Jump to content

Reactionless Drive that conforms to Newton's 3rd laws.


Aquatek
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Aquatek said:

The system, as explained in my first post, is in a sealed box, where no exhaust is expelled from the box. Also explained is the fact that heat and vibrational energy can be dissipated into space through the walls of the drive. This alone means that there are energy conversions happening within the box. This also means in those terms-the system is not isolated from the outside environment.

Quote: From your earlier description I am given to understand that the black rectangular boundary in your diagram represents something like a shoe box or packing crate that will spontaneously move sideways when you press the go button.) That is correct, as explained in my first post.

Quote: This behaviour would occur where it is currently located in your back yard, garage or whatever.
But would also occur if you picked up the box, drove 1,000 miles into the desert.) Yes, as long as there was a source of electrical power available, the device will propel it self along the ground. The second model had an internal battery pack, and so had no need for an external source of energy. That was the model where I found out how well lithium batteries burn, and so put that one down to a failure.

Thank you for your clarifications.

On to my next questions.

I understand you are firing a rocket engine inside the box.

Since no air is allowed to enter what are you using for oxidant ?

How much of the 14.6 kilos is fuel and oxidant and how long will that last in time ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, exchemist said:

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.   

Ok, i think there has been a mix up here. When I say nothing leaves the box, I am referring to the thruster as a whole, which we have been calling the box. The KE converter is not being referred to as the box. Matter does exit the KE converter, and enters the box(thruster)

Quote: 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.)  First up, i did not say that a phase change was taking place, that was referenced by exchemist when he mentioned condensing steam to liquid. My drive works on the inelastic collision principles.

So let me ask you this--Q1-If we have a box (1M x 1M x 1M),that has a mass of 1Kg floating in space stationary, and a ball, also with a mass of 1Kg, traveling at 10m/s, hits that box square on, and the collision is inelastic (the ball sticks to the box) what is the final speed of both !now combined! masses ? Q2- We carry out the same experiment, only this time the ball has a mass of 3Kg, and a velocity of just 3.333m/s. What is the final speed of both combined masses after the inelastic collision ?. Q3- I am floating in space. I have a mass of 100Kg's. I am holding a ball that also has a mass of 100Kg's. I throw that ball so as it reaches a velocity of 10m/s. What will my velocity be in the opposite direction?. Simple questions I know, but relevant to the topic.

 

17 minutes ago, studiot said:

Thank you for your clarifications.

On to my next questions.

I understand you are firing a rocket engine inside the box.

Since no air is allowed to enter what are you using for oxidant ?

How much of the 14.6 kilos is fuel and oxidant and how long will that last in time ?

A rocket works by ejecting mass at velocity, so any mass can be used. I do not use a fuel as such, so no oxygen is needed. The ejected mass is recycled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Aquatek said:

A rocket works by ejecting mass at velocity, so any mass can be used. I do not use a fuel as such, so no oxygen is needed. The ejected mass is recycled.

Indeed so. That is how a released balloon flies away if the neck is open.

But so what, perhaps your rocket is a cylinder of compressed gas.

The question still arises how long will the exhaust last ?

 

This proposal of yours reminds me of Edward De Bono's 5 day course in thinking.

In his first lecture he has a 1 foot cubical box sitting quietly on a table in front of him, roughly in the middle.

About halfway through there is a quiet bang and the box falls over onto its side.

The lecturer ignores this, but at the end sets a task to explain how the box fell over by itself during the next four days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

Indeed so. That is how a released balloon flies away if the neck is open.

But so what, perhaps your rocket is a cylinder of compressed gas.

The question still arises how long will the exhaust last ?

 

This proposal of yours reminds me of Edward De Bono's 5 day course in thinking.

In his first lecture he has a 1 foot cubical box sitting quietly on a table in front of him, roughly in the middle.

About halfway through there is a quiet bang and the box falls over onto its side.

The lecturer ignores this, but at the end sets a task to explain how the box fell over by itself during the next four days.

Quote: The question still arises how long will the exhaust last ?) That question was answered. The ejected mass is recycled, so it lasts for ever.

Quote: The lecturer ignores this, but at the end sets a task to explain how the box fell over by itself during the next four days.). Well one possibility could be that there was a flywheel and prime mover within the box, slowly building up speed over time. A brake is suddenly applied to the flywheel, which would cause the box to rotate if it were not fixed down. There are a few other ways of achieving this effect.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Aquatek said:

Quote: The question still arises how long will the exhaust last ?) That question was answered. The ejected mass is recycled, so it lasts for ever.

