i have an idea for a reactionless engine

[raaaid]

This is an idea for a reactionless engine that can be built with pistons and cylinders:

imagine you are at the top of a 10 story building, at the bottom a cannonball is shot horizontally and is tight with a rope you are holding with a frictionless gloves

lets neglect gravity and consider the rope weightless, the ball is going straight and since you are letting the rope glide in your hands it keeps that direction for as long as necessary

you apply a force or tension to the rope of 1 kg during one second when you are right above the cannon, that pulls you downwards but the trajectory of the ball is now slightly upwards

you wait for as long as necessary without applying tension to the rope
till the ball is in your horizontal at an altitude of 10 stories

now when the cannonball is in your horizontal you keep a constant tension of 1kg on the rope what means you are being pulled rightwards and UPWARDS

at a given moment youll have the ball going totally upwards so all you have to do is hold the rope tight and be pulled up

when the ball is shot you apply the 1 kg tension when the ball is right underneath you

if after applying the 1 kg tension the ball takes 1000 seconds to get to my horizontal it would be the same effect if I applied a constant tension of 1 gram during those 1000 seconds this would be more convenient

by holding a tension of 1 gram or 1 kg I mean to let the rope glide and go away in such a way that the force indicated by a dynamometer put in the rope would be that one of 1 gram or kg actually my gloves wouldn’t be frictionless anymore they would cause a slight friction that would cause a slight tension

there will be a transformation of the kinetic energy into a very slight down and lateral thrust first and then a bigger up and lateral thrust the lateral thrust is annulated by a symmetrical set that acts like in a mirror


lets suppose we throw the ball with a given energy and we apply a tension of 1 gram during 1000 seconds, the radius will increase a lot and the w decrease a lot so if it took to the ball to reach my horizontal 1000 seconds in reaching my vertical might take 2 or 3 or even 10 times more depending on the tension, the less the tension the more the radius what means the less the w and the more time the 1 gram force is applied in each quarter

so the initial kinetic energy is transformed into horizontal force and vertical force of which the upwards force will be 2, 3 or 10 times more than the downward force depending in the applied tension in the rope or the resultant radius

one of the interesting things of my engine is that like it is kept all time spinning the lateral forces are kept as energy

to build this engine would be very simple you need a pair of hollow cylinders that spin holded by their middle counterotatory in the inside there are two pistons facing each other and that always keep a constant distance so when one expands the other retracts

the movement is made in such a way that while the cylinder spins the piston that is pointing to 6 oclock is let go away from the center of spin and therefore the piston aiming to 12 is taken towards the center, when the pistons reach the horizontal the senses are inverted and the piston that before was let away from the center now is taken towards the center, each piston will be at the same distance from the center when they are vertical, when they are horizontal the difference in distance of each piston to the center is maximum one piston will have move totally away from the center while the other piston will have even pass through the center

said with another words all times a piston is in the bottom half of the circle its let go away from the center and if its at the top of the half is taken towards the center

the more the variation of radius the more the thrust therefore would be interesting that when the piston is taken towards the center it can go through it and pass it

theres only one gearing necessary and would be the one that relates the spinning with the movement of the pistons to this same gearing could be attached the spinning force that would produce the thrust I think the ideal would be using a motorcycle chain to unite the ends of the cylinder where the axes of the pistons are with the center axe of the cylinder using two chains for each piston axe united to the cylinder axe for reasons of balance

the amount of thrust depends on the w, the variation of radius and the weight of the pistons

[Skylark_air]

Gee, I hope it didn't take you long to figure that one out...

[Paul Wilson]

I have no idea whether you have something or not, but I will say that you have destroyed all hopes of patenting it or selling the idea, by publishing it in an open forum.
Patent Law is very strict, and what is public before patenting is not patentable afterwards.

p.s. a picture is worth a thousand words

[brain fade]

Dude, you need to get out more:p

[FakePilot]

Hah! Your idea is nothing compared to mine! (Well, I think, cause I didn't read your post in detail) You, know Sunday brain shutdown.

Ok, here's my idea. Put a winged vechicle on a track. Propel said vechicle with an electric motor and a propeller. Now as the cart flys down the track, use the lift to crank a generator. The wings can flap up and down. Power motor and charge battery.

Nobody has ever been able to answer why this doesn't work. Consider: A 737 with 2 engines produces max 50K thrust. But it can lift and hold some 130K pounds. So in this case, you get 80K pounds for "free."
As long as your mechanical inefficiencies don't go over 80K, you get a net gain.

