Inertia Machine
You can't expect us to do your homework for you. Scrap the napkins and get out the omega-r squareds and the f=ma's.
Or if mathematics is just a crutch for the clueless, then build it, fly it around, and we won't need a force diagram.
-- IFMU
Or if mathematics is just a crutch for the clueless, then build it, fly it around, and we won't need a force diagram.
-- IFMU
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it works!
i put 1 wheel weight of 20 grams on each of my holden comodore's wheels. one at 1200 one at 3, 6 & 9. i then went out to the local proving ground to conduct the test flight. i started of slow with a bit of vibration but pushed through feeling the exitment, i held the throttle flat to the floor boards, accelerating through terminal velocity she was all a shake, then without a word of a lie, sure enough it started to come off the ground. it was quit scarey knowing id just made history and posibly a time machine. my next test wil be all weights at 1200. stay posted.............
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Corvallis, Oregon
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vorticey,
Congratulations !!!!!!!!, I am yet to build a model, however I am thrilled to bits that yours worked.
I have spent some time refining the design and feel there is a solution to the vibration problem.
This incorporates a "Halo" gear with smaller reaction gears, which are hollowed out on one side and accelerate and decelerate as a result of the internal diameter of the “Halo” gear varying. The overall effect can be augmented by adding additional weights either to the wheel itself or attached to the wheel either directly or on an arm or via an additional geared unit.
The internal gears are held in place on a circular stator and while the halo gear is rotated the reaction gear is moved over a range equalling approximately one circumference length of a reaction wheel to enable a force direction change.
Congratulations !!!!!!!!, I am yet to build a model, however I am thrilled to bits that yours worked.
I have spent some time refining the design and feel there is a solution to the vibration problem.
This incorporates a "Halo" gear with smaller reaction gears, which are hollowed out on one side and accelerate and decelerate as a result of the internal diameter of the “Halo” gear varying. The overall effect can be augmented by adding additional weights either to the wheel itself or attached to the wheel either directly or on an arm or via an additional geared unit.
The internal gears are held in place on a circular stator and while the halo gear is rotated the reaction gear is moved over a range equalling approximately one circumference length of a reaction wheel to enable a force direction change.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick, my stance on this is simple.
I think this machine is impractical, but not impossible. The red face icon indicating my frustration at people saying that I was ignoring the laws of physics, when I was trying to apply them, and understand the consequences.
I don't think this is akin to perpetual motion, as no laws of physics are broken, it needs some other form of force to achieve the motion. I suspect friction would be a good one if wanting to set it off across a surface. ShyTorque suggested a ratchet which is much the same thing. The "down" cycle needs to be reacted, which gives the "equal and opposite". The machine attempts to constrain the mass to a circular motion, which causes the mass to "drag" the machine with it. The sums show that overall momentum will be conserved. Imagine throwing a very heavy ball into the air and not letting go. Whilst you are in contact with the ground, you can react the momentum change of the ball through the Earth. Once moving though, the ball's inertia will try and drag you up with it. We are allowing the machine to vibrate in one direction only, but if it lifts then it will immediately lose the ability to react against anything, and become ballistic.
Think a bigger bag now.
Use the Earth to react the force during the "down" cycle.
Using the inertia, generate a force sufficient to accelerate the machine to escape the Earth.
Use another massive body's gravity to react the next "down" cycle.
No laws of physics broken, as the reaction forces have been generated where necessary. Numbers a bit large to contemplate though
Graviman, my posts are somewhat confusing for which I apologise, as I was attempting to find a contravention of laws of physics (people kept telling me there was one) that wasn't there. My flash of light, was when Nick put simply what I had already come to the conclusion geometrically, but couldn't quite believe.
There may come a time when this machine is actually useful. But I have to say, if we can generate and control these kinds of forces, then maybe there is a more direct way of applying them
I think this machine is impractical, but not impossible. The red face icon indicating my frustration at people saying that I was ignoring the laws of physics, when I was trying to apply them, and understand the consequences.
I don't think this is akin to perpetual motion, as no laws of physics are broken, it needs some other form of force to achieve the motion. I suspect friction would be a good one if wanting to set it off across a surface. ShyTorque suggested a ratchet which is much the same thing. The "down" cycle needs to be reacted, which gives the "equal and opposite". The machine attempts to constrain the mass to a circular motion, which causes the mass to "drag" the machine with it. The sums show that overall momentum will be conserved. Imagine throwing a very heavy ball into the air and not letting go. Whilst you are in contact with the ground, you can react the momentum change of the ball through the Earth. Once moving though, the ball's inertia will try and drag you up with it. We are allowing the machine to vibrate in one direction only, but if it lifts then it will immediately lose the ability to react against anything, and become ballistic.
