PDA

View Full Version : i have invented an engine for propulsion somebody provide me with motor companies pls



raaaid
01-17-2005, 04:37 PM
please if somebody know adress, email, names or any hint that can lead me to engine developers please post it here since i have something quite important

i will explain it briefly if somebody is curious:
you have one cigarete in each one of your hands and they spin counterotatory, lets take a look at one of then, you hold it in the midle with the filter pointing at three, you spin it till twelve moving smoothly the axe in such a way you end holding it in by the extreme oposite to the filter, from twelve to nine you recenter the axe holding the cigarete by the center now,then you repeat the same operation with the extreme oposite to the filter that is pointing now at 9 and make it go to 12 displacing the hold of the cigarete towards the filter now. If the cilinders spin fast enough there will be more centrifugal force in the top half than in the bottom half making the object acelerate upwards.

the key is that the center of gravity is always in the top half, and the most important is that is the centrifugal force produced by the spinning what takes away the center of gravity from the axe once the cilinder slightly unbalanced (when the filter points at 3) and always does it in the upper half

Zeus-cat
01-17-2005, 04:39 PM
Your engine won't work. There is no such thing as centrifugal force.

Zeus-cat

WTE_Dukayn
01-17-2005, 04:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
There is no such thing as centrifugal force. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
uhm...really? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Owlsphone
01-17-2005, 04:58 PM
Really. Centrifugal force is actually a fake force. "Centrifugal force" is really just a way to help explain the effects of inertia.

New_York_Flyer
01-17-2005, 04:58 PM
Thats a perpetual motion device...which i'm afriad isnt possible :'(

It would be cool if it were though...

Moses

kiddknapp59
01-17-2005, 05:03 PM
Yep, there is no centrifugal force; it is an imaginary force. And there is also no free lunch, so it won't work.

WTE_Dukayn
01-17-2005, 05:17 PM
no free lunch? but it said in the memo that lunch would be provided!...

raaaid
01-17-2005, 05:30 PM
put a heavy pendulum in a frame on wheels, the frame will move towards the left when the pendulum is on the left side and towards the right when the pendulum is on the right side, thats centrifugal force it rocks the spinning axe left and right
a phone vibrator works by centrifugal force it displaces slightly the spinning axe making it vibrate
both in the vibrator and the pendulum the object displaces in space back and forward, that can only be caused by a force, the centrifugal force, instead you want to call it normal force well thats ok also

ColoradoBBQ
01-17-2005, 05:43 PM
Your idea is sound but how do you sell this car to a soccer mom who needs to push it up a hill when there is nine snotty brats in the back screaming at her to hurry up?

kiddknapp59
01-17-2005, 05:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by raaaid:
that can only be caused by a force, the centrifugal force, instead you want to call it normal force well thats ok also <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's called a fictitious force: as in not a force at all.

Cragger
01-17-2005, 06:07 PM
Look up Centripetal Force. Centrifugal Force is mearly the effect of inertia, its not a real force.

raaaid
01-17-2005, 06:28 PM
exactly the centrifugal force truly is the inertia

my engine converts the spinning inertia to linear inertia

you want a proof that the spinning inertia can be converted to linear inertia read on:

you are floating in space you are very strong and you have stones tight to ropes under your arms, you are no spining no advancing you are at 0 speed from a reference, now you start spinning the stones counterotatory each time faster and faster and giving more rope away every time, what will happen? youll start moving back and forward

so you have started from a still position to move maybe 20 or 30 meters back and forward (you would have to have given away very much rope and be very strong),in fact this means there will be times when all the mass will be 20 or 30 meters away from the spinning axe

this is proof that the spining inertia or momentum can be converted into linear inertia and thats exactly what my engine does

SeaFireLIV
01-17-2005, 06:36 PM
If you`ve invented a new engine for propulsion don`t waste time telling us! Patent it fast before history records some other Jo as inventing it!

kiddknapp59
01-17-2005, 06:38 PM
So your engine only works in space? That€ll come in handy. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Remember, you have to feed the person swinging the stones, or he runs out of ENERGY.

clint-ruin
01-17-2005, 06:45 PM
TIMECUBE HAS NO NEED FOR YOUR CENTRIPETAL FORCE.

Spinnetti
01-17-2005, 07:02 PM
Let me guess. You are trying to get money out of Nigeria?

A ciggy engineer?

Please, you can't be serious. As if there were some 'list' of engine deisgners just waiting to hear from crackpots.....

Though there is no centrifugal force, there is centripital acceleration...

F4U_Flyer
01-17-2005, 07:09 PM
Where is "Luke" ,We need the "Force" !

"Egads" ! You invent a new power source and you come here for advice??

Try a google search for engine developers.

kiddknapp59
01-17-2005, 07:29 PM
What I want to know is what is he going to spin the cylinders with? I suggest a Dodge Hemi. But wait, if you had a Hemi why would you need the cylinders? Ah, I get it. You don't.

DHC2Pilot
01-17-2005, 07:31 PM
CENTRIPETAL force is the inward force on a body moving in a curved path around another body. "Centrifugal" force is a made up term to describe the force trying to push it outward in a straight path from the center object it is rotating around. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The physics are real, however the term "centrifugal" is widely misused in place of the real centripetal force.

