulas for the momentum P: (1) and (2). Combining (1) and (2) gives the total momentum (5) after one cycle of up- and downstroke. In (3) we use draft formula** to calculate a relation between the forces. Since the saucer design requires that upstroke and downstroke times differ by a factor not yet revealed by you we use psi (4) for this unknown quantity. (3) and (4) gives (6). Note that I assumed Cd (coefficient), Rho(density), and A(area) to have same value on upstroke and downstroke and therefore can be discarded. (4),(5) and (6) combined give an expression for momentum (7). Simplify (7) and use a massless saucer, m=0. The resulting equation only has a solution for Psi=1. This is not compatible with the design relying on Psi>1. If we analyse (7) with saucer having mass m>0 we will find that solutions requires imaginary values of Psi (Psi squared <0). A value of Psi > 1 as required by your design works only for negative mass. A saucer with negative mass does not exist, and if it did I think it would fly without your propulsion. So if my simplified model of your build is reasonably valid it shows that the propulsion is physically impossible under the circumstances given. That leaves the description of inertia you have provided. The saucer makes a quick upwards move. That makes some amount of air flow upwards. The following slow downwards move of the saucer wing allows the saucer to ride the upwards moving air for a short while. The expected result is that the saucer moves up. How does your explanation allow momentum to be conserved? Compare with a normal helicopter. This is a very imprecise description but hopefully close enough to highlight an issue with the saucer: The rotor pushes huge amounts of air downwards at high velocity. As a result the helicopter move up. Now it’s my time to make a crude analogy: If I get your idea correctly a helicopter could reverse the engine resulting in a fast upwards airflow. Then the helicopter could quickly stop the engine and follow the air upwards. Then start the engine again for a short time again and so on. See the problem? Can you provide a model that describes how the saucer is following an upwards wind while respecting the laws of physics? Remember that the description also must handle the fact that drag affects the saucer as I attempted to show above. *) I know, probably against the rules but I'll let mods decide. In this case it is not to support the speculative theory but to point at problems not obvious from the brief analogies given up to this point. **) https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/drageq.html

Thanks for the description. Unfortunately it look like a description of how you believe the saucer will be able to lift. I might have been unclear, I wanted a description how the things are supposed to actually work according to physics. The explanations also seems to move from concept to concept. A few posts ago we seemed to agree that static vs kinetic friction was a key concept. In your last post this changed; the propulsion seems to rely upon acceleration of air: That seems to introduce contradictions when reading these two explanations: (bold by me) and From your current explanation(s) I read that drag (air resistance) is a key factor. The saucer is wide and flat to be able to affect a lot of air? But if I'm understand correctly the drag equation* depends on velocity squared so a fast ascending impulse will push the saucer harder downwards than the following slow backwards movement will push the saucer upwards. I might misinterpret this since my skills regarding fluid dynamics, avionics etc are limited but given your explanations it now looks like the saucer, when performing as intended, will create negative lift? Unless your next post clarifies the situation I suggest a fresh start from square one; an analysis of what basic requirements that need to be fulfilled to make the saucer fly, and then check if laws of physics allow the requirements to be fulfilled for the propulsion concept you suggest. I have a few ideas about simple models but it might be better if you ask questions in a separate thread. If you continue to make claims without references or evidence this thread will likely be closed. *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation, https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/drageq.html

Hint from community.acer.com, unclear if it applies only one specific user or all accounts: In Regedit Navigate to registry key HKEY_USERS\Default\Control Panel\Keyboard check if “InitialKeyboardIndicators” has Value data = 2 (If so, the numeric keypad is "on" when booting) Maybe it is possible, via this or a similar registry key (see bold above), to set num lock to "on" for a specific user? If so, is that what has happened to the studiot account? I'm using a MacBook so I can't view a registry to verify my speculations.

Here is why I suspected the num lock key to be a problem, unfortunately wrong model but maybe close enough: The embedded numeric keypad functions like a desktop numeric keypad. It is indicated by small characters located on the upper right corner of the keycaps. To simplify the keyboard legend, cursor-control key symbols are not printed on the keys. Desired access Num lock on Num lock off Number keys on embedded keypad Type numbers in a normal manner. Cursor-control keys on embedded keypad Hold <Shift> while using cursor-control keys. Hold <Fn> while using cursor-control keys. Main keyboard keys Hold <Fn> while typing letters on embedded keypad. Type the letters in a normal manner. From acerrepairblog.us/travelmate-4060

I know, but in some cases the computer can emulate a numeric keypad by using some of the letters. That's why I posted a reference to a keyboard where the letter 'O' will result in the number 6. What happens for J,K,L? So my guess is that we need to find the setting that disables the virtual numeric keypad for the Acer Travelmate.

