Jump to content
John2020

Circumventing Newton's third law through Euler Inertial Forces

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

If these are supposed to be kinetic energies, how can they sum to zero, unless they are identically zero?

Because I addressed the rotational energies coming from the torque (nut) and counter torque (upon the screw), where both have opposing direction of rotation (conservation of angular momentum), thus they cancel each other.

16 minutes ago, joigus said:

And at 90º "steepness" the drive would go to zero, because cos(90º) = 0.

Ergo, no drive.

 

22 minutes ago, joigus said:

The sad thing about this is, IMHO, that had you taken the criticism, maybe there would be an idea behind worth considering (by using frictionless superconductors, high "steepness" combined, who knows.) In the way of an efficient drive mechanism, rather that spontaneous drive, which is a physical impossibility.

You are right then, the only possibility to work then would be if the bolt was massless and steepness e.g. 30°. It practically means the translation mechanism should be conducted entirely through e.g. magnetic fields. As I think it further maybe it won't.

Then probably, the only way to work such a device (not using a translation screw) is to have a rotating body that will induce an Euler force upon a small mass being both an intrinsic part of a non-rotating body (that consists of the system as a whole). In principle it should work based on reactionless mass displacement inside the system. Reactionless due to the Euler force.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, joigus said:

And at 90º "steepness" the drive would go to zero, because cos(90º) = 0.

Ergo, no drive.

Indeed. At 90 degrees, these are gears

At 0 degrees, no drive either, since there’s no torque applied

 

Just now, John2020 said:

Because I addressed the rotational energies coming from the torque (nut) and counter torque (upon the screw), where both have opposing direction of rotation (conservation of angular momentum), thus they cancel each other.

Kinetic energy doesn’t work that way. The energy of the system is the sum of the energy of the components. None of the terms are negative. 

Two items rotating in opposite direction will not have zero net rotational energy

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, John2020 said:

Then probably, the only way to work such a device (not using a translation screw) is to have a rotating body that will induce an Euler force upon a small mass being both an intrinsic part of a non-rotating body (that consists of the system as a whole). In principle it should work based on reactionless mass displacement inside the system. Reactionless due to the Euler force.

This is what I have envisioned with the construction in Fig.1-Upper that mimics (wrongly) an Euler force. The problem as you all show to me is, there is always a force component on x-axis that implies a reaction force upon the screw on x-axis. It will require a different design that has to demonstrate the creation of an Euler force exerted upon a mass without translation mechanism..

Would you agree with the above? If yes what that could be?

50 minutes ago, swansont said:

Indeed. At 90 degrees, these are gears

At 0 degrees, no drive either, since there’s no torque applied

Would it work for a massless (using magneric fields) bolt at steepness angle e.g. 30°?

Edited by John2020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John2020 said:

This is what I have envisioned with the construction in Fig.1-Upper that mimics (wrongly) an Euler force. The problem as you all show to me is, there is always a force component on x-axis that implies a reaction force upon the screw on x-axis. It will require a different design that has to demonstrate the creation of an Euler force exerted upon a mass without translation mechanism..

Would you agree with the above? If yes what that could be?

Does this mean that we have finally debunked Fig 1 device, in it's current form, as possible rectionless drive? Just asking because it means that we may need to explore different physical principles* than the ones supposed to allow a reactions drive in Fig 1.

 

1 hour ago, John2020 said:

Would it work for a massless (using magneric fields) bolt at steepness angle e.g. 30°?

You mean if reactionless drive is possible using the above configuration? Answer: No. 

 

 

 

*) Principles that are forbidden in the universe as we know it at this time. Mainstream theories still state that conservation of momentum holds.

Edited by Ghideon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Does this mean that we have finally debunked Fig 1 device, in it's current form, as possible rectionless drive?

I think so.

 

31 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

You mean if reactionless drive is possible using the above configuration? Answer: No. 

 

I just thought an induced magnetic field upon a magnetic material that since the translation mechanism is massless then momentum transfer in the opposite direction wouldn't be possible even through the field.

 

2 hours ago, John2020 said:

It will require a different design that has to demonstrate the creation of an Euler force exerted upon a mass without translation mechanism..