So you are using some of that electrical input to stuff the genie back in the bottle, sorry drive the compressor, also inside the box to repressurise the gas cylinder ?

The question was not answered, just neatly side stepped.

What else are you not telling us ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, studiot said:

So you are using some of that electrical input to stuff the genie back in the bottle, sorry drive the compressor, also inside the box to repressurise the gas cylinder ?

The question was not answered, just neatly side stepped.

What else are you not telling us ?

Ok, the ejected matter will last for ever, as the thruster is sealed, and the matter cannot escape. The time period that that matter can do work is subject to the time the electrical power source lasts. If we were to use a nuclear power source, then the thruster would work for years-or as long as electrical power is provided.

Edited by Aquatek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Aquatek said:

Ok, i think there has been a mix up here. When I say nothing leaves the box, I am referring to the thruster as a whole, which we have been calling the box. The KE converter is not being referred to as the box. Matter does exit the KE converter, and enters the box(thruster)

Quote: 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.)  First up, i did not say that a phase change was taking place, that was referenced by exchemist when he mentioned condensing steam to liquid. My drive works on the inelastic collision principles.

So let me ask you this--Q1-If we have a box (1M x 1M x 1M),that has a mass of 1Kg floating in space stationary, and a ball, also with a mass of 1Kg, traveling at 10m/s, hits that box square on, and the collision is inelastic (the ball sticks to the box) what is the final speed of both !now combined! masses ? Q2- We carry out the same experiment, only this time the ball has a mass of 3Kg, and a velocity of just 3.333m/s. What is the final speed of both combined masses after the inelastic collision ?. Q3- I am floating in space. I have a mass of 100Kg's. I am holding a ball that also has a mass of 100Kg's. I throw that ball so as it reaches a velocity of 10m/s. What will my velocity be in the opposite direction?. Simple questions I know, but relevant to the topic.

 

A rocket works by ejecting mass at velocity, so any mass can be used. I do not use a fuel as such, so no oxygen is needed. The ejected mass is recycled.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, studiot said:

+1

We are all working towards showing that with proper analysis the proposed system can be analysed conventionally, as expected once all the details are teased out.

:)

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, exchemist said:

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. 

Yes but it's more than just momentum.

I think the poster has difficulty deciding what to include in the system, like many folks before him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of thrust, and in terms of it being a transient at best, momentum is the key. Energy is a red herring.

Unless the OP is more forthcoming about the device, I fear we are at an impasse. It will not work as described, and since we know the physics involved, it means the description is lacking - if it works. But we don't actually know this. We don't have a picture, or a video of a working device. Inclusion of these would not preclude chicanery, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

In terms of thrust, and in terms of it being a transient at best, momentum is the key. Energy is a red herring.

Unless the OP is more forthcoming about the device, I fear we are at an impasse. It will not work as described, and since we know the physics involved, it means the description is lacking - if it works. But we don't actually know this. We don't have a picture, or a video of a working device. Inclusion of these would not preclude chicanery, of course.

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.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, exchemist said:

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.

I agree, but we also know it doesn't work as advertised. And there's the issue of someone who is not well-versed in physics who is also simultaneously insisting on what the important physics concepts are.

For all we know, the device works by heating the air around it, and it's able to direct the heated air in one direction, causing the box to recoil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

I agree, but we also know it doesn't work as advertised. And there's the issue of someone who is not well-versed in physics who is also simultaneously insisting on what the important physics concepts are.

For all we know, the device works by heating the air around it, and it's able to direct the heated air in one direction, causing the box to recoil.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Aquatek said:

The force being applied to the box, comes from within the box.

Then there is also an equal and opposite force inside the box. The forces cancel each other and there is no thrust. 

15 hours ago, Aquatek said:

In the case of an open system like a rocket, only the ejected matter leaves the system into the vacuum of space. 

A rocket accelerates ejected mass by some force F and the equal and opposite force from the ejected mass on the rocket accelerates the rocket. The system consisting of ejected mass + the rocket conserves momentum. In your case there is nothing ejected and no interaction with anything outside of the box; conservation of momentum means the center of mass of the box can't accelerate no matter how it is internally composed. 

