Inertia Machine
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Corvallis, Oregon
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IFMU,
Could not agree more, just one teeny weenie test that involves 2, 4, or eight electric motors (Waspy77 that's were the torque comes from).
If any one asks nicely I will even publish a simple electrical diagram that controls the motors.
So then lots and lots of verbal analytical gymnastics and I am the only one to publish a diagram. As soon as a force diagram is on the thread I will post mine.
Jiff
Could not agree more, just one teeny weenie test that involves 2, 4, or eight electric motors (Waspy77 that's were the torque comes from).
If any one asks nicely I will even publish a simple electrical diagram that controls the motors.
So then lots and lots of verbal analytical gymnastics and I am the only one to publish a diagram. As soon as a force diagram is on the thread I will post mine.
Jiff
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jiff,
Your statement, "I am the only one to publish a diagram" is as foolish as your diagram. You have the bravado about your skills that is exactly matched by your lack of understanding of freshman college physics.
Build a model, and prove Newton a fool. Please.
Your statement, "I am the only one to publish a diagram" is as foolish as your diagram. You have the bravado about your skills that is exactly matched by your lack of understanding of freshman college physics.
Build a model, and prove Newton a fool. Please.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jiff,
Remember us skeptics will only be convinced by a sustained thrust. No videos of the machine twitching, with some overemotional response. It is fair to assume it will not lift it's own weight.
You will need a demonstrably frictionless and linear system, with a spring balance to precisely determine any thrust produced. A means of gust isolation is required - and this includes cooling fans, draughts, thermals etc. The exact energy input/output will need to be measured too, including voltage and current plotted against time.
However, be prepared to be unamazed. If this machine does not do exactly what you have hyped it up as doing, you MUST sit through the MIT freshman physics course video link posted earlier. This forum will require a signed confession saying that you recant your heresy, and wish to be cleansed of your non-newtonian beliefs. Your name will forever be darkened by the shadow of fringe practices...
Remember us skeptics will only be convinced by a sustained thrust. No videos of the machine twitching, with some overemotional response. It is fair to assume it will not lift it's own weight.
You will need a demonstrably frictionless and linear system, with a spring balance to precisely determine any thrust produced. A means of gust isolation is required - and this includes cooling fans, draughts, thermals etc. The exact energy input/output will need to be measured too, including voltage and current plotted against time.
However, be prepared to be unamazed. If this machine does not do exactly what you have hyped it up as doing, you MUST sit through the MIT freshman physics course video link posted earlier. This forum will require a signed confession saying that you recant your heresy, and wish to be cleansed of your non-newtonian beliefs. Your name will forever be darkened by the shadow of fringe practices...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Graviman, I think we have always agreed that the whole machine is impossible within Newtonian physics. I have at no point recanted any of the accepted laws of physics. I've been trying to find which of the assumed mechanical interactions contravene the established laws.
Why bother? Unless I can point to where my knowledge contradicts
something, I must always accept the unknown may turn round and bite me. Nobody has quickly been able to put it simply.
CF extists in a practical world, it can be varied by applying torque, and yet to create an action we need to also create a reaction.
The forces you describe at 2 and 3 are the very forces that Jiff's description claims can cause acceleration.
Firstly, as the dynamic conditions aren't fixed, I very quickly got to the point that for circular motion the driveshaft needs to be fixed, yet this contradicts that fact that if unconstrained, the machine will now be in an accelerating frame of reference. In essence we need to be able to create a remote force that can "tether" the driveshaft when we need to, and then release it for movement. If we can do that then why not just use it
directly?
Secondly, impulse mechanics quickly bounds the solution in terms of accelerations and velocities. It may even totally preclude it itself in practical terms.
Finally I combined the first and second items and have finally found what I needed.
Jiff, your force diagrams, can you publish them in terms of Force vs Time, and not Force vs Angular position.
Thanks for a very stimulating debate, now I sleep.
Why bother? Unless I can point to where my knowledge contradicts
something, I must always accept the unknown may turn round and bite me. Nobody has quickly been able to put it simply.
CF extists in a practical world, it can be varied by applying torque, and yet to create an action we need to also create a reaction.
The forces you describe at 2 and 3 are the very forces that Jiff's description claims can cause acceleration.
Firstly, as the dynamic conditions aren't fixed, I very quickly got to the point that for circular motion the driveshaft needs to be fixed, yet this contradicts that fact that if unconstrained, the machine will now be in an accelerating frame of reference. In essence we need to be able to create a remote force that can "tether" the driveshaft when we need to, and then release it for movement. If we can do that then why not just use it
directly?