Please somebody tell me what's wrong with this.

[Pielander]

I think I sort of understand what you mean. Of course, the idea is fundamentally flawed though, because if there's no net change in momentum over time (i.e. stuff coming out of the back), then there's no thrust. Sorry.

[millermilla]

I suspect in the vacum of space your 737 example may work but on terra firma we have gravity to deal with and yes 50K of thrust is capable of lifting 130K of aircraft but for how long? If fuel were free and limitless then maybee it works? I stand and wait to be corrected for there are far more inteligent people than me out there. As far as I know Newtons laws are infallible i.e as the wise man always said you dont ever get anything for free! Every action and all that!

Regards


Keith

[PAXboy]

lets neglect gravity and consider the rope weightless, No, lets not. Why? Because the rope is not weightless. Once you have explained how you can neglect gravity, then we can proceed to the next part of your story. Such as imaging how your balls can travel in this way....

--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

[FakePilot]

I'd also like to point out that Helicopter engines can generate more "thrust" than their weight. Actually they seem to like to use watts as a power unit, but when you do the math the max amount of engine output is greater then the power of gravity.
Hmmmmmmm......

C'mon guys, somebody knows the answer to this question! (I don't)

See I'm fine with the fact that a 100 pound rocket producing 100 pounds of thrust will hover. So what's the excuse for most airplanes? F15 generates more thrust than weight, I've been told, so it makes sense to me that it can fly.

[I.C.Nosignal]

The engines (or thrust) does not support the weight, the wings do that or in the case of a rotorcraft the rotor blades. The engines(or thrust) merely propel the aircraft forwards fast enough for the aerofoil to provide the lift I daresay that if you could sit a 737 vertically on its tail and run the engines at take off power all you would get would be a lot of noise!! and the aircraft would not move this is why vtol aircraft engines are extremely powerful in relation to their weight

[palgia]

When the F15 is using its thrust to suport itself (straight up) its behaving a lot more like a rocket than an airplane.

Airplanes do not need more thrust than lift to fly!
Thrust doesn't support an airplane, lift does. All the engines need to do is supply the speed to create the required dynamic pressure. In fact, with a Cl greater than 1 you can create more pressure differential over the wing than dynamic pressure.
How much dynamic pressure will be generated for an amount of thrust depends on the overall efficiency of the airplane.

Fakepilot

When you're looking at the thrust generated by piston engines, you have to look at the propulsive efficiency of the propeller/rotor blades. Engines produce power, propeller creates thrust. The propulsive efficiency of a helicopter main rotor is many times higher than most fixed wing engine propellers.

palgia

[Sootikin]

>Consider: A 737 with 2 engines produces max 50K thrust. But it
>can lift and hold some 130K pounds. So in this case, you get
>80K pounds for "free."


Atsa nothing. Consider a glider. No thrust, yet it doesn't plummet from the sky. Now THAT's efficient. I'm surprised that Ryanair aren't using JUST gliders. Think of if, no fuel costs. And if we ignore the cost of airframes and crew : we could have free flights.

Alternatively, I could check whether today is "National Troll Day"...

[Pielander]

I fear that may be the case. Shame on me for biting (twice):rolleyes:

http://www.pprune.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=163230

[FakePilot]

Sootikin,

I'm not trying to be a troll. I'm ok with gliders, because they convert altitude to speed, which is turned into lift. And then friendly drafts help out too. And gliders cheat, they get the tow plane to use it's fuel.

All my life I'm taught that whenever you get an action there's a reaction, i.e. nothing's free. So I don't see how adding thrust one way gives you more than twice the thrust another way. Someone mentioned time, however there's no time in force.

Mad Flt Scientist, I invoke thee! :)

[raaaid]

if you aply a force of 1 N to 1 kg during 1 second you get an speed of 1 m/s but if you apply it during 2 seconds you get double speed

if you aply a tension on the cable that holds the cannonball that is shot underneath you of w*w*m*r it will make a circle but if you apply half tension it will make an outwards spiral this is not studied well enough i think

the tension is constant because you aply the tension you want now the low constant tension means the radius increases which means the w decreases which means the cannonball stays longer in the second quarter of the spiral than in the first which means that the constant tension or force is aplied more time in the second quarter than in the first

the ball loses kinetic energy what slows even more the w but the tension is always the same

fakepilot about your question why a 737 with 50k force produces 130k force i have some weird explanation:

the wing makes the air flow in such a way that the higher the speed the less friction or resistance for the air to flow

