Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About esposcar

  • Rank
  • Birthday 04/02/1975

Recent Profile Visitors

62 profile views
  1. Ok, I am working with the maths, I will have in account even small details like statical and cinetical friction, I will have in consideration all forces, so there is a more clear idea if it works or not. Then if there is a force I missed, this force should be more easy to visualize and maybe that force makes no rig movement, but up to date, there is no evidence. Lets have a more empirical prove and it will be more easy to make critic. It can perfectly have the same propulsion intensity to the end, but one factor is clear, and this is the point that poeple miss. You got a propulsor with a weight in each side, that can throw back fluid por example to propulse itself, but the rythim will be settled by the areas of the pistons. So I have clear that if weights each piston system 100 kilos and is at 10 metres per second in the displacement and the other due to its area goes at 5 ms of constant acceleration for example, one will hit with more momentum that the other. But this point everybody up to know have not been taken in consideration. In which point have been any change of center of masses. just when one piston moves slower than the other with the same force applied, actually it will hit the wall one side the double of force than the other. How does this rearrangment of mass happened and what the system will do to avoid this reality?
  2. Good morning. 1- The first part when both fluid propulsors will do it the left, and lets say it have F=+X and the other because the force of the propulsor is pointed opposite will have F-X, so both of them added goes as a net force to 0. That mean at that point Newton works excellent, the rig at this point wont move any center of mass, but what makes the device special is after the propulsion, what it faces and which forces are in roll. So what I will do is show mathematically giving mass number to the objects, so I can have an outcome and people here, if they say I missed something, its more easy to show. 2- I think you missed the hole idea. Obviously its a force that will move the rig, and I thought I explained very good from were that extra force will merge. My device stays stationary up to the moment one of the piston components will hit something as the other, with the dfference that one will hit it with more force than the other (because one travels more fast than the other when they begin to push their input pistons. Because you dont seem to understand that one of the propulsors is attached to the piston and with the same force like its peer, one will travel through the piston displacement more quick than the other. That is shown mathematically and who dont want to see the evidence, could present an evidence against that evidence and dont get lost in generalities and literature. I will post later or tomorrow a total mathematical prove since it begins the propulsion up to it hit something. So with the evidence lets see who is able to find the error.
  3. 1-totally, if not it do not work. Totally, but have in mind how exist in the same system 3 different emclosed system. This is the clue. 2-Yes some Lol, if you take F by P and you take A by V you got a momentum equation. But if every body got the concepts so clear, why there is no empirical solution just bla bla?. I will post you a very very easy device. Lets say that we put two water propulsors in both sides with the same potence. Will as the piston displacement begins, the propulsor and the piston with smaller area, have more momentum if has more acceleration? And forget about action reaction. The two water propulsors throws the same amount of water at the same rate so no movement there. Think about the advance of the propulsors. I expect this is enough simple to explain you the target.
  4. 1 - No doubt, it will always go in the direction of the system that do more work. You have to consider that the rod moving the larger piston area will have also a ver high opposed force as pushes the rod and on the other side, there will be not a lot of resistance by the rod of the smaller piston, so the rod will push the piston and will have more pushing force as its peer the other rod, and its peer will have the force of the other rod (bigger piston) pushing on its side and the rod will oposse less because of its piston smaller area and will push the piston further and with more momentum than its peer. 2 - That would be a problem, because it would move the hole fluid as a solid and would not work. It could be slowed down putting a mass over the output piston, but no need of it, to dessacelerate the input piston, but if the fluid dont move it will act like a Newton mass. Not a good idea. Ideally is the area difference what will make the difference. With that I feel more comfortable, its not necesarry to go to other more complicated scenarios and try to find the error dialectically. This is a very simple solution, show me mathematically and with equation that the final velocity of the rig will be 0 and I will be satisfied. I have showed why, now convince empirically. What would be the final velocity of the rig giving imaginary numbers to the variables to solve the final result. When someting scientific with proves more than bla bla bla, I will be convinced. You convince people in such forums with numers not words. Dont take it personal Lol, its just a general answer...