DHC2Pilot
01-17-2005, 07:34 PM
And don't forget the law 'Energy cannot be created or destroyed - it can only be changed in form'. You would have to create energy (can't be done), or transfer it from another source to have your idea work. Basically pointless.

TooFastForLove.
01-17-2005, 07:38 PM
This reminds me of my little brother who recently thought he could build a perpetual motion machine. He thought spinning cylinders with magnets each inverted from the next around the outside given a kick start will continue to spin forever. I laughed as he slapped an example together an example out of mechano and powerful speaker magnets. It spun for all of 3 seconds. And to think he is 17 years old.

raaaid
01-17-2005, 08:55 PM
im not saying is a perpetual movil i say that with this device you can transform spin into aceleration, so you only have to make the cilinders spin and when it reaches enough velocity it will start acelerating

theres a precedent for this if you make a search for lifters and antigravity youll see theres a way for electrical propulsion by means of high voltage and people make them at home and they work so my idea is not imposible

kiddknapp59
01-17-2005, 09:04 PM
I did a Google search for flying ponies and got 11 pages of hits; I have my doubts.

BaldieJr
01-17-2005, 09:24 PM
Well its no wonder the cig companies seem so delighted to help everyone quite smoking.

It seems they've discovered the Smokers Motor and plan to profit!

Haliburton is probably behind all of this!!!11

kiddknapp59
01-17-2005, 09:29 PM
First of all, you don€t have an idea; you have half of an idea based on 400 year-old Newtonian physics. And it isn€t an original idea either. The internal combustion engine, the electric motor, the jet engine, all turn spin into acceleration. You haven€t even told us what the power source is because you don€t have one.
Bottom line. There are over 6 billion people on this planet. There are no original ideas anymore. That ship sailed. Now we have variations on a theme, but no more original ideas. Even during Newton€s time several people had discovered calculus at about the same time. No original ideas. Maybe the liquid donut, but other than that, no.
Antigravity? They don€t even know exactly what gravity is (massive objects warp space-time doesn€t really explain it all). How on earth could some dork create antigravity in his garage? And all the while NASA is still strapping people to solid rocket boosters? Do you see the inequity here?

RocketRobin__
01-17-2005, 10:40 PM
This is nothing new. Clausbetarians have been using that technology for umpteen years.
How do you think Santa's sleigh can get to every child's house in a single night?

LEXX_Luthor
01-17-2005, 11:30 PM
I think raiid just invented the aircraft propeller for us.

Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif Now we can flight sim

clint-ruin
01-17-2005, 11:34 PM
Wasn't raaaid the guy who was posting a whole bunch of threads on ORR saying that Oleg fundamentally misunderstood the physics of lenses and flight?

LEXX_Luthor
01-17-2005, 11:43 PM
Everybody here does that

actionhank1786
01-18-2005, 12:31 AM
i think now would be a good time to announce,
That i rule

raaaid
01-18-2005, 04:32 AM
it converts spining inertia to linear inertia but it does it different both to a propeller or a reaction engine because it doesnt have to give away mass to acelerate, the propeller throws back air and the reaction engine sends back away explosioned fuel. my engine would work without giving away mass so would work in empty space.

as for the power source it can be any of the spinning engines already invented that work with electricity or gas.

the engine works by the aplication of basics physics and if you have a knowledge of basic physics youll understand how it works, it works by inertial force, although i call it centrifugal force, certainly the name doesnt make any diference in the reality of the effect

Maple_Tiger
01-18-2005, 04:37 AM
May the force be with you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

WWSensei
01-18-2005, 05:27 AM
raaid,

Converting spinning inertia to linear inertia energy is not new--it's the main transition of enerby used for windmills. Been around for years. Attempts to come up with a seemingly low input energy type engine is also not new. Most recently I saw an engine that used propane bottles being heated by solar energy. They were in a pinwheel and as they were heated at the top the propane would condense and cause the wheel to turn.

They faced the same old problem--the energy of the rotating inertia to linear change is extremely inefficient. Friction in the device alone can use up 30% to 40% of the available energy.

You would have to calculate the energy output from the cigarettes and their differential to realized energy output. You would then have to construct a holding mechanism that would be light enough for the energy output to move and overcome friction.

I'm betting you could get it to turn a few times but it's energy output would be so low as to be impractical. By the time you could increase the energy output to sufficient levels your device would be too big to be reasonable.

A good course in statics and fluid dynamics would help you tremendously.

FF_Trozaka
01-18-2005, 05:29 AM
man, u can really tell when a patch is overdue around here, lol

XyZspineZyX
01-18-2005, 05:54 AM
Mmm, magnetic bearings = no friction.