Think a bigger bag now.
Use the Earth to react the force during the "down" cycle.
Using the inertia, generate a force sufficient to accelerate the machine to escape the Earth.
Use another massive body's gravity to react the next "down" cycle.
No laws of physics broken, as the reaction forces have been generated where necessary. Numbers a bit large to contemplate though
Graviman, my posts are somewhat confusing for which I apologise, as I was attempting to find a contravention of laws of physics (people kept telling me there was one) that wasn't there. My flash of light, was when Nick put simply what I had already come to the conclusion geometrically, but couldn't quite believe.
There may come a time when this machine is actually useful. But I have to say, if we can generate and control these kinds of forces, then maybe there is a more direct way of applying them
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that most have agreed now, that if another force acts too, then the machine can work, in this case the force is hydrodynamic. The water pushes back. The question is, is it practical? Could more efficient motion be produced if the motor was attached to a propeller?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Battle with the Scientifically Challenged is now in full swing! This is like the zombie flicks where the dead rise again and again! The silly proposition is now supported by movies!
Here is a good discussion of how the foolish are sucked in:
An oscillation thruster (also known as a stiction drive, internal drive or slip-stick drive) uses the motion of internal masses to create a net thrust. These thrusters include either vibrational or rotating masses, in which one portion of the cyclical motion is high-speed, and the other low-speed, or alternately high and low impulse. The result is that for some of the motion there is a high force being generated, enough to overcome friction. However on the "return stroke" the force is not high enough, and any motion occurring in the first portion is not reset. In this way the devices "steal" working mass from their supporting surface, a fact that may not be apparent to casual observation.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionless_drive for the full article.
Lord, save us from this crap!
Here is a good discussion of how the foolish are sucked in:
An oscillation thruster (also known as a stiction drive, internal drive or slip-stick drive) uses the motion of internal masses to create a net thrust. These thrusters include either vibrational or rotating masses, in which one portion of the cyclical motion is high-speed, and the other low-speed, or alternately high and low impulse. The result is that for some of the motion there is a high force being generated, enough to overcome friction. However on the "return stroke" the force is not high enough, and any motion occurring in the first portion is not reset. In this way the devices "steal" working mass from their supporting surface, a fact that may not be apparent to casual observation.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionless_drive for the full article.
Lord, save us from this crap!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: earth
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know the very best inertia machine, that know man made mechanic's could ever beat. My wife's mouth it just never stops it goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on 
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Corvallis, Oregon
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Waspy 77
"If another force acts too", seems to work OK on the flat hard surface and as a pendulum.........
I feel that the Thornson Inertial Engine produces thrust by dealing with the forces that my designs dose but with a different technique. It would be interesting to see an efficiency comparison and I intend to study that design to see if anything can be learnt from it and if so improve the design that I am working on.
In my opinion the Thornson Inertial Engine is a brilliant design and before anyone criticises it they should first understand the design, review the evidence and drop their love affair with computerised simulation that will allow a 1000000 ton weight to balance on a one millimetre diameter wire, until they remember what happens in the real world.
Nick Lappos
It’s a good job that the lord did not save us from Galileo
"If another force acts too", seems to work OK on the flat hard surface and as a pendulum.........
I feel that the Thornson Inertial Engine produces thrust by dealing with the forces that my designs dose but with a different technique. It would be interesting to see an efficiency comparison and I intend to study that design to see if anything can be learnt from it and if so improve the design that I am working on.
In my opinion the Thornson Inertial Engine is a brilliant design and before anyone criticises it they should first understand the design, review the evidence and drop their love affair with computerised simulation that will allow a 1000000 ton weight to balance on a one millimetre diameter wire, until they remember what happens in the real world.
Nick Lappos
It’s a good job that the lord did not save us from Galileo
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
What is the point of making a machine that produces vibration in order to move, or fly (not that the latter would work)?
If there is also a requirement for friction to transmit the drive, (or a ratchet as I already mentioned), we simply could use very smooth wheels, instead.