the air goes in a trajectory and at a speed that the resistance of the air to flow becomes 0

the air now goes so fast and in such trajectory that the friction goes beyond 0 and becomes negative

a negative friction means thrust and this is what produces the extra 80k

this idea is based on schauberger ideas

[raaaid]

in my 7 last lines i was neglecting the hold dinamic sustentation concept the same reason many people in 1900 said flying was imposible

but i was thinkin in this flow "experiments" in which water made flow in spiral tubes would show at certain speed negative friction

i think the reason your invention wont work is becasue you wont be able to crank lift to conver it to force unless the plane actually really goes up

but like lift and weight are balanced, the force with which the plane will go up (the only way to cranck it is by the plane going up) will not be lift, but will be produced by the plane going up direction and the force with wich it will go up will be equivalent to the force of thrust sent down

[SLFguy]

Two things I hope for raaaid....

1. This engine comes with Neurofen as standard.

2. You let someone else write the manual.

:D

[FakePilot]

Well at least Raaaid tried to answer my question. That's better than most. Yes, I'm bitter. :)

My main problem with "free" sources of energy means that if things lined up correctly in the universe, a self-substaining release of "free" energy could result, releasing more energy, gaining more, until the universe blows up. So I'm not a big believer in perpetual motion or "free" energy.

Another idea is that somehow the motion of the airfoil through the air unleashes the potential energy of the compressed air. Air is under pressure after all. Then the wake and vortexes are the areas of "low energy" left behind, eventually corrected by gravity.
Just an idea....

I search on.

[Capt Pit Bull]

Fakepilot

Nobody has ever been able to answer why this doesn't work. Consider: A 737 with 2 engines produces max 50K thrust. But it can lift and hold some 130K pounds. So in this case, you get 80K pounds for "free."

Try this one on for size then.

Same aircraft, rolling slowly along the ramp, with engines at idle.

Now the engines are producing almost zero thrust, yet somehow still supporting the 130K pounds.

If you can spot the error in my statement then you ought to be able to spot the error in yours.


All my life I'm taught that whenever you get an action there's a reaction, i.e. nothing's free. So I don't see how adding thrust one way gives you more than twice the thrust another way.

Thats because it doesn't.

The aircraft is being held up by a different force than the thrust. In flight, its a reaction force from the air - i.e. lift. On the ground, its a reaction force from the ground.

In both cases there are frictional forces at work that are quite a bit smaller than what is holding the aircraft up. You need enough thrust to cancel out those forces.

Hence, on the ground, a trickle of thrust is all that is required to keep the aircraft moving.

In flight, the faster speeds mean a lot of drag, so quite a bit more thrust is required. But it is still relatively small compared to aircraft weight unless you start looking at supersonic speeds.

But its the same concept in both cases.


CPB

[Loose rivets]

The other reason that you can't patent your idea is that it's immediately obvious...a bar on a British patent for many years.

Furthermore. It's like another well known idea utilizing a cannon ball, rope and gloves. (Except that the gloves are hi friction)

The ball is spun on an horizontal axis, while standing on the edge of a cliff. The ball is then allowed to fly off upwards. The hi friction gloves allow one to suddenly grip the rope, thus allowing the spinnee to follow the ball.

[Global Pilot]

As of 1400Z on Feb 16 you have recieved almost a 1000 hits and 19 postings. That is a bit of a reaction....does that punch holes in your theory?

[Sootikin]

FakePilot :
>Consider: A 737 with 2 engines produces max 50K thrust. But it
>can lift and hold some 130K pounds. So in this case, you get >80K pounds for "free."

This time, a reply without sarcasm.

Forces are vector : they have both magnitude AND direction. Generally, Thrust and Weight act at right angles to one another, and thus do not interact.

I refer you to the Lift/Thrust/Drag/Weight diagram at:
How Planes Fly (http://www.aeromuseum.org/Education/Lessons/HowPlaneFly/HowPlaneFly.html)
For steady, level flight you just need Thrust = Drag, and Weight = Lift. There's no direct relationship between Thrust and Weight.

(Yes, it's a bit simplistic, but it is basically correct.)

Try considering your 737 flying vertically upwards : you'll soon see that you're not getting 80K for free.

[cwatters]

Fakepilot,

A 737 with 2 engines produces max 50K thrust. But it can lift and hold some 130K pounds. So in this case, you get 80K pounds for "free."

Nope.

Take a look at a crow bar...

I'm sure you will agree that the force that a crow bar can generate is much higher than the force applied? However you need to remember that...