Quick note on the initial question:

On 12/4/2021 at 2:53 PM, Aquatek said:

So i guess i would like your input on what to do next with this thruster?. I can't afford to patent it, as that is like 32K over here in Australia. But i would like something for all my years of hard work.

 

The problem is finding a scientific theory that allows a reactionless drive and explains how it operates; it is impossible according to currently known physics. But scientifically performed tests that verifies the drive and a theory would probably be worth a Nobel prize, that would solve issues with money I guess.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, swansont said:

I agree, but we also know it doesn't work as advertised. And there's the issue of someone who is not well-versed in physics who is also simultaneously insisting on what the important physics concepts are.

For all we know, the device works by heating the air around it, and it's able to direct the heated air in one direction, causing the box to recoil.

 

19 minutes ago, exchemist said:

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. 

 

I was working round to the vibration idea as I wondered if this KE reducer was suspended from the case by the diagonal lines in the diagram.

And while yes momentum analysis is a good way of analysing the sytem I think the OP's problem is answering the questions

The momentum of what ?

The energy of what ?

The KE is only  the KE of the 'rocket' exhaust, not the system.  

The momentum is only the momentum of the rocket exhaust.

But the rocket exhaust by itslef is a different system.

It is so common for people to try to change systems in mid analysis and then wonder why things don't add up.

It took long enough for the OP to admit that the system needed energy input (the electrical cables) or energy stored in another form eg chemical.

 

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the discussion (and as a result of it) the original design of this device seems to have changed several times.

So here is the Christmas version of my understanding of the original proposed mechanism.

Imagine a large Xmas fair hall.

On the East wall is an oven ready turkey booth.

Unfortunately something has gone wrong with the electrically driven conveyor and packing machine.
So instead of being brought up in a steady stream, packed and stacked, the turkeys arrive and are flung out of the window towards the west wall.

On the South wall there is a shooting gallery.
The elf here thinks the stream of flying turkeys is great fun and has taken to blasting them out of the air to smithereens.
However she has to reload between shots and in that time three turkey pass by, impacting the west wall and falling to the ground.

So the number of turkeys impacting the West wall is 3/4 the number leaving the East wall.

 

In other times I would tell the story about flying beer bottles and a mad bartender as more fun.

:)

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

During the discussion (and as a result of it) the original design of this device seems to have changed several times.

So here is he Christmas version of my understanding of the proposed mechanism.

Imagine a large Xmas fair hall.

On the East wall is an oven ready turkey booth.

Unfortunately something has gone wrong with the electrically driven conveyor and packing machine.
So instead of being brought up in a steady stream, packed and stacked, the turkeys arrive and are flung out of the window towards the west wall.

On the South wall there is a shooting gallery.
The elf here thinks the stream of flying turkeys is great fun and has taken to blasting them out of the air to smithereens.
However she has to reload between shots and in that time three turkey pass by, impacting the west wall and falling to the ground.

So the number of turkeys impacting the West wall is 3/4 the number leaving the East wall.

 

In other times I would tell the story about flying beer bottles and a mad bartender as more fun.

:)

Why not make it a dwarf-throwing contest, to get some of that true Antipodean flavour? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, studiot said:

The elf here thinks the stream of flying turkeys is great fun and has taken to blasting them out of the air to smithereens.
However she has to reload between shots and in that time three turkey pass by, impacting the west wall and falling to the ground.

So the number of turkeys impacting the West wall is 3/4 the number leaving the East wall.

The shots carry momentum, so for this analogy to be applied, one must account for the thrust imparted by the gun recoil. Which will account for the momentum of the turkeys that got blasted out of the air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swansont said:

The shots carry momentum, so for this analogy to be applied, one must account for the thrust imparted by the gun recoil. Which will account for the momentum of the turkeys that got blasted out of the air.

It's not an analogy it genuinely shows the characteristics first laid out.

Some of those are indeed that momentum analysis is the best way forward.

It also shows, IMHO, that the OP omitted the crossways analysis by tring to use a perpendicularity condition.

But I'm sure you and exchemist know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, studiot said:

During the discussion (and as a result of it) the original design of this device seems to have changed several times.

So here is the Christmas version of my understanding of the original proposed mechanism.

Imagine a large Xmas fair hall.

On the East wall is an oven ready turkey booth.