Secondly, impulse mechanics quickly bounds the solution in terms of accelerations and velocities. It may even totally preclude it itself in practical terms.
Finally I combined the first and second items and have finally found what I needed.
Jiff, your force diagrams, can you publish them in terms of Force vs Time, and not Force vs Angular position.
Thanks for a very stimulating debate, now I sleep.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me posit why the device, which produces absolutely no thrust, can look to "weigh" less when placed an a scale. The effect is that the vibrating machine momentarily weighs "less" when the weights are being thrown downward, and momentarily weighs "more" when they are being thrown upward. Folks get fooled by the supposed different timings of the two cycles, and the idea that varying the speed/torque upward vs downward. They are the fodder that the inventor eats for breakfast. Those of us who see the whole as a box that never has more upforce than downforce - because it never does anything that is not balanced by another - know that it just vibrates a lot. Stand on a skateboard and wave a bowling ball around. If you get very good, you can roll forward and back a lot, but you will not go in any steady direction, because you are not changing momentum.
To make a compelling case, the unscrupulous inventor selects the right scale, one that has a natural vertical frequency selected to fool the fools. If the scale responds out of phase to the frequency, you can get it to "read" less than the still weight of the device. This does not mean it will fly, only that the scale and thingy system are in cahoots dynamically to point the weight needle a bit off.
Reporters and fools will then buy tickets on a flying saucer that vibrates itself upward.
Newton laughs.
To make a compelling case, the unscrupulous inventor selects the right scale, one that has a natural vertical frequency selected to fool the fools. If the scale responds out of phase to the frequency, you can get it to "read" less than the still weight of the device. This does not mean it will fly, only that the scale and thingy system are in cahoots dynamically to point the weight needle a bit off.
Reporters and fools will then buy tickets on a flying saucer that vibrates itself upward.
Newton laughs.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well this project will certainly fly over the cuckoo's nest...
Waspy, you are saying that by putting the rotating weight on a non-newtonian platform it will defy gravity?
Last edited by Graviman; 18th Jul 2007 at 21:04.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Graviman, stop trying to argue with what you think I'm saying, and actually read my last post.
I'm not over analysing, I'm exploring my own understanding, you obviously don't want to help, but please don't misrepresent me.
Anybody could have said, "Jiff, no reaction mass, no change in momentum". But like all such intellectual exercises I think it is important to understand where the misunderstanding comes from.
A force acts when on one side of the machine, greater in magnitude than it does when on the other side of the machine. This is a fact.
I'm not over analysing, I'm exploring my own understanding, you obviously don't want to help, but please don't misrepresent me.
Waspy, you are saying that by putting the rotating weight on a flying saucer it will defy gravity?
A force acts when on one side of the machine, greater in magnitude than it does when on the other side of the machine. This is a fact.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Waspy said, "A force acts when on one side of the machine, greater in magnitude than it does when on the other side of the machine. This is a fact."
Yes, purely from a peak magnitude, it is a fact. While the peak magnitude of the force on one side is perhaps greater, the curve shape is sharper, and the AVERAGE force is exactly the same. The somewhat lesser peak force peak on the other side has a longer duration (a softer peak) so that the average force on both sides is exactly the same. The net momentum affect (force times time) is precisely the same.
Both you and Jiff are fooled by some idea that the mass can be accelerated on one side differently than the other, all while the mass is physically tied in position. Your inability to picture this trapped mass as chained to an equality of acceleration is what has prolonged this thread. Do you think that this perpetual motion trash has never been thought of?
Yes, purely from a peak magnitude, it is a fact. While the peak magnitude of the force on one side is perhaps greater, the curve shape is sharper, and the AVERAGE force is exactly the same. The somewhat lesser peak force peak on the other side has a longer duration (a softer peak) so that the average force on both sides is exactly the same. The net momentum affect (force times time) is precisely the same.
Both you and Jiff are fooled by some idea that the mass can be accelerated on one side differently than the other, all while the mass is physically tied in position. Your inability to picture this trapped mass as chained to an equality of acceleration is what has prolonged this thread. Do you think that this perpetual motion trash has never been thought of?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Nick,
Not fooled, you do me an injustice. I would never have bought one.
This is definitely not a perpetual motion machine, to class it as such is misleading.
My continued participation in this thread was due to some people trying to explain that there were reaction forces that turn out not to be there. I wanted to try and understand what they were saying, and failed because it isn't true.