I think Tesla did something similar in his New York lab (well the guy did come up with the gas turbine engine in the early 20's)
Strapped the device, air powered I think it was, to one of the main building supports in his lab, but had to destroy it when the vibration created reached a frequency began to cause tremors in the immediate area. When the frequency continued, the tremors got stronger and Tesla had no immediate means of turn the thing off, so he whacked it with a sledge hammer, instantly slowing down the device and resulting frequency.

raaaid
01-18-2005, 08:31 AM
the output for this engine would be awesome

imagine the cilinder 1 meter long and 10 kg weight and that you displace it 10 cm from the spinning axe when its pointing at 3 oclock and its spinning at 100 rad/s.

you have 9 kg spining in balance behaving as a giroscope and 1kg at a distance from the spinning axe of 0,55 m now lets aply the formula for the centrifugal force w*w*r*m that would be 100*100*0.55*1 that gives a result of 5500 Newtons or 561 kg plenty enough to lift the 10 kg weight of the cilinder

besides it has no negative force because the unbalancingis made by pushing the cilinder towards 3 oclock which is anulated because the other cilinder is pushed at 9 oclock

XyZspineZyX
01-18-2005, 09:58 AM
I know what you mean now I think...
you've been looking at those desk ornament thingies, a sort of spinning rotating sculpture that you give a push to to get started and they keep on spinning. They're made out of wire and some do have some magnets.

Gawwad
01-18-2005, 11:13 AM
Lol, smart guys are u?
Realy? Is Centripetal Force not a real force???
Centripetal Force is a good name for the effect, because everyone can understand it.
So u don't have to use (not sure how to say this in english) "the masses slownes pushes something against something" or something like that...

Tully__
01-18-2005, 12:17 PM
Raaaid, you've neglected a force in your considerations of this idea. During the transfer of mass at the 3/9 positions, the rotating mass is imparting a large downward force on the axis of rotation, negating the upward force provided by the rotating mass's inertia at the top of the rotation. All you've got is a complicated way to generate friction (in the bearings).

Yellonet
01-18-2005, 12:22 PM
Centrifugal force is a "made up" force because sometimes it's easier to use when calculating forces.

Yellonet
01-18-2005, 12:32 PM
Hmm... this sounds a little like putting a big fan on your boat to blow on the sail...

Every force has an equal counter-force.

Gato__Loco
01-18-2005, 12:41 PM
raaaid, quick!! Go to your nearest university or community college and sign up for some intro physics courses. Then we can have this discussion again.

WWSensei
01-18-2005, 01:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the output for this engine would be awesome <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it would be very little because you are ignoring so many other factors it is apparent you only have the slimmest of knowledge of what you are dealing with.

Oh, and for the other poster magnetic bearings are not frictionless...the amount energy added to the machine by the magnets on the downswing would be equal to the amount of energy required to go back up...plus the friction of the mechanism to the air. Ignoring those real factors don't make your machine more efficient is just makes it appear you are throwing out data that doesn't agree with your desired result.

The end result is you have more energy being used in the conversion than is being output.

Do a google search for "Free Energy" and you can find literally hundreds of examples of similar type engines of which not one single working model has ever been produced.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>now lets aply the formula for the centrifugal force w*w*r*m <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Huh? The formula for Force is:

Force = Mass * (Velocity)^2 / Radius

You explantion of "no negative force because of the unbalancing" is a hand wave to the inconvient fact that you are ignoring the negative forces.

raaaid
01-18-2005, 01:39 PM
the translation of mass from 9 to 3 would push the spinning axe downwards if it was made at a slow spinning speed but if it is made fast enough this translation of mass is made by the transformation of spining inertia to linear inertia

you want a proof, imagine that instead of a cilinder we have a chain, at 9 (now the axe is spinning very fast) we put a little more chain to the right size, now what will take all the chain to one side and make it point at twelve is that mass that is unbalanced now that tends to go straight and is what pulls the rest of the chain to the 12 position.

when you unbalance the chain at 9 you will have a force pushing the axe towards 6 because you have pushed a mass but the other chain would be acting simetrically neutralizing both forces

if you were acelerating downwards because you had pushed the chain upwards the chain wouldnt be tense durin the circular trajectory, you cant only get a chain to tense by spinning it not by pushing it, you would only get the chain to tense for a fraction of second. In fact you are not pushing the chain you are spinning it fast, unbalancing it and if the spinning speed is enough you just let it go to 12 by it self and then from 12 to 9 you are pulling yourself by pulling a mass that has a high inertia and therefore has the efect of being aparently heavier

a spinning sling to throw stones doesnt have recoil, at least not backwards

a sportman throwing a hammer doesnt go backwards when he unholds the hammer

reaction in transformation of spinning force to linear force is more sutil, as is sutil as well the reaction force in a body acelerated by gravity

thanks for your opinion tully

kiddknapp59
01-18-2005, 02:12 PM
Have you ever heard of the law of €œConservation of Energy€? It doesn€t seem like you have.
A sportsman throwing a hammer DOES go backwards imperceptibly. You can€t see it because he out-masses the hammer by so much.
You claim to have invented a new engine that defies all laws of physics, and yet you can€t find an engine manufacturer?
General Motors
Ford
BMW
Toyota
Honda
Ferrari
Daimler/Chrysler
VW
Mitsubishi
Porsche
Just to name a few. And of course General Electric for electric motors.
You didn€t design an engine if you NEED an engine to make it work. You reinvented the flywheel.