  5. Maybe it wont work individually, its one system, it would respect only action-reaction, its not a good example. Put it with two, because then you have 2 enclosed systems and like that works. After viewing it, presented like that it wont work You wanted to simplify it to one enclosed system, and no, there are a reason for the symetry, its OBLIGATORY. Your example is presenting the car without wheels. Its 2 hydraulic separated system. 2 not 1. Lets begin from here. One do more work than the other and its shown mathematically, and thrust comes from that difference. You compare more work in a side than the other. As you present it, it breaks the symetry and there is no WORK difference. You can imagine the system as you as person duplicated. You are pushing in one side and on the other with the same force. In the larger input piston, you push and moves little but the counter reaction is your feets in the platform and on the other side you push a smaller input piston, so you can do the same force without making a big counterforce with your feets, so if you imagine all that, you will have to run pushing the smaller piston a lot with the same force. So if we put a fat man in front of you in both sides, you will hit the fat man in the side of the smaller piston with more strenght due to your speed than the other fat man placed in the bigger input piston. That is the idea and both of you have used the same action-reaction force to hit the fat man.
  6. In theory yes but to the left, because the force that the piston will face it will be supported in a percentage by the pression, so the magnet would have 100% Newton laws and the piston a mix of friction and pression, so it would transmitted to the hole fluid in the same area with no vector contained on it., but I would set up symetry to be sure. I cannot show it mathematically your last pic. I know that in theory would work, but cannot show it empirically, only if there are two opposites. The 2 input and output pistons have the same area? No matter what, it would work as I explained above. And always in the direction opposite to the Pascal system.
  7. I agree 100% about the motion direction and the logic point of example 4 represent exactly what I mean. Its that exactly. If both input pistons have the same area, Newton wins, there is nothing special. It would be a Pascal system in potence but never in act Lol. Totally, its really as it is supposed to work, forces of repulsion, but please consider that the magnet that encounters more repel oposition, will be the larget input piston, so it would be what Newton requires for propulsion. You have to propulse from something and the input pistons are supported by pression and that only belongs to Pascal principle. Newton dont apply in the support, if not, it would not work.
  8. And how can I deny such statement. Of course the laws have to be respected, its exactly why I want to detect. In this case applied to a physical problem(think about it of a physics teacher exam for the studients. What can merge from so many harvard brilliant brains to find the error? that would be great to see. But there is one thing clear, and thats why I red the forces and variables that the members here are describing, but if you read the literature, it applies to One enclosed system working entirely on Newtons laws. But what makes in my humble opinion this device interesant and I want to put a big enphasis on this statement. This device in general its an enclosed system itself, but their components responds to actually, one general system that operates from Newton laws and 2 separate enclosed systems that responds to Pascal laws. You got a total of 3 systems in one device system. And the only forces of Newton laws that will operate through the input pistons, is the friction, thats why I put a lot of enphasis on that. The opossing resistance that each magnet will face, will be one more resistant than the other and more repulsion against, but the resistance is not provided by Newton laws, its provided by Pression (acts up as down, as right and everywhere with the same force) that is provided by Pascal principle. To be clear, literally a big part of the momentum pushing the pistons will literally get diluted in the pression, the rest goes to Newtons world, the friction force. Exactly respect to their own systems, because the outer input piston of the other system, will do more or less work than its peer. I compare 2 different systems and a Input piston to the other. This I said it before. Again, question. Will one of the input pistons compared to its peer, have more speed to compensate its lack of area and comply with its own conservation of energy system? - It was an example. I have the pics if you want to find the error in the device. Ahhh ok, yes, well it will come back following Newton laws. The pistons get in their original positions, you can even pull the input pistons to their original positions, and you begin again the system. Another very nice option that I just thought about, is, that you return back the pistons pushing the output pistons down. We are talking about resistance provided by pression, and acts evertywhere the same, so I would say, that the device operates as a quasi Newton-Pascal system, to be more accurate.
  9. I am really expecting what you come up with. To be honest I am sure something must be missing, but I want an objective reason. I looking forward for it. I have red your comments below just now, sorry. Ok you are describing a total Newton system, and for that, if a device operates on those rules it will happen what you say. But the original of this proposition is that if we think in Newton laws, it takes the input pistons as for example repel function, and the reality is that the magnet etc that do the force over the input piston, it will encounter more force that repels him than in the other side. Think that one magnet, will find more force against him than the other, and that combined makes a descompensation of forces. One magnet will have more repulsion against him, the one that moves the bigger area piston and the other will have less repel reaction, because does less resistances, so one magnet will push more the other. Try to imagine what I am saying applied to the device, and it have a lot of sense. A reactionless device that is supposed to work just with Newton rules, it will never work, asi most of the reactionless devices that have been invented, with the exception maybe of the EM Drive, but this proposition bring extra force to Newton laws departing for another law. And Pascal law we can see it everywhere. From the excavator working next to your neighbourhoood, to all the factories machines in the world. Sorry I did not understood your last question, could you clarify it? If you think about it, the machines that operates with pascal laws, they use less force to generate more force. Imagine that Pascal principle was not invented, and somebody brings the idea and says I have invented a machine that multiply forces. Everybody would come with, thats not possible, it does not respect Newtons law...