Work done = Force x Distance

The output force may be greater than the input but the output distance is less. The equation you need to understand is...

Force IN x distance IN = Force OUT x distance OUT

or better still..

(Force OUT x distance OUT) - (Force IN x distance IN) = ZERO

An aeroplane is just a crowbar (Lever) in disguise.



Raaaid,

there will be a transformation of the kinetic energy into a very slight down and lateral thrust first and then a bigger up and lateral thrust the lateral thrust

But that matter not a bit.

As I said to Fakepilot...

The equation for work done includes distance (and the equation for energy include terms for distance and time). Your explanation ignores both.

If you do the analysis including those you will eventually see that the energy IN is always less than the energy OUT (even if the force/thrust OUT is greater).

A Force or thrust on its own can't be used to do any work. My feet always exert a force on the gound but that doesn't mean I can fly.

[Colonel W E Kurtz]

This guy has figured it out!!!!!!!!!!


http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifter4.htm

[raaaid]

there are one theory that says lifters work by sending a stream of ions away so they would be working by reaction

another theory says that the diferent sizes of electrodes makes ions follow the same pattern than the pistons follow in my engine
producing reactionless thrust

ive been two months constantly trying to post this idea to the best physics forum: www. physicsforums.com but its totally imposible even with diferent computers and emails for some reason or other it doesnt get published

i got it published in science physics forum but it was deleted with all my other posts related besides there were weirdest posts like that 2nd newton law was wrong or that the earth has a universal concious that can predict the future

and now in the science and physics forum im like in the physicsforums.com i cant register no matter what computer, internet conection or email i use

if joseph newman cant get his free energy invention mass produced besides having the support of 20 respected engineers who saw the device in action ideas like mine have no future even if they are right:mad: :rolleyes:

well i got it published in the advanced physics forum but only 19 visits so far

[cwatters]

There is no magic with lifters. They only work in air...

Full scientifc lab test in a vac here ....

http://www.blazelabs.com/l-vacuum.asp

Lifters are NOT reactionless. The ions push the air down just like a helicopter rotor does only less efficiently!

[raaaid]

lifters may throw down ions but whats for sure is that they dont through air down since its been tested with smoke and you could see clearly it didnt send any air down

[cwatters]

lifters may throw down ions but whats for sure is that they dont through air down since its been tested with smoke and you could see clearly it didnt send any air down

So the video clip on this page must be a fake then?.....

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

Quote: "Smoke testing for the Lifter technology demonstrates a pronounced effect on nearby air-molecules by the electric-fields present in the LIfter's air-gap during flight. These fields and associated high-voltage charge transfer through the air create an airflow in which the direction of air-movement is down through the vertical axis of the Lifter, creating an upward thrust along the center axis"

[raaaid]

then i must agree it works by reaction but i think my concept still is valid

you shoot the ball you aply a tension minor than v*v*m/r untill it reaches the horizontal now when it goes to the vertical you make the ball go to the original radius sou you aply a tension bigger than v*v*m/r so the tension or force is bigger in the second quarter than in the first but the time for each quarter is the same since they are simetrical trajectories

i dont think spiral trajectories centripetal force have been studied well enough since ive asked about this in an advanced mechanics forum and they have no idea

[james ozzie]

This excellent thread highlights the dangers present when making simplifications to explain complex problems. The simplifications are important but can mislead.

Can anyone out there explain how a car or a bicycle or a 747 makes a 180 turn with very little energy expended and yet produces a reversal of momentum? Simplistically, should not energy be expended to "stop" the vehicle & a similar amount be expended to "start" the vehicle in the opposite direction? We know this cannot be (it takes the same effort to cycle in a curve as in a straight line; cars use the same amount of fuel when turning as when going straight...or do they?) but what is the actual explantion?

I think the solution is to explain it for a wheeled vehicle & then translate the solution to an aircraft?

[cwatters]

Can anyone out there explain how a car or a bicycle or a 747 makes a 180 turn with very little energy expended and yet produces a reversal of momentum?


Who cares about momentum? It's conservation of energy thats important.

Start by working out how a rubber ball can bounce back up to (nearly) the height from which it was dropped. That also demonstrates a "reversal of momentum" as you put it.

.. but you missed the best example. The earth does the same thing! Every 6 months if finishes a 180 degree turn and heads off in the opposite direction to the way it was going 6 months earlier.

Hint: In theory a perfect ideal flywheel with no friction will never slow down.