What do you think about the above? Could a design that utilizes either Euler (the initial idea of my design) or centrifugal force work as a reactionless drive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, John2020 said:

What do you think about the above? Could a design that utilizes either Euler (the initial idea of my design) or centrifugal force work as a reactionless drive?

No. There is always a reaction when you analyze it in an inertial frame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John2020 said:

What do you think about the above? Could a design that utilizes either Euler (the initial idea of my design) or centrifugal force work as a reactionless drive?

I would answer no to that question. A reactionless drive is not possible to create using any one or a combination of those two physical principles. I base that answer mainly on:
- According to my experience of these kind of designs there have never been any working device presented.
- I think it is counter-intuitive to think that it is possible to build something extremely exotic as a rectionless drive based on very simple well established physics preventing the existence of rectionless drives. 
- As an engineer I know of the laws that is at work and they say No.
- My basic understating of deeper principles of the universe states that it is impossible to trick Newton in such a way that reactionless drives emerge. The scientific progress after Newton makes it less plausible that a rectionless drive can exist. Nothing after Newton that I know of have made rectionless drives more plausible than it is according to Newtonian laws of physics.

 

Side note: This has been a rather interesting discussion, triggering quite a few thoughts how to address the device in fig 1 in opening post. One can learn alternative ways to intuitively or mathematically analyse a mechanical device even if the device's claims regarding capability to circumvent Newton's third law was incorrect.

Edited by Ghideon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, swansont said:

No. There is always a reaction when you analyze it in an inertial frame.

Well, it is a little bit difficult to agree because the References I use in my paper claim orherwise, however not in classical mechanics. If in the discipline of statistical mechanics and optic is possible then, it should be also possible in classical mechanics. I personally do not see other way than the fictitious forces utilized to transfer mass in a reactionless manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, John2020 said:

Well, it is a little bit difficult to agree because the References I use in my paper claim orherwise, however not in classical mechanics. If in the discipline of statistical mechanics and optic is possible then, it should be also possible in classical mechanics. I personally do not see other way than the fictitious forces utilized to transfer mass in a reactionless manner.

It’s possible your references are mistaken, or you aren’t reading them right. Given the misconceptions that came to light here, the latter is definitely a possibility.

As to the former, a lot of people claim perpetual motion, too. They aren’t credible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, swansont said:

As to the former, a lot of people claim perpetual motion, too. They aren’t credible

But the reactionless drive has nothing to do with perpetual motion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, John2020 said:

If in the discipline of statistical mechanics and optic is possible then, it should be also possible in classical mechanics.

Not necessarily true. Photons are one example in optics where using Newton gives incorrect predictions. (if that is what classical mechanics means in this context) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, swansont said:

No. There is always a reaction when you analyze it in an inertial frame.

Then it has to be utilized in a rotating frame. Creation of an Euler force.

4 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Not necessarily true. Photons are one example in optics where using Newton gives incorrect predictions. (if that is what classical mechanics means in this context) 

Then it has to be utilized in a rotating frame.

Edited by John2020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, John2020 said:

Then it has to be utilized in a rotating frame.

Action-reaction only works in inertial frames. It makes no sense to discuss it in an accelerating frame. 

If it’s not reactionless in an inertial frame, it’s not reactionless. There is no free lunch.

IOW, if it doesn’t move on its own when you just watch it, it won’t move on its own just because you spin in your chair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In an accelerating spinning chair will appear centrfugal and Euler forces. They should be possible to be  utilized.

Edited by John2020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, John2020 said:

But the reactionless drive has nothing to do with perpetual motion.

Warning - Non-scientific claim: If you could create a mechanical device that does not conserve momentum, as required in a reactionless drive, I guess you could also connect the output of the device the input, harvesting the magical appearing momentum and build a perpetual motion machine.

But since both perpetual motion and reactionless drives are impossible I would not try to build such a device 

 

1 minute ago, John2020 said:

In an accelerating spinning chair will appear centrfugal an Euler forces. They sghould be possible to be  utilized.

Such forces are possibe to utilise in engineering, for instance when designing rotating constructions and calculating mechanical strength. But as source for free energy or breaking momentum conservation: no.