Quick Idea; Is numlock key working? See last image here: http://www.ergovancouver.net/Problems-Numeric_Keypad.htm

I do not understand all of your text but I believe π (pi) is approximately 3.14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi

Nothing wrong with ambitious goals! But given the current status of your propulsion concept I have to say that it is too early to discuss faster than light* travel. Regarding the explanations I'll answer later when I've had time to read and analyse the details. *) The fact that it evidence support that it is physically impossible to travel faster than the speed of light is also a complicating factor but that is off topic for this thread

I was rather unclear with the intentions, sorry for that! I intended Itoero to try to answer from the point of view that gravity is involved (which it is not). I had the idea that the questions should trigger some new thoughts. Anyway, good point regarding Q1, I did not know that. And of course I agree on Q2 & Q3.

That is maybe 1+x+y=10, but not 1+x+x=10

I've a few naive questions: Question 1: Does speed of sound differ horizontally and vertically? I think answer is no but I'm not sure. Question 2: Suppose gravity is involved*, does direction, according to you, change the dopler effect? What should happen if gravity is involved and source of sound and any relative movement is vertical? For instance if you in the top of a building, listening to an approaching elevator. Can it be measured? Can you provide references? Question 3: If you move to a location where gravitational constant is slightly different, how will the dopler effect change? Can it be measured? Are there any measurements available? *) No, I do not think gravity is involved.

Agreed, an exact analysis of this is difficult but my opinion is that even a simplified analysis would be valuable. Maybe you should start by analysing and attempting to understand the analogies and concepts you actually rely on? I asked you to read through the posts and provide a consistent and detailed answer backed up by real evidence. Since that failed I have read through posts myself and summarised: You have stated various explanations for how the saucer would be able to lift. and and and and and All explanations seems different and they depend on different concepts, some of them possibly contradicting each other. For instance I don't think a bird relies on friction, it is more about complex movements, power and changing the shape of the wings. After my analysis above we seem to agree that you rely on friction and the fact that static and kinetic friction is different. Then I asked you about air and static friction and I got no valid explanation. And then you post this: (emphasis by me) You seem to have had the answer all the time, but you didn't think that this is a critical piece of information? Have you proposed a propulsion method for air, water and space (solar wind) based on a concept that does not exist in air, water and space? Maybe you need to check if the basic assumptions your ideas relies upon are correct? One possibility is to ask questions, for instance on this forum, regarding the things you need to learn before attempting to revolutionise space travel. I think I have taken this analysis as far as I can for now. Can you please provide some kind of source as evidence that your speculative ideas are working?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_levitation The levitation is performed by a machine on a table, the machine lifts some small object by using sound. Levitation is not performed by a device built in to the object that is levitating. I’ll have to do some assumptions to be able to continue the discussion. (Why am I trying to explain your theory, isn’t that your task?) Anyway, first I cleaned up the garbled math section you posted: I interpret that as "friction force at rest" is the same as static friction as described here: http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class05/static.html : Some further information on static vs kinetic friction is available on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction : So far the analysis covers movement on solid materials. I understand how the movement works and some of the physics involved. I even made a rudimentary test by placing an office chair on a soft floor. I could move across the floor by slowly by bending forward and then quickly jerk back. (Yes, it looked ridiculous. No, I did not try to levitate) Back to the saucer: The saucer idea you describe seems to apply the concept of static friction to vertical motion through air, so a central question for your mechanism of propulsion seems to be: Does air have static friction? I assume your answer is “yes” since you are building saucers that relies on static friction of air. My answer is: I do not know if air have static friction, a quick study I did revealed static friction and kinetic friction only applies to solid materials. Is my analysis correct? If so, can you provide calculations or some written English sources as evidence that your speculative ideas are working? I suggest you read through the posts and the open questions in the thread and provide a consistent and detailed answer backed up by real evidence.

Thanks, interesting concept that I have not studied at all yet! That said, the little research I've had time to do displays a static device (for instance on a table) levitating some small object. How is that applicable in your saucer? Please add references for your various claims, it is time consuming to do the research needed to be able to comment on the general analogies and concepts you use.

I fail to see how this, and the other parts of your post, relates to the topic.

Your remark is correct, I was wrong. I did not think clearly and I misinterpreted an article I read about perceived pitch. My suggested analogy is incorrect.