x6BL_Brando
01-18-2005, 03:04 PM
Perfectly clear to me.....it ain't the cigarettes, it's what gets mixed in with 'em http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

rssmps
01-18-2005, 03:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by New_York_Flyer:
Thats a perpetual motion device...which i'm afriad isnt possible :'(
It would be cool if it were though...
Moses <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are YOU smoking?
Next you're going to tell me theres no Santa right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

raaaid
01-18-2005, 04:16 PM
if a sportman throws a hammer towards 12 the reaction force will be at 6, the vectorial product of the spin vector with the force that goes towards 12 is a vector that goes towards 6, on this way being counterotatory cilinders the reaction forces nulify each other

a hammer thrower when he unholds the hammer at 9 so it goes by the tangent towards 12, his last effort is pulling the hammer towards 9, here you see the reaction

raaaid
01-18-2005, 04:21 PM
where i said 6 i meant 9 o clock, in spinning things the reaction is to one side of the direction that the rocks take

DuxCorvan
01-18-2005, 04:27 PM
Even if it worked, you just had to invest more energy on it than the energy obtained. After all, you need to move your fingers -muscular force- to operate that cigarrette.

Not viable.

Spitf_ACE
01-18-2005, 05:36 PM
It's not viable, given the price of cigarettes these days.

XyZspineZyX
01-18-2005, 06:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWSensei:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the output for this engine would be awesome <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it would be very little because you are ignoring so many other factors it is apparent you only have the slimmest of knowledge of what you are dealing with.

Oh, and for the other poster magnetic bearings are not frictionless...the amount energy added to the machine by the magnets on the downswing would be equal to the amount of energy required to go back up...plus the friction of the mechanism to the air. Ignoring those real factors don't make your machine more efficient is just makes it appear you are throwing out data that doesn't agree with your desired result.

The end result is you have more energy being used in the conversion than is being output.

Do a google search for "Free Energy" and you can find literally hundreds of examples of similar type engines of which not one single working model has ever been produced.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>now lets aply the formula for the centrifugal force w*w*r*m <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Huh? The formula for Force is:

Force = Mass * (Velocity)^2 / Radius

You explantion of "no negative force because of the unbalancing" is a hand wave to the inconvient fact that you are ignoring the negative forces. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mmm, A shaft mounted on magnetic bearings, would indeed be frictionless I am sorry to say WWSensei.
You say; "the amount energy added to the machine by the magnets on the downswing would be equal to the amount of energy required to go back up...plus the friction of the mechanism to the air".

Huh...how does that affect contactpoints of the shaft where it resides in the bearings?

(Look at Japan's Maglev Railway)

You could put the mechanism within a vacuum, where there would be no air resistance whatsoever.
To pre empt further scientific analysis from you, there would have to be some sort of energy reducing seal (today's technology) to enable to the device to transmit it's energy through. Though possibly when the developers of the Force Field finally click on the fact that the power supply for such a thing needs to be driven from "timed and tuned, multiple supplies" instead of just one great big one (this will generate a field at the moment) that only lasts for a very, very short time indeed.
Some sort off energy seal could be used

Now I understand what the developer of the first steam engine went through, where it was scientifically proven that the train would travel at such a speed (some 30 -40 km/hour) that any passenger who was sitting in that train when it travelling at "full speed" would be pushed so hard into the back of thier seat, they would be crushed.

Never stop dreaming raaaid, Tesla was a dreamer too

01-18-2005, 06:07 PM
Greetings, all. I am a long-time lurker on this forum and a long-time player of the Il-2 series (since late 2001). Anyway, I am also an aernautical engineering student and have a hard time seeing a claim like this without refuting it--so I have finally been roused to action, and you will now be seeing more of me around here. Here goes the explanation. Hopefully it makes sense even if you haven't been afflicted with the idea of vectors.

I can't tell exactly what raaaid's device is from his description of it, but I gather that it's a spinning contraption that, if left floating freely in space, would accelerate of its own accord. According to Newton, for any massive body (or collection of them), F=ma, where F is the vector sum of external forces, m is the total mass, and a is the acceleration vector for the center of mass. The significance of this is that if there are no external forces (such as gravity, magnetism, being hit by a P-39's nose cannon, etc.), the device cannot possibly accelerate--if F=0, then obviously a=0 as well. It doesn't matter how cigarettes are rotated or where they are grasped--there are only internal forces involved (one part of the device pusing on another) and no acceleration of the whole device is possible. It is also impossible to change the anugular momentum of the device in this way (the angular velocity of the different parts may change, however).

It is also impossible to convert angular momentum to linear momentum or vice versa, for the above reason and because the idea is nonsensical. Angular and linear momentum have different units, so talking of converting one to the other is meaningless.

So, unless raaaid has discovered a way to get things to accelerate without applying a force to them, this idea is a waste of time. If you have done this, please tell us how--I expect there'll be a Nobel Prize for you as well...

Spitf_ACE
01-18-2005, 06:10 PM
Seriously,

the hammer thrower lets go of the hammer at 3'O'clock (for a right-handed thrower). The hammers velocity is in the direction of 12'o'clock, and that is the direction it goes.