[FakePilot]

Ok, I finally found a physics prof on campus who I hadn't cornered before. After I got him over the "You don't understand lift" nonsense he told me that the extra lift is coming from "molecular forces." Ok, I'll have to think about this one. However, another point he made was if you have a perfect fluid, and a perfect airfoil, the airfoil would produce lift without friction. I take this as that means you'd get lift forever without the airfoil slowing due to drag from any initial force you applied to it.

How about that?

[lhr_slots]

FakePilot

You could have a perfect fluid, but on below 2.2 K (about -270 deg C)! See the link below.


http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/8/3/1

[james ozzie]

Thank you cwatters for your interest

I thought this thread was canned until I found it under this new forum. (I maybe posted this reply twice so bear with me)

Lets keep it fun & not revert to textbooks!

Who cares about momentum ? Sir Isaac Newton, for one.

The bouncing ball: As it hits the wall/floor, it converts kinetic energy to potential energy in the compressed air/rubber & then expends this energy (most of it) in accelerating the ball backwards/upwards - not the same dynamic as a turning vehicle?

The earth: The earth does not rotate around the sun (whoa!!! let me finish..) but rather the sun & earth both rotate around a common axis, at their centre of gravity (as do the earth & moon hence tides). Hence orbiting bodies represent a closed rotating sytem in which angular momentum is conserved, as in your flywheel.

A smart pal came up with this rather logical explantion for turning vehicles: If you are on a raft & move around, the raft under you makes opposite movements. The bigger the raft, the less noticeable it is. If the raft is the earth, the movements are immeasurably small but still there. Also lots of simultaneous movements all cancel each other out.

Hence a turning vehicle "imparts" its momentum on the earth, be it via rubber tyres or aerofoils

Maybe a version of the conservation of angular momentum??

[raaaid]

i just please ask you to think about it with an open mind:

you shoot the cannonbal 100 m underneath you with 90º direction you apply 1 kg tension what puts the ball at 89º direction

now lets say you get down 100 m but the ball is at your horizontal going at 89º direction

you aply another 1 kg or even 10 kg of tension making the ball go 88º or less, now you brake so you dont go down any more and you are at ground level

now you aply another 1kg tension and wait now you are going up and the more you wait without aplying tension the more up you go and you have the ball going at 87º

now you are in your initial position with the ball going at 87º so you keep the 1 kg tension what pulls you UPWARDS for as long as necesary(if you dont aply tension you keep going up) untill the ball is going at 0º when you hold the cable tight and pulls you still more upwards

isnt this reactionless? and of course momentum has been kept it only has been transformed in direction 90º

[raaaid]

now that i had caught peoples atention in the advanced physics forum mechanics section with how a swing works by kicking your legs and was about to prove some reactionless force point this one:

the main problem to me seems that if you kick your legs forward when you are stopped your butt goes backwards with the swing, for the action of the legs forward theres the reaction of the swing backwards

but if you kick your legs forward when the swing goes forward (resonation) your butt doesnt react to the action of the feet instead it goes forward with more force than before

it doesnt seem logical to me i would understand it if you moved your feet the other way around

but now my computer remembered password is not valid so i cant post it

sometimes i wonder if free energy-antigravity doesnt lead to bend space and therefore to timetravel so its kept secret in order od instead of having a democratic future havin the future that a few people want

[raaaid]

im banned from the physicsforums.com and now my thread about my thought experiments that proves my engine to work has been locked and my next posts deleted in the advanced physics forum mechanics section:mad: :yuk:

[guclu]

Hi all,

first of all you have to compare apple to apple. 2 apple is not equal to 2 orange.

It is a mistake to compare 50K engine thrust with the aircraft wieght. They are acting in different planes. Thrust and drag are acting in the same plane and lift and weight are acting in another plane. This is in hand.

But to your main question how can 50K pounds lift 130K pounds.



Now let us remember F (force) = m (mass) X a (accelaration) .

So do not forget that pounds is only the mass part. There is also the accelaration. For us humans staying on the earth the accelaration is the gravity (9.81 m/s*s).

And to find the total thrust force acting on the aircraft you have to multipy it with the accelaration of the aircraft to find the force.

But do not forget that these forces are shown for the equilibirium state. That is steady level flight.

As you know from Bernoulli, the energy is constant. It only transforms from one form to another form. In case of our machine it converts the chemical energy from fuel into thrust through accelarating the air taken into the engine.

So we will make a mistake when we compare the thrust of the engines to taking 130K pounds airplane from 0knots to the air.

