Inertia Machine
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Corvallis, Oregon
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
The device dose not utilise momentum, during the first half of a rotation, force is created as a result of a torque reaction created by accelerating a given mass. As that mass reaches the half way point, 180 deg, force in the same direction as the first half of a rotation is produced by decelerating that mass and producing a torque reaction in the opposit direction.
Well when Mr Newton got his brains bashed out by an apple it was inertia that made him look to the stars and not momentum, but then again I would love to hear an accurate discription of the difrence between inertia and momentum.
But what you really need is a great big pair of apples to demonstrate this...
Jiff
The device dose not utilise momentum, during the first half of a rotation, force is created as a result of a torque reaction created by accelerating a given mass. As that mass reaches the half way point, 180 deg, force in the same direction as the first half of a rotation is produced by decelerating that mass and producing a torque reaction in the opposit direction.
Well when Mr Newton got his brains bashed out by an apple it was inertia that made him look to the stars and not momentum, but then again I would love to hear an accurate discription of the difrence between inertia and momentum.
But what you really need is a great big pair of apples to demonstrate this...
Jiff
Sorry, your invention is anticipated by the "Dean Drive", for which there is considerable discussion in Analog Science Fiction magazine, around 1964, then edited by John Campbell.
[/IMG]
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jiff,
Unfortunately, your mis-understanding of the concepts of force, inertia and momentum need a bit of review if you think you can divorce inertia from the (non) resultant liftingforce or the time rate of change of the system's momentum. Newton would explain (has expalained) that the concepts of a lifting force, the inertia and the momentum are all locked in, in spite of your confusion.
Your diagrams can, however, be used. The reverse side will record many cribbage scores......
PS he Dean drive simply converts rotary to linear motion, it produces no force nor any lift. It is a sophisticated (impractical?) reciprocating crank equivalent.
Unfortunately, your mis-understanding of the concepts of force, inertia and momentum need a bit of review if you think you can divorce inertia from the (non) resultant liftingforce or the time rate of change of the system's momentum. Newton would explain (has expalained) that the concepts of a lifting force, the inertia and the momentum are all locked in, in spite of your confusion.
Your diagrams can, however, be used. The reverse side will record many cribbage scores......
PS he Dean drive simply converts rotary to linear motion, it produces no force nor any lift. It is a sophisticated (impractical?) reciprocating crank equivalent.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The primary characteristic of the Dean system is that it is a self-contained propulsion system not requiring the loss of mass.
In part from the Popular Science Magazine, Richard Dempewoiff, 1958, "Engine With Built In Wings". "Dean discovered he could develop tremendous one-directional thrust." Doing it sequentially would provide steady propulsion like no other. There would be no reaction against the earth or water or air. It would be a completely sustainable force in any direction it was pointed. It has earthly applications that were imponderable. However after receiving a mathematical report form a major university and its celebrated mathematician, it now had serious space applications also.
In part; the problem was what would happen to a 3000 thousand Ib. Load if it were attached to a 23hp. Dean Drive Unit developing 2,900 rev/min.; assuming no energy losses to friction? It would put that 30001b vehicle into zero gravity.
All other values remaining the same but increasing the hp to 150, and rpm to 4,600 we would have the minimum instantaneous vertical acceleration of that 3000 Ib vehicle to 49ft/sec. (It is a self contained propulsion generator).
Yeah, Right.
http://www.deanspacedrive.org/dean_drive.html
In part from the Popular Science Magazine, Richard Dempewoiff, 1958, "Engine With Built In Wings". "Dean discovered he could develop tremendous one-directional thrust." Doing it sequentially would provide steady propulsion like no other. There would be no reaction against the earth or water or air. It would be a completely sustainable force in any direction it was pointed. It has earthly applications that were imponderable. However after receiving a mathematical report form a major university and its celebrated mathematician, it now had serious space applications also.
In part; the problem was what would happen to a 3000 thousand Ib. Load if it were attached to a 23hp. Dean Drive Unit developing 2,900 rev/min.; assuming no energy losses to friction? It would put that 30001b vehicle into zero gravity.
All other values remaining the same but increasing the hp to 150, and rpm to 4,600 we would have the minimum instantaneous vertical acceleration of that 3000 Ib vehicle to 49ft/sec. (It is a self contained propulsion generator).
Yeah, Right.
http://www.deanspacedrive.org/dean_drive.html
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Corvallis, Oregon
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget,
"The primary characteristic of the Dean system is that it is a self-contained propulsion system not requiring the loss of mass."
Well this would also apply to a propellor or a rotor system.
The dean system while haveing a constant speed input will convert rotating mechanical horse power into a sinusoidal linear movement with equal total thrust produced in each direction. It would appear that there is a damper above the moving beam so the peak thrust in each direction may not be the same.