The centripetal force on the hammer (ie. the throwers hands) is towards the centre of the circle, the hammer is at 3 so the force is towards 9.

The force on the thrower is equal and opposite to that on the hammer, and therefore towards 3'o'clock.

The thrower falls over, and out of the circle, because of the force; and the throw is called a foul.

Therefore, no result!

XyZspineZyX
01-18-2005, 06:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kiddknapp59:
Have you ever heard of the law of €œConservation of Energy€? It doesn€t seem like you have.
A sportsman throwing a hammer DOES go backwards imperceptibly. You can€t see it because he out-masses the hammer by so much.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No the hammerswinger doesn't goes in the reverse direction ever so slightly.

Have a look at film clips of the hammerswing.

He swings the hammer around and around. The hammer is in a centrifuge and at a certain moment, the swinger releases the hammer.
The hammer has been launched on a tangent at which point the hammerswinger still continues to rotate in the same direction.
All that centrifigal energy (kinetic energy, if you rather and is probably more accurate) has been converted into straightline travel.
Fair to say the swinger has slowed down but is still rotating in that same direction, as he was before the hammer was released.
He slows down because it is no longer required that he generate the force necessary to keep the hammer in it's centrifuge.

Spitf_ACE
01-18-2005, 06:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by G0OS3:
-there are only internal forces involved (one part of the device pusing on another) and no acceleration of the whole device is possible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, the point that has been missed is that, if this contraption were on earth, the force of gravity would hold it down, and the rest of the contraption wouldn't be seen to move.

Take it in to space, with no external forces, and all the forces of the machine cancel each other out. Therefore there is no acceleration. Leaving you with no energy gained.

kiddknapp59
01-18-2005, 06:23 PM
So he would react forward. Letting go of the hammer means he suddenly weighs that much less.
If I jump off of my roof onto the ground, the Earth moves ever so slightly.
When I fire my .45 it pushes me back with the same force as the bullet hitting the target; this is why no handgun will blow a man off his feet without blowing the shooter over as well. That's really all I meant; no action without reaction.

XyZspineZyX
01-18-2005, 06:27 PM
nO if you jump off the roof and hit the ground, you hurt yourself.

XyZspineZyX
01-18-2005, 06:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spitf_ACE:

Take it in to space, with no external forces, and all the forces of the machine cancel each other out. Therefore there is no acceleration. Leaving you with no energy gained. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In space even under "weightless conditions" (lack of gravity) you still have mass

BOPrey
01-18-2005, 07:09 PM
After reading all these. I still have no idea how raaid's "engine" work. I also have an idea, however, not an engine. It is a prop that allows planes take off strait up. It is not original either. So, you put two contateroting props at the center of gravity, one on either side of the wing. The props spin like they usually spin, except the downward spinning blades will have a large AOA than the upward spinning blades. Hence, the combined force is pointing up. Transiting to horizontal flight, gradually reduce the AoA of the downward spinning blades and do the opposite to the downward spinning blades. When both blades on both sides have the same AOA, transition to horizontal flight is completed.


Regards

raaaid
01-18-2005, 07:23 PM
most people here say it just cant be because its not posible, but they dont say an specific reason why it wouldnt work, this is normal because it works so you wont find a reason for it not working, ill explain it other way:

you are floating in space with rocks under your arms tight by ropes you start spinning them counterotatory over your head spinning them faster and faster every time and giving away more rope each time ,so from 0 you are acumulating a lot of momentum

when the stones are pointing at 3 and 9 you are moving forward at maximun speed when both rocks are at 12 you are at 0 speed, by spinning the rocks you are acelerating back and forward

when the rocks have a big momentum when they reach 6 and 9 you just let the ropes go so now both stones go straight towards 12, besides the holder of the stones is advancing forward because that was the way he was moving when he unhold the stones, he was advancing forward

the stones now are going towards 12 in a straight line now you just have to start pulling the ropes and youll be advancing forward

when you have the stones under you arms then repeat the process

is it untrue that when the guy unholds the rocks they go straight?

is it untrue that when you unhold the rocks at 6 and 9 you are pushed left and right so the reaction forces anulate each other (this is what the vectorial product says)

is it untrue that when you have the stones going forward at high speed you can pull the ropes making you advance

is it untrue that with the ropes and stones from 0 you can acumulate as much momentum as you want

this is like negating the theory of evolution its evident that is true and people still deny it

raaaid
01-18-2005, 07:34 PM
when the stones are at 3 and 9 you are at 0 speed when they are 12 you are at maximum speed my mistake before

sauron6
01-18-2005, 07:35 PM
Though his first post is as clear as mud, I see what he's trying to say. Not an 'engine', but an energy converter (like a propeller) - just horribly inefficient.

Raaid, one question: How old are you? (yes, I know that that's a dumb question on this board since few seem to be long past puberty, but what the heck. Could be someone with a future as a physics major, here).

BOPrey
01-18-2005, 07:53 PM
raaaid, after your spinning stone example. I will say it works, except it is ridiculous. Your scheme is no better than driving a car by turning its wheels with tiny rockets on their rims. Don't you think pushing the car forward with those rockets is a better solution.