My intuition was that the dynamics should lead to elliptical motion. Any help in proving this would have been welcome. It was impulse analysis that gave me the answer I wanted. Had you have posted your latest post first
Jiff, I was attempting to draw up graphically, what Nick has just explained. Work out the impulse around the cycle.
Not fooled, you do me an injustice. I would never have bought one.
This is definitely not a perpetual motion machine, to class it as such is misleading.
My continued participation in this thread was due to some people trying to explain that there were reaction forces that turn out not to be there. I wanted to try and understand what they were saying, and failed because it isn't true.
My intuition was that the dynamics should lead to elliptical motion. Any help in proving this would have been welcome. It was impulse analysis that gave me the answer I wanted. Had you have posted your latest post first
Jiff, I was attempting to draw up graphically, what Nick has just explained. Work out the impulse around the cycle.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Waspy, my annoyance stemmed from the fact that you seemed to be introducing all sorts of complexity into this. This was why i suggested projecting the 2 rotor system to a 1d line (ie consider only vector compontent along intended line of "flight"). Linear momentum is the newtonian way of stating that the system centroid does not move. Since Ft=MV then the forces will just act to maintain the centroid position.
Your post #64 included the equation
, and you also stated in post #80
so it was fair to assume you were already integrating over time...
However, all finally resolved. The machine just sits there and shakes.
Your post #64 included the equation
, and you also stated in post #80
I have used a simulation (stepping at 0.001s) where the torque is constant at 1 positive 0-π and negative π-2π.
However, all finally resolved. The machine just sits there and shakes.
Last edited by Graviman; 19th Jul 2007 at 09:35.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
waspy said, "This is definitely not a perpetual motion machine, to class it as such is misleading."
Not at all. The physics of this situation are not subject to cherry-picking which ones, and which half of the cycle to apply them. If the mythical device can produce force without changing any momentum, it can change momentum by focusing that force. Those who accept the former are agreeing that the latter is also true - and they believe they have solved the quest for perpetual motion.
Sorry if this angers you (the red-faced little emoticon says so). This is a good discussion, and you have a darn good understanding of the situation - in fact, I can't figure out where you stand on this, because you flip from an erudite discussion of F=MA into a half backed analysis of half the cycle.
Not at all. The physics of this situation are not subject to cherry-picking which ones, and which half of the cycle to apply them. If the mythical device can produce force without changing any momentum, it can change momentum by focusing that force. Those who accept the former are agreeing that the latter is also true - and they believe they have solved the quest for perpetual motion.
Sorry if this angers you (the red-faced little emoticon says so). This is a good discussion, and you have a darn good understanding of the situation - in fact, I can't figure out where you stand on this, because you flip from an erudite discussion of F=MA into a half backed analysis of half the cycle.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jiff, the solution is:
When you integrate forces around the azimuth, as a function of angle, there is an apparent net force in the direction of maximum rotational speed.
However, when you integrate this force around the azimuth, as a funtion of time, the force sums to 0.0. Remember angle is a function of time.
Your machine is NoGo.
The confession need only denounce your subversive thoughts.
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-...ures/index.htm
When you integrate forces around the azimuth, as a function of angle, there is an apparent net force in the direction of maximum rotational speed.
However, when you integrate this force around the azimuth, as a funtion of time, the force sums to 0.0. Remember angle is a function of time.
Your machine is NoGo.
The confession need only denounce your subversive thoughts.
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-...ures/index.htm
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 431 Likes
on
227 Posts
Jiff, I think of your proposed machine as a bit like a rowing boat. Unfortunately, the difference is that the oar blades would be as if glued to the same piece of water. It will oscillate rather than propel.
You need to attach it to a ratchet system so once it moved in one direction it couldn't slip back to it's previous position. Wouldn't work for an aircraft though, it would all turn to rat chit.
The only way to prove / disprove your theory is to build your machine. I won't be buying shares though; I wouldn't re-mortgage your house to finance it either, if I were you.
Please film it and put it on Youtube.
You need to attach it to a ratchet system so once it moved in one direction it couldn't slip back to it's previous position. Wouldn't work for an aircraft though, it would all turn to rat chit.
The only way to prove / disprove your theory is to build your machine. I won't be buying shares though; I wouldn't re-mortgage your house to finance it either, if I were you.
Please film it and put it on Youtube.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those who wish to consider this scientific discussion; at a higher level.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqnEGu8VF8Y&mode
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqnEGu8VF8Y&mode