  10. Please (no sarcasm on it) show me what rules have not been repected, thats what I want to know. Conservation of energy is respected in each device separatdley, one piston with half area will have to run the double than its peer in order to have the same filling rate of both output pistons (same area both). So obectivly and tell me why my maths are not right in this case for example? Considering that one of the input pistons will do the double of work than its peer (this is a fact), or they do the same work? Because this is the soul of the device, if both input pistons do the same work, it wont work, simple as this.
  11. Good morning. Well it is getting interesant, because me myself cannot believe that reactionless devices are possible, but I am finding in this devices, something that makes of this case special, is that in this last device, there are maths that support it and works excellent with the laws of energy conservation for example, because if both input pistons, would run at the same speed with the same force, then one of them (smaller area, input piston) would not respect the conservation of energy, because both of the have the same size of output piston, so in order that both output pistons comply with the conservation of energy, oone of the input pistons, if have half of the area of the other, will have to run the double to compensate its lack of area and push at the same rythim its output piston, so it will have to have double speed. You can also brake easly one of the input pistons, by setting a mass in the way of the output piston. There are plenty of options, and the most interesant issue here, is that all of them fits the maths unless I forgot something really important, and thats why I am here. But I liked your enthusiasm and must have a reason of beeing ;). Ok answering your questions: 1- Yes totally 2- Exactly, you dont need to apply more force in one than in another (Obviously it would not work), the conservation of energy of each system will compensate the output piston rate, with more speed fron the input piston with smaller area. 3- Yes exactly, thats the trick of the device and from where obtains the thrust. You have two input pistons with different areas and carrying different momentum, so that makes an unbalance of forces. 4- Exactly 5- Yes there are plenty of options. Or you can keep the force up to the end. If the device works, that wont matter. The important is that the different rodes strike with different speeds (more momentum more speed) the wall, and that proportionally one of them have to do the double of distance in the same time to compensate the more friction of the bigger area input piston. 6- Exactly, we have to make some concessions to Newton Lol. In an enviroment of space it will reload the system and repeat all again, so that would do it accelerate all the times you want. If the system takes 2 minutes to reaload and generate a constant speed in each load, then..... I know the consecuences of what I am saying, but if works, it means this. * Note that it can even work perfectly with 2 extendible hydraulic rodes that push the pushers, even in that case (if that would not work, the device neither) it will work marvelous Lol
  12. - Obviously on the direction that the input piston have more speed, no other way, so in this case to the right. - It accelerate at any moment, it can accelerate for example as you see in the pic, in that moment, that the distance is the double before the rod hits in the smaller area input piston and the rod that belongs to the input piston with more area the rod is settled at half distance for the friction compensation, so meanwhile exist that distance difference, it will work at any point you want to produce an acceleration on both systems using the same force at both sides. - About accelerating meanwhile the rods are contact with the wall, I dont think it would work if they need to have some distance to accelerate before the rod hitting. - The direction will go in the direction of the smaller piston area, that means to the right. -Piston is in constant contact with the fluid and have a pression on it
  13. The first example of the water that you describe like that is not a pascal system. Surf a bit in the net and do some research. At this level I prefer proves than bla bla bla, but anyway, your opinion is taken in consideration. Thank you.
  14. Yes exactly. I had some problems with the render. I post one clear pic that show what are the intention of the device. There is a new component. I have attached bars perpendicular to the piston-pushers, and as the pushers advance, so the bar will, and they will hit their "wall". But one bar will arrive with more speed than its counterpart and because of that will carry more momentum. Put a heavy mass over the output piston of the left, and you will have even a bigger difference of speed
  15. You are absolutly right, but it would require the input pistons to have a different dispacement length to compensate the friction and yes, could work also, of course. But I thought that maybe it would be more descriptive. I will post three frame pic without ball and without maths. Maths are already done, and we will see which piston pusher arrives with more speed to its corresponding top, that would do the picture more clear for analisis.