Nick,
Hmmmmm cribbidge hey, looking forward to poker or a ride in a minamalistic G
Jiff
"The primary characteristic of the Dean system is that it is a self-contained propulsion system not requiring the loss of mass."
Well this would also apply to a propellor or a rotor system.
The dean system while haveing a constant speed input will convert rotating mechanical horse power into a sinusoidal linear movement with equal total thrust produced in each direction. It would appear that there is a damper above the moving beam so the peak thrust in each direction may not be the same.
Nick,
Hmmmmm cribbidge hey, looking forward to poker or a ride in a minamalistic G
Jiff
Well this would also apply to a propellor or a rotor system.
Jiff,
Have you ever written down the equations of motion of the device? Or would they be hampered by their Newtonian limitations?
-- IFMU
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 46
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forces, or Momentum, the result is the same
Jiff,
regardless of whether you analyse it from the momentum perspective (as Nick Lappos has done correctly) or from the consideration of forces, the net reaction averaged over an entire cycle will be 0.
There are two forces that you need to look at:
1) The reaction force on the base plate of the machine generated by the acceleration and decceleration of the weights. As you have correctly analysed, this will provide a net average force in one direction over an entire cycle.
2) The centripetal force required to keep the weights moving in a circle (this is the force of constraint provided by the arms the weights are mounted on). As the weights are travelling at a faster speed on one side of the cycle, and slower on the other side of the cycle, the average centripetal force exerted by the baseplate on the rotating masses is not zero.
These two forces will end up cancelling each other out over an entire cycle.
Daniel
regardless of whether you analyse it from the momentum perspective (as Nick Lappos has done correctly) or from the consideration of forces, the net reaction averaged over an entire cycle will be 0.
There are two forces that you need to look at:
1) The reaction force on the base plate of the machine generated by the acceleration and decceleration of the weights. As you have correctly analysed, this will provide a net average force in one direction over an entire cycle.
2) The centripetal force required to keep the weights moving in a circle (this is the force of constraint provided by the arms the weights are mounted on). As the weights are travelling at a faster speed on one side of the cycle, and slower on the other side of the cycle, the average centripetal force exerted by the baseplate on the rotating masses is not zero.
These two forces will end up cancelling each other out over an entire cycle.
Daniel
"....inertia that made him look to the stars and not momentum..."
At least try and use technical terms in their correct sense, if you want to have an informed debate!
Otherwise kindly poke off!
At least try and use technical terms in their correct sense, if you want to have an informed debate!
Otherwise kindly poke off!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The torque reactors on the Space Telescope are similar to the device Jiff sketches. They use the conservation of angular momentum to simply rotate the telescope by rotating a spinning mass. Why? Because the exhaust of a reaction rocket motor would create a cloud of gas around the scope that would harm the image, and perhaps deposit on the optics. Of course, the "inertia" engine produces no thrust, it just re-points the direction of the total angular momentum of the scope system. Scroll down to "Pointing System" at this site:
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/servic...pe_systems.htm
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/servic...pe_systems.htm
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Corvallis, Oregon
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
212 man,
So which technical term was in the wrong sence?.
Ever understand the term dry sarcasm.....
Demar
I still do not agree with Nick's analysis however, I would like to know your understanding of the diffrence between inertia and momentum.
With regard to your second point weather you call it centrifugal or centripital force. Between 0 deg to 90 deg and 270 deg to 360 deg the force will still be in the same direction as the force produced by the reaction weights accelerating and decelerating
Nick
I agree with your hubble discription but not the no thrust part.
Regards
Jiff
So which technical term was in the wrong sence?.
Ever understand the term dry sarcasm.....
Demar
I still do not agree with Nick's analysis however, I would like to know your understanding of the diffrence between inertia and momentum.
With regard to your second point weather you call it centrifugal or centripital force. Between 0 deg to 90 deg and 270 deg to 360 deg the force will still be in the same direction as the force produced by the reaction weights accelerating and decelerating
Nick
I agree with your hubble discription but not the no thrust part.
Regards
Jiff
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Corvallis, Oregon
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apples
Ouch ouch ouch
Personally I never really knew Newton however I feel I have a reasonable understanding of something that flat fith lots of flashing lights.
How about a force, phase diagram.............oh go on then you first.
Jiff
Personally I never really knew Newton however I feel I have a reasonable understanding of something that flat fith lots of flashing lights.
How about a force, phase diagram.............oh go on then you first.
Jiff
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jiff,
Remember the analogy where a boy stands on a boat and throws a rock aftward, and the boy/boat system moves forward?