 

14 minutes ago, John2020 said:

Then it has to be utilized in a rotating frame.

Photons does not begin to follow Newtonian physics / classical mechanics regardless of frame of reference. I don't think the photons will acquire an invariant mass in a rotating frame. 

 

Edited by Ghideon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Such forces are possibe to utilise in engineering, for instance when designing rotating constructions and calculating mechanical strength. But as source for free energy or breaking momentum conservation: no.

Wouldn't be possible to transfer mass without reaction? The fictitious forces appearing in a rotating frame are by nature reactionless.

A modification of this:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n_6p-1J551YI

1 hour ago, swansont said:

If it’s not reactionless in an inertial frame, it’s not reactionless. There is no free lunch.

Ten years ago I conducted the following experiments:

Exp1: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aTQ7eHj5_9Lz1loLo5QW5IaYdapYH7um/view?usp=sharing

Exp2: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fEbkXAinY8rsKNyvlZkAWgD3g-MblnR4/view?usp=sharing

Exp3: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cBrWbwyjuDwe1lWd0zY8ZlI5A5_al9F3/view?usp=sharing

How can you justified the motion we observe on those experiments?

Edited by John2020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, John2020 said:

In an accelerating spinning chair will appear centrfugal and Euler forces. They should be possible to be  utilized.

They aren’t real.

1 hour ago, John2020 said:

But the reactionless drive has nothing to do with perpetual motion.

The commonality is the disregard for understanding physical law. Your zealous adherence to thinking fictitious forces can make things move is basically the same as the perpetual motion adherent’s faith that they can make their unbalanced wheel work if they get better bearings.

There’s a principle (used in relativity) that it doesn’t matter what frame of reference you use for your analysis - if it’s impossible in one frame, it’s impossible in all frames.  The only difference between the frames is a transformation.

We both have to agree that a device is moving, relative to some point. If it’s not moving in my frame, it can’t be moving when observed from yours.

Let’s say the end of the mass has a contact on it. When it reaches some external target, it completes a circuit and detonates a bomb. That bomb can’t go off in your frame, but fail to go iff in mine.

53 minutes ago, John2020 said:

Wouldn't be possible to transfer mass without reaction? The fictitious forces appearing in a rotating frame are by nature reactionless.

As I’ve said, the concept only applies in an inertial frame.

 

53 minutes ago, John2020 said:

I’m not interested in going down that rabbit hole.

Frankly, given your demonstrated level of acumen, I have no confidence you could carry out and properly report an experiment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, swansont said:

I’m not interested in going down that rabbit hole.

Frankly, given your demonstrated level of acumen, I have no confidence you could carry out and properly report an experiment. 

I ask to judge the experiments not me. I am able to give all the technical details. I know very well what I have done.

Are you interested to know my background?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John2020 said:

Wouldn't be possible to transfer mass without reaction?

No. Reactionless drive and tracking conservation of momentum is not possible. 

1 hour ago, John2020 said:

The fictitious forces appearing in a rotating frame are by nature reactionless.

That statement seems to be built upon a misunderstanding. It does not imply anything regarding the question you asked. 

 

 

1 hour ago, John2020 said:

Actually kind of interesting video. And as expected nothing there to support your claims. Explaining how the cube behaviour is predicted is better handled in a separate 14+ pages thread. Personally I would be more interested in the sensors, algorithms and programming involved. It would also be interesting to see a simulation of millions of such cubes, with the ability to attach to one another, perform together governed by algorithms on a higher level. But that would be pretty far off topic. And still nothing to do with "reactionless" 

Edited by Ghideon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, John2020 said:

Because I addressed the rotational energies coming from the torque (nut) and counter torque (upon the screw), where both have opposing direction of rotation (conservation of angular momentum), thus they cancel each other.

Torques can cancel each other, kinetic energy can cancel potential energy, but kinetic energies can never cancel each other. Kinetic energy is positive by definition.

Had you accepted my discussion in terms of rigid bodies, you would have seen that very clearly from first principles. For a partition into different points i of a rigid body in an inertial frame it has the form,

\[\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i}m_{i}\left(\boldsymbol{V}+\boldsymbol{\omega}\wedge\boldsymbol{r}_{i}\right)^{2}\]

which is always positive. After all, the kinetic energy is a sum of contributions (1/2)mv2, which is always positive.

