StarEagle1 Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 I do understand that most likely, it will not work, but it'll be fun to learn, I hope. I haven't worked out a lot of details or bugs yet, but here it is: Okay, we have two rotating masses of equal weight. Mass #1 is on one side, and mass #2 is on the opposite side at an equal distance, so there should be no oscillating. What connects them is a non-magnetic cylinder-shaped rod. Mass #1 is possibly made up of batteries, etc. that surround the rod. Mass #2 is made up of a bunch of somewhat skinny, ring electromagnets, and each one has a hole through the middle. The connecting rod goes through the magnet holes and is attached to the magnet that is furthest out. At an equal distance between the masses is the center of rotation. Part of the rod that is at mass #1 extends farther out to allow that mass to slide outward. Of course now, we have to add the weight of the extra length of rod to the weight of mass #1, then even-out the weight to match the weight of mass #2. Mass #1 also has one electromagnet that is stuck to a steal plate which is attached to the rod. Even more, mass #1 is connected to mass #2's most inward magnet via wires. Now, here's what the device is suppose to do: As the equal masses rotate, all electromagnets stay engaged. At one certain point all the electromagnets disengage. Then, mass #1 slides outward on the rod. As it slides, it pulls (only) a portion of mass #2 with it. All the electromagnets of mass #2 start to pull apart, but are connected with wire so they don't pull too far from each other. Mass #1 pulls mass #2's electromagnets almost to the center of rotation. Then, immediately all the electromagnets engage again and they come together. When they do this, since mass #1 is further away from the center of rotation and mass #2 is closer, mass #1 now has greater mass and weight, which hopefully pulls mass #2 towards itself a lot more than mass #2 pulls back. As mass #1 pulls mass #2 closer, the rod slides back through mass #1 and outward. At the same time, the center of rotation moves closer to mass #1, and then evens-out the weight again. All this is suppose to happen on one side of the circle of rotation creating propulsion. Question: Hypothetically, when the electromagnets engage, does mass #1 pull mass #2 closer to itself, or does mass #2 pull itself closer to mass #1 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarEagle1 Posted February 22, 2023 Author Share Posted February 22, 2023 2-22-2023, I found a possible flaw. When mass #2 pulls itself closer to mass #1, and the center of rotation moves closer to mass #1, mass #2 is not only pulling itself, but is also pulling the frame of the craft, essentially the whole craft, toward mass #1. That's because the center of rotation is connected to the frame. That adds a lot more weight to the equation. Does anyone know of a fix for this, or could I be wrong about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 A diagram would be quite helpful, because you aren’t specifying enough detail about e.g. orientation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarEagle1 Posted February 23, 2023 Author Share Posted February 23, 2023 I'm working on a diagram, but it's going to take quite a while. In the mean time, let me elaborate on some things. *The reason mass #2 is suppose to pull itself closer to mass #1 is because mass #2 has the electromagnets and is lighter in weight at the time. I picture it sort of like when a person holds a little magnet and takes it close to the refrigerator, the little magnet pulls itself to the frig and not the other way around. *The other thing is that when you have two opposite rotating objects, and one of them is heavy, but the other is light, they can still rotate without oscillating if the heavier one is closer to the center of rotation. I think that's sort of what's happening with this device. When the electromagnets engage, mass #2 is closer to the center of rotation, but it's too heavy to pull itself closer to mass #1. It's too heavy because it's connected to the rod, which is connected to a vertical shaft, which is connected to the craft near the center of rotation. I hope all that's right, and I hope it helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarEagle1 Posted February 23, 2023 Author Share Posted February 23, 2023 Okay, since I said the word (craft) earlier, I should say that, hypothetically this device is a craft which has four wheels and rolls on a flat surface horizontally. A craft that flies would probably require too much explaining right now. I'm just interested in seeing if the concept will work for the moment. I wouldn't mind talking about flying later, if we get that far. I hope to have a diagram for it by next week or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarEagle1 Posted March 4, 2023 Author Share Posted March 4, 2023 My power has been out most of the week at home, so I'll continue working on the diagram next week. Also, I may have a possible fix for that flaw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarEagle1 Posted March 10, 2023 Author Share Posted March 10, 2023 (edited) AgM1.bmpAs in my first post, mass #1 and mass #2 are equal in weight and do not oscillate. At one point all electromagnets disengage and immediately engage which is suppose to take the device forward because mass #1 is further from the center of rotation than mass #2. I tried to put a picture in here, but I'm not sure if it took. Well, I decided to make the craft a boat rather than a car with wheels because a boat is lighter and easier. Okay, here's what I think the flaw is: The device is suppose to go forward as the electromagnets engage and come back together. The rod is suppose to be going back through mass #1 as mass #2 comes toward mass #1. That doesn't work because the rod in this picture (now) has a vertical shaft through it, and that's connected to a motor and the craft, which makes the rod too heavy to go forward. Anyway, I think I may have a possible fix for it. Does anybody have any thoughts on this? Edited March 10, 2023 by StarEagle1 I don't see the diagram. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarEagle1 Posted March 11, 2023 Author Share Posted March 11, 2023 This may be a fix for the flaw. With this diagram, the motor no longer has a shaft going through the rod. Instead, the motor connects to a frame that goes to both ends of the rod. When the electromagnets engage, the craft may have a greater chance of moving forward because some of mass #2 has gone beyond the center of rotation and on to the side of mass #1. That will contribute to the outward force of mass #1 in combination with the magnetic force. I'm hoping it will be enough force to take the whole kit and kaboodle forward. If it doesn't, perhaps some adjustments could be made. I was thinking that both masses could be moved closer to the center of rotation, which would allow more of mass #2 to go over to the side of mass #1, giving it more forward propulsion. Does this stuff sound right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufofrog Posted March 11, 2023 Share Posted March 11, 2023 22 minutes ago, StarEagle1 said: Does this stuff sound right? It sounds like you are describing a reactionless drive, so unfortunately it will not work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarEagle1 Posted March 11, 2023 Author Share Posted March 11, 2023 (edited) I'm not sure about what name this concept should have, but for now, perhaps it could be called the Artificial Gravity Magnetic Drive, or AgM Drive. Thanks for your opinion. Edited March 11, 2023 by StarEagle1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarEagle1 Posted March 11, 2023 Author Share Posted March 11, 2023 (edited) I'm not certain, but I don't think UAPs are considered reactionless, yet some look like they are closed systems. Maybe it's because they're actually working. They can do weird stuff, why can't we? Edited March 11, 2023 by StarEagle1 not sure to certain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufofrog Posted March 11, 2023 Share Posted March 11, 2023 2 hours ago, StarEagle1 said: I'm not certain, but I don't think UAPs are considered reactionless, yet some look like they are closed systems. Maybe it's because they're actually working. By definition UAPs are unidentified so trying to describe the drive of something that has not even been identified is a waste of time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarEagle1 Posted March 12, 2023 Author Share Posted March 12, 2023 (edited) I'm sorry, I disagree. I think if we know something is real, like the moon, or UAPs, and we want to do more than just look at those things, then we should try to figure out how, even if we don't know how. Also, I apologize about how some of my words came out earlier. I tried to re-edit again, but it wouldn't let me. Sorry about that. Edited March 12, 2023 by StarEagle1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufofrog Posted March 12, 2023 Share Posted March 12, 2023 3 hours ago, StarEagle1 said: I'm sorry, I disagree. You disagree with what exactly? 3 hours ago, StarEagle1 said: I think if we know something is real, like the moon, or UAPs, What do you mean when you say UAPs are real? Do you mean people really aren't able to identify things in the air sometimes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarEagle1 Posted March 12, 2023 Author Share Posted March 12, 2023 Just replying to the last post: I disagree that it's a waste of time to try to describe, or figure out the drive of UAPs. What I mean about UAPs is that we know they exist. People (are) able to identify things in the air sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 15, 2023 Share Posted March 15, 2023 On 3/11/2023 at 10:18 PM, StarEagle1 said: I disagree that it's a waste of time to try to describe, or figure out the drive of UAPs. You think of it