BOPrey
01-18-2005, 08:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sauron6:
Raaid, one question: How old are you? (yes, I know that that's a dumb question on this board since few seem to be long past puberty, but what the heck. Could be someone with a future as a physics major, here). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He/she might not be young. I sometime see 30 somethings (my employees) come up with crazy ideas like that. Like when I ask one of my employee to copy a page from the phone book, he took out he new digital camera; took a shot of that page. Some how got the pix file to his laptop and print it off to a printer. This happens in a hotel we stayed for a trade show. I would've ripped that page from the phone book instead.

raaaid
01-18-2005, 08:17 PM
look what i just have found

http://www.americanantigravity.com/cook.html

i supose i wont have to worry any more about the invention but at least now i know i was right

by the way im 30

BM357_TinMan
01-18-2005, 08:31 PM
i didn't bother to read all 4 pages but I couldn't resist adding this...

In reality, they are right, centrifugal force(sp) does NOT exist. It is just the result of the objects tendancy to continue moving along the tangent vector to the curve created by the angular velocity (translationaly Velocity).

And THIS is what is REALLY going to blow your mind...

The real acceleration is TOWARD, not away from but TOWARD the center .....

01-18-2005, 08:51 PM
Okay, so we have an astronaut with these two rocks on ropes attached to his waist (or somewhere), and they are reeled in to begin with. Fine. Let's say both rocks start at 3 and 9, with 12 being the direction the astronaut is facing to begin with. He gives both rocks a nudge forward to start them spinning. When he does this, each rock gives him a nudge backward. The magnitude of the force applied to the astronaut by each rock is equal to that of the force which he applies to each rock. So, the rocks are accelerated forward and the astronaut is accelerated backward. A short time later, both rocks are moving forward and the astronaut is moving backward. Now, the astronaut has to hang on to the ropes if he wants the rocks to move in a circle. So, as he pulls on the rocks, they arc in toward each other, and as they both reach the 12 position, their linear momenta cancel out. By this time, the counter-force exerted by the ropes on the astronaut has arrested his backward speed, and he is once again stationary. Now he has to pull inward on the rocks to force them to follow the curved path he wants; the astronaut here is providing what can be thought of as the centripetal acceleration. As he does this, however, the ropes pull forward on him and he begins moving forward. As the rocks reach 3 and 9, both are moving backward, and the astronaut is now moving forward. We now have a mirror image of the beginning situation, and a mirrored version of the process just described is repeated. Note that at all times the linear (and angular) momenta of the various objects involved (rocks and astronaut) add to zero, the same total of either momentum we had when we started. If the astronaut lets the ropes increase in length, the same thing happens, but with different velocities. Still, the astronaut is always moving forward when the rocks move backward and vice versa, and the momenta always add to zero.

So, the problem with your reasoning is the idea that the astronaut is moving in the same direction as the rocks when they reach the 3 and 9 positions; he is actually moving away from them. When he releases them, he will then have to slow himself down to reel them in, rather than speed himself up. By the time he has reeled in the rocks, both he and they are once again stationary.

I have tried to describe what happens in this situation qualitatively--no matter what you do, this group of masses will always wind up stationary when it comes back together. However, the result is not limited to this situation only. If you take any system of massive particles that begins with a certain linear or angular momentum, the total momentum of that system will remain constant as long as only internal forces are involved. This is a direct consequence of the idea that, if particle A exerts a force on particle B, particle B exerts the opposite force on A. As long as this is true, then momentum always remains constant. The proof of this is not very hard--I can show it to you if you like.

The reason people have ignored the actual functioning of your system is that the actual functioning does not matter. The general case has already been considered, and we know what is and isn't possible already. As long as the principle of equal and opposite reactions is true, it doesn't matter what system you have cooked up--there is still no way to generate energy spontaneously with it.

raaaid
01-18-2005, 09:13 PM
when a sportsman throughs a hammer towards 12 unholding the stone at 3 the reaction force doesnt appear at 6 it appears at 9, and would be cotrarrested by the other simetrical cilinder

this contradicts newtons 3rd law of action and reaction because the reaction is not backwards it goes 90 degrees from the original force, newton was wrong

proof here

http://www.americanantigravity.com/cook.html

now that i have proofed my engine to work people cant say im a crackpot

unless i tell you now that i have the intuition that this device if made to float in space will be a free energy device

why because its very similar to the implosion of schauberger by means of vortex (spirals)

my engine is proofed that will lift http://www.americanantigravity.com/cook.html

and has two spirals (of a quarte of turn) that end in the axe that would be the vortex, and this is what my engine has in common with schauberger engines, now i have the feeling that it may have another thing in common and is the production of free energy

kiddknapp59
01-18-2005, 09:17 PM
A link to a website about antigravity isn€t proof of anything; except for the fact that you and the guys at the antigravity website are all crackpots.