Unfortunately something has gone wrong with the electrically driven conveyor and packing machine.
So instead of being brought up in a steady stream, packed and stacked, the turkeys arrive and are flung out of the window towards the west wall.

On the South wall there is a shooting gallery.
The elf here thinks the stream of flying turkeys is great fun and has taken to blasting them out of the air to smithereens.
However she has to reload between shots and in that time three turkey pass by, impacting the west wall and falling to the ground.

So the number of turkeys impacting the West wall is 3/4 the number leaving the East wall.

 

In other times I would tell the story about flying beer bottles and a mad bartender as more fun.

:)

I see. So mocking some one is scientific ?. The design of the device has not change throughout the thread. It has remained the same. Others in this thread have presented there own theories on the design, or how it may be designed.

9 hours ago, studiot said:

 

 

I was working round to the vibration idea as I wondered if this KE reducer was suspended from the case by the diagonal lines in the diagram.

And while yes momentum analysis is a good way of analysing the sytem I think the OP's problem is answering the questions

The momentum of what ?

The energy of what ?

The KE is only  the KE of the 'rocket' exhaust, not the system.  

The momentum is only the momentum of the rocket exhaust.

But the rocket exhaust by itslef is a different system.

It is so common for people to try to change systems in mid analysis and then wonder why things don't add up.

It took long enough for the OP to admit that the system needed energy input (the electrical cables) or energy stored in another form eg chemical.

 

Quote: It took long enough for the OP to admit that the system needed energy input (the electrical cables) or energy stored in another form eg chemical.). Are you serious?. Did you not read my very first post?.-->  Quote: My first working model was completed in 2017, and showed a thrust value of just 242 grams, for a thruster that weighed 14.6 Kg's, and an electrical input of 1.42Kw. 5 weeks ago, I finished the 4th thruster. Oh,BTW, I call it KERT (Kinetic Energy Reduction Thruster) This one produces a net thrust of 2.32Kg's for a power input of 1.12Kw, and a total thruster weight of 24.2Kg's. Having a thrust value this high eliminates measurement errors commonly found with most such devices where the thrust value is in the mN's, such as NASA's EM drive.

Quote: It is so common for people to try to change systems in mid analysis and then wonder why things don't add up.)  The system or design has not changed at all. Others here had a stab at what they thought maybe going on-not me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Aquatek said:

I see. So mocking some one is scientific ?. The design of the device has not change throughout the thread. It has remained the same. Others in this thread have presented there own theories on the design, or how it may be designed.

Quote: It took long enough for the OP to admit that the system needed energy input (the electrical cables) or energy stored in another form eg chemical.). Are you serious?. Did you not read my very first post?.-->  Quote: My first working model was completed in 2017, and showed a thrust value of just 242 grams, for a thruster that weighed 14.6 Kg's, and an electrical input of 1.42Kw. 5 weeks ago, I finished the 4th thruster. Oh,BTW, I call it KERT (Kinetic Energy Reduction Thruster) This one produces a net thrust of 2.32Kg's for a power input of 1.12Kw, and a total thruster weight of 24.2Kg's. Having a thrust value this high eliminates measurement errors commonly found with most such devices where the thrust value is in the mN's, such as NASA's EM drive.

Quote: It is so common for people to try to change systems in mid analysis and then wonder why things don't add up.)  The system or design has not changed at all. Others here had a stab at what they thought maybe going on-not me.

@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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Aquatek said:

 

I didn't join up here to have my device fully disclosed. I joined in the hope as to get some guidance as to how to go about getting it peer reviewed etc.

 

Anyway, perhaps I am in the wrong place. But regardless, I hope you guys all have a great xmas.

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.

 

      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Aquatek said:

This one produces a net thrust of 2.32Kg's for a power input of 1.12Kw, and a total thruster weight of 24.2Kg's

That's quite the space heater you've got. How hot does your device get? What kind of temperature gradient is there?

My guess that you could just be heating the air is still in play.

 

11 hours ago, Aquatek said:

The system or design has not changed at all.

You admit the mass and power input has changed, so this is not entirely accurate.

41 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I don't see any way out of the dilemma. Nobody can review a black box.

I agree. If the OP is looking for validation, they aren't going to get it, and not enough information is provided to find out what is actually going on. Add to that the fact that they are ignoring certain questions. I'm not sure what the point of discussion is.

If the OP is looking for pointers on how to better test this device, one step would be to test it in a vacuum. 

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • 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.