What happens if the boy does everything but forgets to let go of the rock? The boy/boat system moves forward, then moves aft as the rock moves in its arc. The boat oscillates back and forth, but the CG of the total system goes nowhere.
Your elaborate system is exactly that, and even if you plot forces and phases until you turn a bit purple, the net result for a set of masses that is still attached is that all the forces must sum back to zero net force.
In your system, the boy never tosses the rock, Jiff.
Remember the analogy where a boy stands on a boat and throws a rock aftward, and the boy/boat system moves forward?
What happens if the boy does everything but forgets to let go of the rock? The boy/boat system moves forward, then moves aft as the rock moves in its arc. The boat oscillates back and forth, but the CG of the total system goes nowhere.
Your elaborate system is exactly that, and even if you plot forces and phases until you turn a bit purple, the net result for a set of masses that is still attached is that all the forces must sum back to zero net force.
In your system, the boy never tosses the rock, Jiff.
Last edited by NickLappos; 12th Jul 2007 at 09:23.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Corvallis, Oregon
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
Assuming that the boy dose not let go of the rock but moves the rock along the centre line of the boat in an arc, then theoretically the boat will accelerate forward while the rock is accelerating in its arc and then decelerate to a stop as the rock decelerates, but overall moving forward and stopping and not oscilating
I do not feel the system is elloborate as it lends it's self to constant speed power mechanical sourse, driving through ofset gears. An electric motor or servo per reaction weight performes well and also has excelent controllability.
Best Regards
Jiff
Assuming that the boy dose not let go of the rock but moves the rock along the centre line of the boat in an arc, then theoretically the boat will accelerate forward while the rock is accelerating in its arc and then decelerate to a stop as the rock decelerates, but overall moving forward and stopping and not oscilating
I do not feel the system is elloborate as it lends it's self to constant speed power mechanical sourse, driving through ofset gears. An electric motor or servo per reaction weight performes well and also has excelent controllability.
Best Regards
Jiff
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jiff,
You are getting close:
The boat moves forward as the rock moves aft, then the boat moves aft as the rock moves forward. The net gain is zero. What about zero intrigues you?
You are getting close:
The boat moves forward as the rock moves aft, then the boat moves aft as the rock moves forward. The net gain is zero. What about zero intrigues you?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Corvallis, Oregon
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
After reviewing the force diagram I feel my first claim of 80% to 90% efficency is inacurate, 50% to 60% is realistic.
However you did not indicate that the rock moves back and forth, you only stated that the boy did everything but let the rock go.
The only thing about Zero that intriges me is the lack of gauges.
Regards
Jiff
After reviewing the force diagram I feel my first claim of 80% to 90% efficency is inacurate, 50% to 60% is realistic.
However you did not indicate that the rock moves back and forth, you only stated that the boy did everything but let the rock go.
The only thing about Zero that intriges me is the lack of gauges.
Regards
Jiff
The boy throws, boat accellerates. Boy reaches extent of his throw, boat decellerates. Stays there. Until, in fact, he pulls his hand back to not throw again. Boy pulls arm back, boat moves back. All this assumes boy is facing aft on said boat.
If the boy has an arm 3 miles long, he can move the boat something like 3miles * mass of rock / mass of boat. As long as he only does the fake throw once.
-- IFMU
If the boy has an arm 3 miles long, he can move the boat something like 3miles * mass of rock / mass of boat. As long as he only does the fake throw once.
-- IFMU
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 433 Likes
on
228 Posts
But the boy is acting as a power supply due to stored enrgy from his breakfast. Once he becomes hungry and tired, he will stop until fed lunch and the boat will come to a halt.
(Hamsters are the same, probably worse, due to their propensity to hibernate).
(Hamsters are the same, probably worse, due to their propensity to hibernate).
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Corvallis, Oregon
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deemar,
If looking at a single reaction weight your argument as stated in point #2 holds water and the vibration would be extreme for a single reaction weight.
Also with a single reaction weight force directional controlability is only acheivable from a mean perspective and therefore probbably unsuitable for a thrust producing device.
With two reaction weights force direction is exact however your second point still is reasonably significant, with the addition of two extra reaction weights your second argument loses more significance.
If you study page three you will notice that the machine is in balance therefore the centrifugal argument is almost zero if in a natural force direction produced.
Jiff
If looking at a single reaction weight your argument as stated in point #2 holds water and the vibration would be extreme for a single reaction weight.
Also with a single reaction weight force directional controlability is only acheivable from a mean perspective and therefore probbably unsuitable for a thrust producing device.
With two reaction weights force direction is exact however your second point still is reasonably significant, with the addition of two extra reaction weights your second argument loses more significance.
If you study page three you will notice that the machine is in balance therefore the centrifugal argument is almost zero if in a natural force direction produced.
Jiff