XyZspineZyX
01-18-2005, 09:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kiddknapp59:
A link to a website about antigravity isn€t proof of anything; except for the fact that you and the guys at the antigravity website are all crackpots. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FMD

the only crackpot you could see is the one you look at in the mirror

CPS_Shadow
01-18-2005, 09:36 PM
Interesting animation of the concept.

http://www.forceborne.com/FBW/bngimages/cip_ani.htm

(The animation is very slow to load.)

Mass is always higher on the one side of the device so the centripetal force equation F=mv2/r (Force=mass*velocity squared divided by the radius) would always be unbalanced in one direction.

When I look at the forces involved I see a side to side vibration and a forward velocity.

Expected to find tons of sites explaing why I was wrong about that, and that pointed out the error. Didn't find any.

So... am I missing something?

Edit BTW it sounds like after fourty years he only has it producing about 5 pounds of thrust so I'm not too exited about it, yet.

raaaid
01-18-2005, 09:48 PM
there will not be side to side movement since the lateral forces balance each other

there will be neither downwards push because the center of gravity is always in the upper half and this center of gravity is taken away by the centrifugal force not by pushing it therefore the reaction appear pointing at 9 and the other reaction points at 3

besides the spining axe will be pushed up when the center of gravity is in the top half When the center of gravity goes in the bottom part it would go down but this never happens

kiddknapp59
01-18-2005, 10:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vagueout:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kiddknapp59:
A link to a website about antigravity isn€t proof of anything; except for the fact that you and the guys at the antigravity website are all crackpots. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FMD

the only crackpot you could see is the one you look at in the mirror <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you speaking from experience?

ShadowHawk__
01-18-2005, 10:13 PM
Impossible, three words: Conservation of Momentum. Take a university level mechanical physics course and it will all make sense.

kiddknapp59
01-18-2005, 10:17 PM
ShadowHawk, there seems to be a few here that either don€t know what that means or chose to ignore it and all the other laws of physics; Conservation of Energy anyone? The same people who believe in antigravity, the face on Mars, alien visitors, unicorns. You get the idea.

HelSqnProtos
01-18-2005, 10:21 PM
This thread is ghey. Let it die.

01-18-2005, 10:22 PM
Here is why your idea won't work:

This (http://img32.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img32&image=proof6am.jpg) is a proof showing that the net momentum of a system of particles cannot be changed unless external forces act on it. You claim that yours can accelerate in the absence of external forces; this is why it can't. The only assumptions I make are that Newton's laws are true. It has been shown (extensively) by experiment that they are true for speeds much less than the speed of light (which we are talking about here). The people on the antigravity website are lying, unless they have found a loophole in Newton's laws (which is possible, of course). I don't see any videos of the thing working, though.


If you don't understand the math, you can either learn it or invent something better and teach it to all of us. Or you could go outside, start swinging some stones around you, and post a video of how you lift off. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

And with that, I am done trying to kill this idea! I think I'll go and discuss Il-2 now...

Edit: The system described is not an engine. Engines convert one form of energy to another--this one claims to create energy. It violates Newton's laws, because it requires that various objects accelerate without forces being applied to them, or that forces do not appear in equal and opposite pairs. It also violates the law of conservation of mass and energy, since it requires that the energy of the system increase without energy being transferred to the system.

clint-ruin
01-18-2005, 10:38 PM
http://www.phact.org/e/dennis4.html

And be sure to check the Free Energy FAQ link at the end.

CPS_Shadow
01-18-2005, 10:45 PM
Ok... if you guys are such great physicists then point out to me where the opposing force is comming from in the animation. I am probably just missing it, but I don't see it.

Just belittling it's source, or stating it violates the laws of physics, doesn't do much to explain it.

Edit: BTW what is being discussed here is niether free energy nor perpetual motion. The system described is motor driven and takes energy to run. It does however violate Newton's laws.

clint-ruin
01-18-2005, 11:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CPS_Shadow:
Ok... if you guys are such great physicists then point out to me where the opposing force is comming from in the animation. I am probably just missing it, but I don't see it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are being shown a torque generator.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Just belittling it's source, or stating it violates the laws of physics, doesn't do much to explain it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I link to Robert Cook I would be more careful about linking to the face on mars immediately below it, at least if I was looking for his ideas to be accepted.

It is up to Robert Cook to prove that his invention works.

He has videos on his site of the "real" machine which do not even pass the laugh test - showing parts of the machine in isolation. Frauds of this nature have been pulled off before where the entire surrounding room on the observer has been used to hide the power source. Not good enough to place a shakycam video at a low bitrate [the mark of quality] that shows one spinning arm slapping another and nothing else.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Edit: BTW what is being discussed here is niether free energy nor perpetual motion. The system described is motor driven and takes energy to run. It does however violate Newton's laws. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now I'm confused. Is this or isn't this a machine that is supposed to produce an internal reactionless force, in one direction?

CPS_Shadow
01-19-2005, 12:45 AM
Thanks for the answer clint.

I will have to look into torque generators I did a quick search and came up empty. I will have to search deeper later.

Didn't see a mars face on the page I linked to http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, did see some stuff that I considered rather far fetched on his site. And don't really see that he has come close to having a practical idea.