as "figuring out the drive" but that's NOT what you're doing.You're "trying to describe" something that hasn't been identified, and making up terms as you go. That seems like a waste of time, just guessing based on more guessing. Not very methodical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarEagle1 Posted March 16, 2023 Author Share Posted March 16, 2023 (edited) I know, UAPs are unidentified, but I'm not sure it's a waste of time. Besides, I'm not trying to figure out a UAP drive, just a different kind of propulsion. I also don't think it's all guessing because there's at least a little science to it. I believe in using the scientific method, but right now I'm just hypothesizing with known forces like centripetal, centrifugal, and magnetic. For me, that stuff is fun. I may not be helping, but one day I hope that they come up with some kind of technology that can speed up our space program, just in case we have a gobal catastrophe sooner than later. I think it would also be nice if there were some kind of benefits from that space tech like devices that could lift up a disabled person so they would actually be able to walk and live longer. Okay, if the propulsion concept doesn't work, why not exactly? Edited March 16, 2023 by StarEagle1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarEagle1 Posted March 18, 2023 Author Share Posted March 18, 2023 At around 2:15 am, 3-18-2023, something came to mind about how the AgM propulsion concept might be working in a better way than I realized. Okay, when the device is spinning, say at 10k rpm, and mass #2's electromagnets disengage, then mass #1 will fly out on the rod pulling a portion of mass #2. Here it is; now when mass #1 gets to the end of the rod, it will hit the frame that is spinning with the device. That should jar the frame along with the complete whole device in that direction. At about the same time the frame is jarred, mass #2 engages it's magnets and pulls the complete whole device toward mass #1. So, I may be wrong, but there could be (3) forces together making the whole device go in the same direction at about the same time. 1.centrifugal force 2.jarring force 3.magnetic force Like I said, I could be wrong because I haven't thought about too long, or I might just be wrong period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarEagle1 Posted March 18, 2023 Author Share Posted March 18, 2023 I'm not sure about where I should ask this, but I left out a word on my last sentence. How many edits can we do, and what is the time limit to edit? Can we only edit our last post? I did a search on the word editing, but I didn't notice any rules concerning that. Is it OK to re-post my last post with a corrected version? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufofrog Posted March 18, 2023 Share Posted March 18, 2023 4 hours ago, StarEagle1 said: Like I said, I could be wrong because I haven't thought about too long, or I might just be wrong period. Yes, you are wrong period. Reactionless drives are not possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarEagle1 Posted March 18, 2023 Author Share Posted March 18, 2023 (edited) Someone said that there's been other reactionless drives through history, but none have panned out. I've read a little about the EM Drive, but pretty soon I'm going to research more in order to understand better. Still though, I haven't yet found a specific reason why this propulsion concept won't work. Edited March 18, 2023 by StarEagle1 yet is moving Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufofrog Posted March 18, 2023 Share Posted March 18, 2023 1 minute ago, StarEagle1 said: Someone said that there's been other reactionless drives through history, but none have panned out. That means there haven't been any. 3 minutes ago, StarEagle1 said: I've read a little about the EM Drive, but pretty soon I'm going to research more in order to understand better. That is not a reactionless drive. 4 minutes ago, StarEagle1 said: Still though, I haven't found a specific reason why this propulsion concept won't work (yet). Newton's third law of motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarEagle1 Posted March 19, 2023 Author Share Posted March 19, 2023 I messed up some, but I'm still learning. Thanks for the help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufofrog Posted March 19, 2023 Share Posted March 19, 2023 5 hours ago, StarEagle1 said: I messed up some, but I'm still learning. Thanks for the help. Learning is what it is all about. If you are not sure about an aspect of science ask a question, this site has a lot of very smart people willing to help. I have learned a lot from the people on this site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarEagle1 Posted April 6, 2023 Author Share Posted April 6, 2023 I know, reactionless drives don't work. But, since this idea is so simple, I thought someone might be amused by it: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now