We have to compare the energy !

When the A/C is stopping it has no kinetic energy but potential energy. That is m (mass) x g (gravity) x h (height of the A/C).

When the a/c is airborne it has kinetic energy and potential energy. That is 0.5 x m (mass) x V * V (square of the A/C speed) and again the potential energy greater than on the runway but weight is getting less due to fuel burn.

But during this time the trust of the engine by changing the chemical energy of the fuel in to thrust . The energy of this is Thrust (in the form of Newton) x d (distance). And this energy is equal to the above mentioned energy + loss due to friction and heat loss - initial energy.

So you have to compare energy to energy. But if we are talking about a solid block standing still in the air and we do not care about how it came there and our only aim is to keep it standing still there then your comparision is corrcet.

I hope it helped.

Best Rgds,

Guclu Ulgenalp

[FakePilot]

raaaid,

The reason a swing works like it does is because from an external reference it does not contain any more "energy" then it did just hanging there. Because both high points counteract each other. Same thing happens with orbits. Physics is just another hobby for me, so please understand that I might have misused a word or two and always welcome correction.

And mentioning time travel is a good way to get banned on forums I would guess.

Hey, Pprune guys, when will your planes support 16x time compression like my flight sim planes do? Huh? I knew it. Too ashamed to admit it.

[raaaid]

i would recomend everybody watching the disclosure project video there they explain whats going on with ufos free energy and antigravity. 400 serious witnes explain their experiences and seems that ufos are hidden to hide free energy and antigravity from the public

i give up discussing this with physicist i just cant enter physicsforums.com after 20 tries even with different computers and internet conections they get deleted or im just not allowed to register

in the second physics forum my posts also got deleted and anyway is not serious enough

in the advanced physics forum my thought experiment got locked with no explanation and my nexts post deleted and judge by yourself if it deserved locking:
http://www.advancedphysics.org/viewthread.php?tid=1496


i just cant discuss it with any physicist


the very same week that my patent got published i got a nervous breakdown just like if i had had a bunch of lsd which i didnt take so i couldnt go on with the patent becoming public

1 year later the very same week i contact the patent ofice to try to recover the patent, i had another nervous breakdown so i lost property of the patent again

i have two things in common with joseph newman, suposely creator of a free energy device avalated by 30 engineers, first theres no way i can keep the patent private second the pistons of my engine move as newmans description of an electron in an atom, in inwards an outward spirals

spirals not enough studied in physics since no physicist know the centripetal force of a spiral formula and most not even know their basic properties

spirals not estudied enough except by schauberger suposely creator of implosion, free energy and antigravity in which clem would base his engine which would have been sold suposely to the general electric to die aged 30 of a heart atack the very next day

i may wasting my time or risking my life depending on wether my engine works or not which is stupid in both cases but anyhow ill keep a good concience and if 3rd ww starts for all the unjustices of the world, god wants not, i will have deserved to be in the group of people who die instantly and not in the group who starve to death paying their karma for having tolerated famine and suffering in asia and africa

[raaaid]

besides fakepilot it doesnt make sense i got banned from the physicsforums.com because of my 2 articles about this engine being a space time bender (i was under the efects of my second nervous breakdown when i wrote that) and at the same time they decide to make the 2 posts permanent

[raaaid]

i would appreciate if somebody posted this for me in the http://physicsforums.com/ since i cant if you cant either maybe im not so crazy: (hey maybe this works as schauberger engines and gives free energy so you would be helping to solve hunger and the registration in http://physicsforums.com/ is very fast



title:
thought experiment that if solved will prove 3rd principle to fail on spirals



im in a 10 m tower, a 1kg cannonball is shot underneath me horizontally at 10 m from me and im holding a cable that is tight to the ball, for the ball to make a circle the tension shown in a dinamometer put in the cable would be v*v*m/r= 1000N being the speed of the ball 100 m/s

i shoot the ball again and this time i let the cable slip or glide away in my hands in such a way that the tension shown is 100 N, lets neglect transformation of friction into heat, gravity and cable weight

how long will it take the ball to reach my horizontal?


what radius will have the cable when the ball is at my horizontal?

when the ball is at my horizontal going to my vertical what constant tension would show the dinamometer if when the ball reached my vertical had to have 10 m radius again by my having pulled the cable?

how long will it take it to reach my vertical?

the cable is pulled or let away by crancking the cable(rigid in this case) and the spinning axe in such a way that for every grade the axe spins the cable retracts or spands one meter or whatever necesary