Inertia Machine
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jiff, without trying to damp your enthusiasm, this device will not work - period. Essentially you are not producing any change in momentum over a complete cycle, so no thrust can be produced. This is as fundamental to physics as conservation of energy (in fact for the same reasons in Spacetime). Conservation of linear momentum comes about from the universe trying to keep the total mass centroid in the same spacial position. Gravity keeps accelerating this position downwards. Helicopters essentially throw air at the ground because gravity wants something to accelerate downwards, the helicopter powertrain makes sure this is the air and not the machine!
I don't have time for a lengthy debate about this, but in my experience Nick knows his stuff and is worth listening too...
I don't have time for a lengthy debate about this, but in my experience Nick knows his stuff and is worth listening too...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other end
The diagrams show, as you state, a machine that will generate a linear force from rotational movement. The notation seems a little out of my experience as you seem to indicate that the centre of the 2nd moment of area is at the shaft, when it is surely nearer the weight.
Can you please elaborate the method by which you will create the torque to accelerate and decelerate the rotational motion. How will you stop this being transferred (every action has an equal and opposite reaction) to the body of the inertia machine.
Can you please elaborate the method by which you will create the torque to accelerate and decelerate the rotational motion. How will you stop this being transferred (every action has an equal and opposite reaction) to the body of the inertia machine.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
waspy,
the diagrams show that the device will make linear motion, not force, from the rotary motion applied. There is no net force produced by the machine, as every mass it moves is countered by a return movement.
Another thought experiment:
Take a large rocket, and fly it into a great big bag, then tie the bag shut. Will the rocket still climb?
No, the gases blown out the back of the rocket will strike the back of the bag, and produce enough momentum capture opposite the rocket thrust to make the whole rocket-bag system just stop in the air (as the expanding gases inflate the bag so very tight that it would like to explode.)
In effect, Jiff's mechanism grabs all the stuff that was accelerated backward, and by stopping it, cancels the net force.
the diagrams show that the device will make linear motion, not force, from the rotary motion applied. There is no net force produced by the machine, as every mass it moves is countered by a return movement.
Another thought experiment:
Take a large rocket, and fly it into a great big bag, then tie the bag shut. Will the rocket still climb?
No, the gases blown out the back of the rocket will strike the back of the bag, and produce enough momentum capture opposite the rocket thrust to make the whole rocket-bag system just stop in the air (as the expanding gases inflate the bag so very tight that it would like to explode.)
In effect, Jiff's mechanism grabs all the stuff that was accelerated backward, and by stopping it, cancels the net force.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
Newton's 2nd Law of Motion
As the velocity is increased, then a force is generated tangentially in the direction of the velocity.
As the velocity is decreased, then a force is generated tangentially in the direction opposite to the velocity.
If the acceleration is proportional to the angular position, then you end up with a variation of Harmonic Motion.
Draw tangential force lines around a circle maximum length at the bottom reducing poportionally as you approach the top, reversing directions and increasing back to the bottom. You will now see that summed around the circle there is a net force. With two running counter to each other, you will see that all lateral forces are cancelled out.
If you can disprove this mathematically then please do.
Now, the problem is that the diagram does not have the whole system bounded. Where does the torque come from that accelerates and decelerates the masses? and how is it decoupled from the body of the inertia machine (so preventing Newton's third law) which would cancel out any effect.
I have asked Jiff how he intends to do this. What he has drawn so far is basic mechanics. I'm interested to see the torque generation system that is none Newtonian, if he has an answer to that then that would be something worth seeing.
Newton's 2nd Law of MotionAs the velocity is increased, then a force is generated tangentially in the direction of the velocity.
As the velocity is decreased, then a force is generated tangentially in the direction opposite to the velocity.
If the acceleration is proportional to the angular position, then you end up with a variation of Harmonic Motion.
Draw tangential force lines around a circle maximum length at the bottom reducing poportionally as you approach the top, reversing directions and increasing back to the bottom. You will now see that summed around the circle there is a net force. With two running counter to each other, you will see that all lateral forces are cancelled out.
If you can disprove this mathematically then please do.
Now, the problem is that the diagram does not have the whole system bounded. Where does the torque come from that accelerates and decelerates the masses? and how is it decoupled from the body of the inertia machine (so preventing Newton's third law) which would cancel out any effect.
I have asked Jiff how he intends to do this. What he has drawn so far is basic mechanics. I'm interested to see the torque generation system that is none Newtonian, if he has an answer to that then that would be something worth seeing.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
waspy,
Your second paragraph is where I started, and is the point we are both making (we agree!)
However, you are reading Newton in reverse, because the force makes the velocity change, the velocity change (actually momentum change) does not make the force.
That being said, Jiff has some studying to do, and perhaps needs to find a plug to energize his fancy vibrator.
Your second paragraph is where I started, and is the point we are both making (we agree!)
However, you are reading Newton in reverse, because the force makes the velocity change, the velocity change (actually momentum change) does not make the force.
That being said, Jiff has some studying to do, and perhaps needs to find a plug to energize his fancy vibrator.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all about the size of the bag
Nick, we agree practically, but not entirely
Firstly
Newton's Second law states.
The rate of change of momentum of a body is proportional to the resultant force acting on the body and is in the same direction.
In reality we feel intuitively that the force must come first, however they are instantaneous and inseparable.
In a balloon that becomes untied, pressure is used to accelerate the air in a specific direction so producing a reaction force. What came first momentum change or force?
In a jet engine fuel is burnt and gas increases in velocity so producing a reaction force. What came first the change in momentum or the force?
On a helicopter rotor disc, as the blades flap the 2nd moment of area reduces (CG moves inwards) reducing the angular momentum. A tangential lead/lag force is produced. What came first the change in angular momentum, or the force?
The answer to the above is that they both occur instantaneously.
Thought No.1
If a body is moving with constant velocity, and the mass of the body is changed instantaneously (without momentum change) then what happens to the velocity? Newton says that it will tend to increase in order to preserve momentum. If it doesn't, then a force must be present to explain the change in momentum.
Thought No.2
How does a helium balloon generate lift. Where does the change of momentum come from? No mass is "let go of" in fact within the "bag" of the helium ballon no energy changes form. However gravity is no respector of boundaries, it re-arranges the air around the outside of the bag, this in turn generates the necessary newtonian conditions. The sums don't work until you include the atmosphere and the mass of the planet.
I hypothetically put a rocket in a bag last night, I managed to get to the Sun. Then again I was in the bag with it, and the bag was 150,000,000km across
You need to bound the system correctly. If Jiff's machine has a torque generation system that works by producing the reactive torque at a totally unconnected place in the universe, then his machine would allow us to move within that universe without Newton getting upset. This is the equivalent of the boy with the three mile arm.
Keep an open mind, remember,
Once the sun revolved around the Earth which was flat.
Manned heavier than air flight was impossible due to steam power not having sufficient power to weight.
Jiff's machine is possible, it just isn't practical at the moment.
He needs to find a bigger bag.
Firstly
Newton's Second law states.
The rate of change of momentum of a body is proportional to the resultant force acting on the body and is in the same direction.
In reality we feel intuitively that the force must come first, however they are instantaneous and inseparable.
In a balloon that becomes untied, pressure is used to accelerate the air in a specific direction so producing a reaction force. What came first momentum change or force?
In a jet engine fuel is burnt and gas increases in velocity so producing a reaction force. What came first the change in momentum or the force?
On a helicopter rotor disc, as the blades flap the 2nd moment of area reduces (CG moves inwards) reducing the angular momentum. A tangential lead/lag force is produced. What came first the change in angular momentum, or the force?
The answer to the above is that they both occur instantaneously.
Thought No.1
If a body is moving with constant velocity, and the mass of the body is changed instantaneously (without momentum change) then what happens to the velocity? Newton says that it will tend to increase in order to preserve momentum. If it doesn't, then a force must be present to explain the change in momentum.
Thought No.2
How does a helium balloon generate lift. Where does the change of momentum come from? No mass is "let go of" in fact within the "bag" of the helium ballon no energy changes form. However gravity is no respector of boundaries, it re-arranges the air around the outside of the bag, this in turn generates the necessary newtonian conditions. The sums don't work until you include the atmosphere and the mass of the planet.
I hypothetically put a rocket in a bag last night, I managed to get to the Sun. Then again I was in the bag with it, and the bag was 150,000,000km across
You need to bound the system correctly. If Jiff's machine has a torque generation system that works by producing the reactive torque at a totally unconnected place in the universe, then his machine would allow us to move within that universe without Newton getting upset. This is the equivalent of the boy with the three mile arm.
Keep an open mind, remember,
Once the sun revolved around the Earth which was flat.
Manned heavier than air flight was impossible due to steam power not having sufficient power to weight.
Jiff's machine is possible, it just isn't practical at the moment.
He needs to find a bigger bag.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick, you are wrong. period.
As you don't trust me,
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/newton2.html
"The important fact is that a force will cause a change in velocity; and likewise, a change in velocity will generate a force."
Force and momentum change are mutually dependant.
In a jet engine, the Newtonian representation is that the increase in velocity of the gas (and hence momentum) when directed in a certain direction generates the force.
Now back to the inertia machine the change in angular momentum is directed to produce a linear force. It doesn't work in an enclosed Newtonian frame of reference as at the other end of the driveshaft his third law is creating the opposite reaction.
As you don't trust me,
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/newton2.html
"The important fact is that a force will cause a change in velocity; and likewise, a change in velocity will generate a force."
Force and momentum change are mutually dependant.
In a jet engine, the Newtonian representation is that the increase in velocity of the gas (and hence momentum) when directed in a certain direction generates the force.
Now back to the inertia machine the change in angular momentum is directed to produce a linear force. It doesn't work in an enclosed Newtonian frame of reference as at the other end of the driveshaft his third law is creating the opposite reaction.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Waspy,
The fact is that the inertia of a mass requires a force to change its velocity, so a force (like that exerted by the turbine blade on the air mass) is imparted on a mass and the reaction force is measured.
If a mass is left at constant velocity, it will not change velocity until an unbalancing force is applied (Dr. Newton, first law) thus the force is applied to change velocity. Force comes first, at least according to Newton.
The fact is that the inertia of a mass requires a force to change its velocity, so a force (like that exerted by the turbine blade on the air mass) is imparted on a mass and the reaction force is measured.
If a mass is left at constant velocity, it will not change velocity until an unbalancing force is applied (Dr. Newton, first law) thus the force is applied to change velocity. Force comes first, at least according to Newton.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
So you are saying that in a jet engine, it is the turbine blades that accelerate the air?
added as more time to answer the specific point
Newton's first law is a special case of the second law, and was intended to counter the commonly held belief that all things return to a state of rest over time. It states that a "body" i.e. a point item of constant mass remains in constant motion unless acted upon by an external force.
I hate to use cliches, but take the example of a skater rotating arms outstretched. Upon bringing their arms in, their angular velocity increases without any external force. This appears to contradict Newton's first law, however upon closer inspection we see that the skater has reduced their moment of inertia, and hence to conserve angular momentum the angular velocity must increase. Within the rotating frame of reference, a force is experienced due to the apparent acceleration.
I still maintain the force and momentum change are instantaneous and inseparable. Further to this, whether or not there is a force or a momentum change depends upon which frame of reference you are observing from.
Back to the boy with the 3 mile long arm. Momentum change of an individual item is possible within the boundary of the system as long as momentum is conserved throughout the whole of the system.
So you are saying that in a jet engine, it is the turbine blades that accelerate the air?
added as more time to answer the specific point
Newton's first law is a special case of the second law, and was intended to counter the commonly held belief that all things return to a state of rest over time. It states that a "body" i.e. a point item of constant mass remains in constant motion unless acted upon by an external force.
I hate to use cliches, but take the example of a skater rotating arms outstretched. Upon bringing their arms in, their angular velocity increases without any external force. This appears to contradict Newton's first law, however upon closer inspection we see that the skater has reduced their moment of inertia, and hence to conserve angular momentum the angular velocity must increase. Within the rotating frame of reference, a force is experienced due to the apparent acceleration.
I still maintain the force and momentum change are instantaneous and inseparable. Further to this, whether or not there is a force or a momentum change depends upon which frame of reference you are observing from.
Back to the boy with the 3 mile long arm. Momentum change of an individual item is possible within the boundary of the system as long as momentum is conserved throughout the whole of the system.
Last edited by waspy77; 13th Jul 2007 at 16:28. Reason: More time to respond
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, precisely, the hot, flaming air in a gas turbine is decelerated (negative acceleration) by the blades, and in the process the air is both slowed and cooled. The blades then react (newton's opposing force) and produce the opposite force which is then reacted (eventually) against the rotor. The rotor smacks the outside air and accelerates it, causing the lift force.
For a pure turbojet, the burning fuel causes a temperature rise in the gas, which pushes against the combustion chamber (which is why rockets and jets have strong steel housings - to withstand and react the force against them), the chamber reacts this pressure force, and this reaction presses the hot gas out the open back end. The pressure is a force that accelerates the hot air.
For a pure turbojet, the burning fuel causes a temperature rise in the gas, which pushes against the combustion chamber (which is why rockets and jets have strong steel housings - to withstand and react the force against them), the chamber reacts this pressure force, and this reaction presses the hot gas out the open back end. The pressure is a force that accelerates the hot air.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The gas is accelerated due to the introduction of energy into the system. Momentum is conserved because initially it accelerates in all directions. The shape of the chamber then changes the direction of the flow of the air, causing a momentum change. This is reacted by a force which pushes the engine, in accordance with the second law. In all practical terms, the change in momentum of the air has generated a force. The gas impinges on the turbine blades, reduces in velocity and hence momentum, and so once again a change in momentum has generated a force.
I'm sorry, but I still maintain that force and momentum change are inseparable, instantaneous, each indicates the presence of the other.
I'm sorry, but I still maintain that force and momentum change are inseparable, instantaneous, each indicates the presence of the other.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by waspy77
As the velocity is increased, then a force is generated tangentially in the direction of the velocity.
As the velocity is decreased, then a force is generated tangentially in the direction opposite to the velocity.
If the acceleration is proportional to the angular position, then you end up with a variation of Harmonic Motion.
Draw tangential force lines around a circle maximum length at the bottom reducing poportionally as you approach the top, reversing directions and increasing back to the bottom. You will now see that summed around the circle there is a net force. With two running counter to each other, you will see that all lateral forces are cancelled out.
If you can disprove this mathematically then please do.
As the velocity is decreased, then a force is generated tangentially in the direction opposite to the velocity.
If the acceleration is proportional to the angular position, then you end up with a variation of Harmonic Motion.
Draw tangential force lines around a circle maximum length at the bottom reducing poportionally as you approach the top, reversing directions and increasing back to the bottom. You will now see that summed around the circle there is a net force. With two running counter to each other, you will see that all lateral forces are cancelled out.
If you can disprove this mathematically then please do.
I don't have time to discuss the symantics of force impulse vs momentum (we engineers usually use whatever gives the quickest answer), but can just see this thread getting hung up on details.
Last edited by Graviman; 19th Jul 2007 at 08:43.
Can I get fries with my free lunch?
-- IFMU
-- IFMU
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
waspy, I agree with Grav, and also respect your deep understanding of the concepts that we are discussing, so enough!
Suffice it to say the device Jiff will build will make some heat, some vibration, but no propulsive force!
[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/HP_ADM%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg[/IMG][IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/HP_ADM%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.jpg[/IMG]
Suffice it to say the device Jiff will build will make some heat, some vibration, but no propulsive force!
[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/HP_ADM%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg[/IMG][IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/HP_ADM%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.jpg[/IMG]
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Caribbean
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If, on the downward stroke of Jiff's rotor system the rotor is consistently accelerated and on the upward stroke no change in angular momentum is achieved, then the machine will produce an upward thrust.
However, this will mean that the rotor will have to continuously accelerate to an ever increasing velocity.
Furthermore, by Newtons third law, any upward thrust would be equal and opposite (at best (less efficiency losses)) to any downward force generated by the propulsion mechanism.
Therefore there will be an upward thrust but never enough to elevate a machine containing the rotors generating the thrust.
Unless Newton is wrong or a bigger bag is used
However, this will mean that the rotor will have to continuously accelerate to an ever increasing velocity.
Furthermore, by Newtons third law, any upward thrust would be equal and opposite (at best (less efficiency losses)) to any downward force generated by the propulsion mechanism.
Therefore there will be an upward thrust but never enough to elevate a machine containing the rotors generating the thrust.
Unless Newton is wrong or a bigger bag is used
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Corvallis, Oregon
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Lappos,
I have not had the opportunity to study the superb analisis which has been carried out on this theory.
To me the theory seems extremley simple and if we are not careful some one may well convince us that the
moon is really made of green cheese with another level of insight unless that insight is understood.
I am in the process of producing a working model and I will produce a force diagram shortly.
Jiff
I have not had the opportunity to study the superb analisis which has been carried out on this theory.
To me the theory seems extremley simple and if we are not careful some one may well convince us that the
moon is really made of green cheese with another level of insight unless that insight is understood.I am in the process of producing a working model and I will produce a force diagram shortly.
Jiff
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jed, that's a nice theory but is still flawed. The direction still has to be reversed at each end so the ever increasing forces will still cancel integrated over each period.
However eventually you would have pumped enough energy in for surrounding spacetime to collapse drawing the entire planet to a point. In this respect your distance would be reduced, although the long abandoned destination crushed beyond recognition. Unfortunately it would now take the remaining time of the universe for you to get there!
I would rather hitch a lift in a blackhawk vs a blackhole!
Jiff, i respect your tanacity. Please build the machine, since i suspect no amount of analysis will convince you otherwise. But, when it doesn't do what you feel it should, don't be disappointed. You will still have gained insight into the immense power of conservation of momentum (and energy, which just describes linear momentum though time dimension).
However eventually you would have pumped enough energy in for surrounding spacetime to collapse drawing the entire planet to a point. In this respect your distance would be reduced, although the long abandoned destination crushed beyond recognition. Unfortunately it would now take the remaining time of the universe for you to get there!
I would rather hitch a lift in a blackhawk vs a blackhole!
Jiff, i respect your tanacity. Please build the machine, since i suspect no amount of analysis will convince you otherwise. But, when it doesn't do what you feel it should, don't be disappointed. You will still have gained insight into the immense power of conservation of momentum (and energy, which just describes linear momentum though time dimension).
Last edited by Graviman; 19th Jul 2007 at 08:45.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Graviman,
A piston starts at rest and ends at rest, net momentum change is zero,
we can't ascertain anything about the work done during the cycle from that.
What assumptions did you make when translating to 1D? Jiff has given us no indication of how the torque varies with angular position. The torque gives acceleration (and tangential force), which gives us velocity (and centrifugal force), which gives us position (and then torque).
I have used a simulation (stepping at 0.001s) where the torque is constant at 1 positive 0-π and negative π-2π. Using mass, radius (and therefore I) as 1, simplifies the numbers. Start the thing off with a slight clockwise velocity and round and round it goes. The result is a net force not surprisingly to me) in the direction π.
That is the extent to which Jiff has defined the system.
As a thought exercise,
Imagine the masses in Jiff's machine are rockets aligned fore and aft tangentially. On the accelerating side the rocket would have to burn pointing aftward to accelerate, and on the decelerating would have to burn pointing forward to decelerate. Outside of the frame of reference, the rocket has rotated and so the rocket thrust has a cyclical lateral component that varies in sign, and a longitudinal component that is also cyclical but always positive. Lateral effects are taken out by having contra-rotating pairs. In this instance I am sure all would agree that Jiff has created an extremely complex and inefficient way of producing linear force.
What we were presented at the beginning is a very simple concept.
As I stated several posts ago, the difficulty lies in the creation of the torque (or the changing of angular momentum), and managing its reaction on the body of the thing that is creating it. If the model is built using conventional electric motors, and started up in free space, I imagine it will begin to rotate on an axis 90° to the axis of rotation. Not unlike gyroscopic precession. As the rotation of the motor body creates an equal but opposite effect at the other end of the driveshaft. I've not done the maths, but this may go someway to explain the effect of the unit on the string, as the torque changes the equilibrium between the CG and the attachment point.
In ballistic calculations, I have never included the momentum change of the Earth. Within my frame of reference the behaviour of the bullet appears none Newtonian.
I have said it before, the clever bit is not what Jiff has drawn but what he hasn't, i.e. the means of generating the torque that is none Newtonian within our frame of reference.
A piston starts at rest and ends at rest, net momentum change is zero,
we can't ascertain anything about the work done during the cycle from that.
What assumptions did you make when translating to 1D? Jiff has given us no indication of how the torque varies with angular position. The torque gives acceleration (and tangential force), which gives us velocity (and centrifugal force), which gives us position (and then torque).
I have used a simulation (stepping at 0.001s) where the torque is constant at 1 positive 0-π and negative π-2π. Using mass, radius (and therefore I) as 1, simplifies the numbers. Start the thing off with a slight clockwise velocity and round and round it goes. The result is a net force not surprisingly to me) in the direction π.
That is the extent to which Jiff has defined the system.
As a thought exercise,
Imagine the masses in Jiff's machine are rockets aligned fore and aft tangentially. On the accelerating side the rocket would have to burn pointing aftward to accelerate, and on the decelerating would have to burn pointing forward to decelerate. Outside of the frame of reference, the rocket has rotated and so the rocket thrust has a cyclical lateral component that varies in sign, and a longitudinal component that is also cyclical but always positive. Lateral effects are taken out by having contra-rotating pairs. In this instance I am sure all would agree that Jiff has created an extremely complex and inefficient way of producing linear force.
What we were presented at the beginning is a very simple concept.
As I stated several posts ago, the difficulty lies in the creation of the torque (or the changing of angular momentum), and managing its reaction on the body of the thing that is creating it. If the model is built using conventional electric motors, and started up in free space, I imagine it will begin to rotate on an axis 90° to the axis of rotation. Not unlike gyroscopic precession. As the rotation of the motor body creates an equal but opposite effect at the other end of the driveshaft. I've not done the maths, but this may go someway to explain the effect of the unit on the string, as the torque changes the equilibrium between the CG and the attachment point.
In ballistic calculations, I have never included the momentum change of the Earth. Within my frame of reference the behaviour of the bullet appears none Newtonian.
I have said it before, the clever bit is not what Jiff has drawn but what he hasn't, i.e. the means of generating the torque that is none Newtonian within our frame of reference.