Edited by joigus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

That statement seems to be built upon a misunderstanding. It does not imply anything regarding the question you asked. 

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, John2020 said:

Why?

There are 14 pages, in this thread alone, explaining that in detail. There is no need to repeat so I'll go through all of the posts and figure out some new way to explain. It may take some time. 

 

40 minutes ago, John2020 said:

Are you interested to know my background?

Not really but feel free to share. Sometimes an explanation can be better prepared if background is known.


I would for instance not try to explain the basics of atomic clocks to @swansont but maybe I would prepare a detailed answer if the question was about preparation procedures when mixing traditional Swedish red paint. (But I would on the other hand not be surprised if Swansont would step in to correct me in a thread about the second example ... )

 

1 hour ago, John2020 said:

There are plenty of obscure videos in speculations section here, and even more on the internet in general. The video has zero impact regarding reactionless drives. (edit: I initially quoted from the wrong post so it looked like swansont shared the link above. Corrected )

 

40 minutes ago, John2020 said:

I know very well what I have done.

Ok.

(I have seen metal nuts perform similar movement on my fathers old workbench, even without cables attached. It was, as far as I remember, due to vibrations from a transformer in an old , badly shielded, weld. I guess we should have claimed a Nobel prize instead of laughing)

Edited by Ghideon
wrong quote, fixed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, joigus said:

Torques can cancel each other, kinetic energy can cancel potential energy, but kinetic energies can never cancel each other. Kinetic energy is positive by definition.

You are right, my mistake. I should have used the work done by a force in all circumstances since they are cancellable.

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

The video has zero impact regarding reactionless drives. (

First of all there are three videos showing directional motion and not just vibrations. Of course, friction comes also into play. Let us ignore exp.1 (complex description) and tell me what you see on exp.2 and exp.3, especially on exp.2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, John2020 said:

First of all there are three videos showing directional motion and not just vibrations. Of course, friction comes also into play. Let us ignore exp.1 (complex description) and tell me what you see on exp.2 and exp.3, especially on exp.2.

There are plenty of obscure videos in speculations section here, and even more on the internet in general. The videos have zero impact regarding my view on reactionless drives.

Or if you prefer an analogy; the videos 1, 2 and 3 could be videos claiming UFO's, Yetis, Loch Ness Monsters, Negative Energy, Anti gravity, Psychic powers or other non-mainstream things. I pay no attention to them from a scientific point of view. Especially not videos that posted in threads about concepts that are impossible and about devices that when analysed does not have the properties initially claimed. 
 

3 hours ago, John2020 said:

Why?

Regarding this one: According to your view on physics, are fictitious forces one concept as per mainstream physics or are there different kinds? Do you consider fictions forces in rotating systems fundamentally different from fictitious forces in linear accelerating systems? 

Reason for asking; there are different ways to answer depending on your level of understanding.

Edited by Ghideon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Do you consider fictions forces in rotating systems fundamentally different from fictitious forces in linear accelerating systems?

In a non-rotating system they are linear velocity dependent and on rotating system are angular velocity dependent. Both are inertial forces, however in linear case is required a linear acceleration/deceleration of the object to trigger the inertial effect e.g. acceleration of a car that pushes the passenger to the back.

In an accelerating rotating system one may create an Euler force that appears along the axis of rotation that does not trigger a reaction along the axis. Isn't this correct?

8 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Especially not videos that posted in threads about concepts that are impossible and about devices that when analysed does not have the properties initially claimed. 

I understand, I will not insist. Just a side note 

Exp2:A ferromagnetic ring is loaded on the back of a Lego car and when is powered, a tangential force coming from the ring appears pushing the car for a few centimeters.

Exp3; the ferromagnetic ring rotates counterclockwise on frequency decrease and clockwise on frequency increase.

I can share all the technical details as the used material  B-H Curve, dimensions, current etc.

How could someone explain the behavior of the ring that seems to exert a force coming from its interior (internal force).

I have to go to work. See you later.

Edited by John2020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.