In any event, why make a machine deliberately vibrate more than it does already for other reasons? We already have helicopters for that purpose.
If there is also a requirement for friction to transmit the drive, (or a ratchet as I already mentioned), we simply could use very smooth wheels, instead.
In any event, why make a machine deliberately vibrate more than it does already for other reasons? We already have helicopters for that purpose.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jiff,
You must be kidding, evoking Galileo's name in defense of your pablum. If Galileo were here today, he'd bend you over his knee and hit you with an oak board. He spent a lifetime trying to get dunderheads to stop believing what you are embracing!
It amazes me how folks think that the moon landings were faked and a vibratory oscillator somehow makes new physics. Jiff, exactly WHAT is your technical training and background?
HERE is another fake that you might like to espouse, it is the same mumbo-jumbo repackaged as new technology - water that burns:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6vSxR6UKFM
You must be kidding, evoking Galileo's name in defense of your pablum. If Galileo were here today, he'd bend you over his knee and hit you with an oak board. He spent a lifetime trying to get dunderheads to stop believing what you are embracing!
It amazes me how folks think that the moon landings were faked and a vibratory oscillator somehow makes new physics. Jiff, exactly WHAT is your technical training and background?
HERE is another fake that you might like to espouse, it is the same mumbo-jumbo repackaged as new technology - water that burns:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6vSxR6UKFM
Plastic PPRuNer
Extraordinary claims (such as this one, which suggests that some unbalanced clockwork is somehow able to violate Newton's Third Law) demand extraordinary proofs.
I see none, either ordinary or extraordinary (I'm not impressed by bits of Tupperware drifting in someone's bathtub, or by math where half the equation is missing).
Still, it's an interesting thread, if only because it explores the borders of human credulity!
I see none, either ordinary or extraordinary (I'm not impressed by bits of Tupperware drifting in someone's bathtub, or by math where half the equation is missing).
Still, it's an interesting thread, if only because it explores the borders of human credulity!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sailing boats are propelled by the movement of air. The movement of the earth's north magnetic pole is accelerating rapidly.
How about a magnetic vehicle that 'sails' the north pole? The only cost is that of slowing down the movement of the magnetic north pole. 
To get serious for a moment and talk about helicopters;
Jiff, the owner of this thread, invoked the Lord when saying "It’s a good job that the lord did not save us from Galileo". Therefore, I take the liberty of transgressing slight from the thread to ask a very simple question.
The following question relates the current presidential helicopter.
Is the 'Jesus Nut' located in the rotor-head or in the passenger seat? 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Using the ‘Beauties of Physics’ to Conquer Science Illiteracy
By CLAUDIA DREIFUS
Published: July 17, 2007
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — In the halls of academia, it is the rare senior professor who volunteers to teach basic science courses to undergraduates.
But Eric Mazur, the Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics at Harvard, is driven by a passion. He wants to end science illiteracy among the nation’s college students; specifically, he strives to open them to the “great beauties of physics.”
Mazur’s own Harvard course, Physics 1b, is the kind of science class that even a literature student might love — playful, engaging, something like a trip to a science museum. Indeed, Dr. Mazur, 52, is as experimental in his classroom as he is in his research laboratory.
“It’s important to mentally engage students in what you’re teaching,” he explains. “We’re way too focused on facts and rote memorization and not on learning the process of doing science.”
balance of the article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/sc...ml?ref=science
PS Dave, the sail works because there is a keel and some water to react against. The magnetic or solar wind sail must grab onto gravity to work. Tricky but doable.
By CLAUDIA DREIFUS
Published: July 17, 2007
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — In the halls of academia, it is the rare senior professor who volunteers to teach basic science courses to undergraduates.
But Eric Mazur, the Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics at Harvard, is driven by a passion. He wants to end science illiteracy among the nation’s college students; specifically, he strives to open them to the “great beauties of physics.”
Mazur’s own Harvard course, Physics 1b, is the kind of science class that even a literature student might love — playful, engaging, something like a trip to a science museum. Indeed, Dr. Mazur, 52, is as experimental in his classroom as he is in his research laboratory.
“It’s important to mentally engage students in what you’re teaching,” he explains. “We’re way too focused on facts and rote memorization and not on learning the process of doing science.”
balance of the article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/sc...ml?ref=science
PS Dave, the sail works because there is a keel and some water to react against. The magnetic or solar wind sail must grab onto gravity to work. Tricky but doable.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Corvallis, Oregon
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave Jackson,
No Dave Jackson I did not invoke the lord I was responding to Nick Lappos
"Lord, save us from this crap!”
Nick Lappos,
There are mpegs proving that a similar concept works and someone has built it and proved that it works. Hmmmmmm........
Yet nobody but nobody will produce a force diagram.
Jiff
No Dave Jackson I did not invoke the lord I was responding to Nick Lappos
"Lord, save us from this crap!”
Nick Lappos,
There are mpegs proving that a similar concept works and someone has built it and proved that it works. Hmmmmmm........
Yet nobody but nobody will produce a force diagram.
Jiff
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jiff, a flat hard surface still has friction. The difference between static, and dynamic friction makes a very effective ratchet. A pendulum works because, gravity is the dominant force, and is very very close to constant throughout the stroke. If you put an "inertia machine" on a pendulum then it will produce a variable force, tune it within the cycle of the pendulum, then some very strange results will be produced. But let the pendulum run over an experimentally long time, and the net period of the pendulum would be as expected.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jiff,
A force diagram is very very simple. Since you do not have the ability to draw one, I seriously doubt that you will understand this, but here goes:
A box floating in space: draw a line to the left that is the force produced by the magic box when it is in the peak acceleration mode (N.B. while the peak magnitude of this line is bigger, its average is the same as the other force). A line to the right for the box when it is in the deceleration mode (this line has less peak magnitude than the other one). On average, the two lines are equal length. Unless there is another force in the mix, the box doesn't move.
Now see the box on a surface, subject to gravity. In addition to the two lines above add: Weight, a force downward. The drag force, which is to the right and left, opposing motion. The drag (friction) is equal to the coefficient of friction times the weight. The drag has two magnitudes - static drag, which is larger and dynamic drag which is slightly smaller. (Note in the diagrams, weight force is not shown for clarity)
If the charlatan "scientist" chooses the situation carefully, he will select a box that has the peak force slightly higher than the dynamic drag. That way, at the peak force, the static drag is overcome and the box moves slightly left. Because the designed has chosen the right peak force to be below the threshold of static drag, the box does not move when the right force peaks. The surface has generated the opposing force, which restrains the box. The charlatan scientist never mentions that friction/drag.
A force diagram is very very simple. Since you do not have the ability to draw one, I seriously doubt that you will understand this, but here goes:
A box floating in space: draw a line to the left that is the force produced by the magic box when it is in the peak acceleration mode (N.B. while the peak magnitude of this line is bigger, its average is the same as the other force). A line to the right for the box when it is in the deceleration mode (this line has less peak magnitude than the other one). On average, the two lines are equal length. Unless there is another force in the mix, the box doesn't move.
Now see the box on a surface, subject to gravity. In addition to the two lines above add: Weight, a force downward. The drag force, which is to the right and left, opposing motion. The drag (friction) is equal to the coefficient of friction times the weight. The drag has two magnitudes - static drag, which is larger and dynamic drag which is slightly smaller. (Note in the diagrams, weight force is not shown for clarity)
If the charlatan "scientist" chooses the situation carefully, he will select a box that has the peak force slightly higher than the dynamic drag. That way, at the peak force, the static drag is overcome and the box moves slightly left. Because the designed has chosen the right peak force to be below the threshold of static drag, the box does not move when the right force peaks. The surface has generated the opposing force, which restrains the box. The charlatan scientist never mentions that friction/drag.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Using the ‘Beauties of Physics’
As a young man I studied physics for a while but never came across any beauties
that I could use.
Perhaps the good professor can see things in it that I couldn't - far, far too many beards, tweed jackets, BO and bunsen burners in my recollection and absolutely no beauties in any way shape or form whatsoever.
Neither the subject nor its participants were ever sexy or beautiful.
Perhaps I was just at the wrong college, or maybe it was just the way it was being taught?
Psychology/sociology or nursing were always a better bet for beauties.
SB
As a young man I studied physics for a while but never came across any beauties
that I could use.Perhaps the good professor can see things in it that I couldn't - far, far too many beards, tweed jackets, BO and bunsen burners in my recollection and absolutely no beauties in any way shape or form whatsoever.
Neither the subject nor its participants were ever sexy or beautiful.
Perhaps I was just at the wrong college, or maybe it was just the way it was being taught?
Psychology/sociology or nursing were always a better bet for beauties.
SB