Didn't link to the videos because I didn't consider them proof either.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Now I'm confused. Is this or isn't this a machine that is supposed to produce an internal reactionless force, in one direction? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes but it's niether free energy nor perpetual. i.e. it consumes energy and will not run for ever. It consumes energy to produce it's "internal reactionless force, in one direction."

I'm not saying the thing works either, I suspect I am missing something. And believe me I am not about to invest or send money.

But... usually in these types of devices I can find the counter force or the error.

I am missing it when I look at the animation, the animation does look like the forces are out of balance, which would cause motion.

This is mostly curiosity for me... I'm no physics major, just trying to understand in simplistic terms why it doesn't work.

I will look more into torque generator's maybe that will help.

CPS_Shadow
01-19-2005, 01:28 AM
I figured out why it doesn't work. Will explain in a bit.

Fillmore
01-19-2005, 01:32 AM
"proof here

http://www.americanantigravity.com/cook.html

now that i have proofed my engine to work people cant say im a crackpot
"

The most disturbing thing about this thread and your statements aren't that they violate accepted laws of physics or any such thing. What is disturbing is the idea that a bunch of words, equations, diagrams or a linked webpage showing same, is proof of anything.

There is one and only one way to prove that your engine works, and that is to build it and have the completed engine tested by a third party in their own laboratory.

Patents do not require working models, nor do videos or websites, but proof does require a working model. And not just models that show "tests" of "parts" of the engine to show that those parts work, but a complete working example, that is the one and only proof of any such "engine".

CPS_Shadow
01-19-2005, 02:23 AM
Ok... If it had just passed the weight from one arm to the other I would have gotten it right off the bat. The force needed to accelerate the weight in the oposite direction would have offset the forward thrust.

My problem was thinking that the little counter wieghted wheels offset the forces. The fact is they don't. If you attached a pen to the permanent weights they would draw a simple wave pattern the swapped weights however would draw an oval. The combined forces of the two types of weights are very different from each other.

The net effect is no different than if it had just passed the weight off from one arm to the other. It just does it at a slower pace.

Based on that I'd say it doesn't work.

flyboy_112th
01-19-2005, 04:09 AM
Bingo! I've got it (and why you see a forward movement in one of Cook's videos).

What is happening here is that the masses are being accelerated forward at a rate which *doesn't quite* overcome the static friction of the device, so it stays put. On the decceleration (WRT the observer) and subsequent rearward acceleration, however, the rate is quite fast, easily able to overcome the static friction and propel the mechanism forward.

What we have here, ladies and gentlemen, is a ratchet. A finely-tuned, very clever, friction-based ratchet.

flyboy_112th
01-19-2005, 04:55 AM
Actually, I just read this:

http://www.forceborne.com/FBW/commentary.htm

This guy (Cook) just moved from "harmless inventor" to "harmful pedaller of myths" in my book.

clint-ruin
01-19-2005, 06:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by flyboy_112th:
Actually, I just read this:

http://www.forceborne.com/FBW/commentary.htm

This guy (Cook) just moved from "harmless inventor" to "harmful pedaller of myths" in my book. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's some A grade crazy going on there.

While I was digging around about the machine, I found a lovely tangent site to this which are worth checking out. Whatever you think the machine is supposed to do or actually does :>

The Museum of Unworkable Devices (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm) under which:

The Psychology of Perpetual Motion Machine Inventors (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/psych.htm)
Physics 101 for Perpetual Motion Machine Inventors (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/phys101.htm)

are brilliant :>

I am sure that Cook at least shares the desire of having a special loophole for his particular idea in the laws of physics.

Mjollnir111675
01-19-2005, 06:53 AM
@Raaaid,

Not to hi-jack your thread or anyone elses thoughts...

Dont worry man I had thought several(5 or 6 years now) years ago that my idea of a "laser spark plug" was original to myself.An idea spurred by my Chevelle ,the ever tightening emissions laws, and always that quest for a little more h.p.. So after alot of thinking I came up with this idea.
Only years after when I truly began to think of a way to design and produce it(after alot of learning about laser amplification and fiberoptics) that I was searching for materials on the net only to find out that it wasn't as original an idea as I had previously thought nor did I have the MASSIVE funds,someone in the industry with a little pull etc. etc. etc..
It is now in use in deisels I believe.
I got so angry that someone had beaten me to the punch.But oh well man I had really neither the funds nor support of the idea itself..
And to back you up just a little, keep going with it.My father thought I was a weirdo when I approached him with this idea.He said no way. Now every now and then I will find a webpage with some of these plugs(just to see how my little shared brain child is doing) and e mail it to him just to show him that no matter how abstract a thought may be it can be made reality!!
Heck even if it never sees the day of light or is someone elses idea(with out you knowing) atleast you know the ilk of whom you are on par with.


Hey 1-C: PIMP OUR TORP PLANES!! ALL NATIONS AND ALL STATIONS REPRESENTED!!

SeaFireLIV
01-19-2005, 06:55 AM
I guess we should be glad that people are looking into some of the more `wackier` side of things. It`s stuff like this that can actually lead to inventions that were once deemed impossible by the mainstream crowd.

Keep at it, noob-inventors! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif