i have an idea for a reactionless engine
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Home for bewildered engineers
Age: 59
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
>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
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.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fakepilot,
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,
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.
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."
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
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.
Last edited by cwatters; 16th Feb 2005 at 18:31.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: the zone
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: spain
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
well i got it published in the advanced physics forum but only 19 visits so far
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
well i got it published in the advanced physics forum but only 19 visits so far
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: spain
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: spain
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Newtons Laws et al
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?
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?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by cwatters; 18th Feb 2005 at 22:20.
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?
How about that?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: ASCOTT
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
turning vehicles
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??
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??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: spain
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: spain
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: spain
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: ISTANBUL
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
theoretical background
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
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
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: spain
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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