i have an idea for a reactionless engine
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: spain
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i have an idea for a reactionless engine
This is an idea for a reactionless engine that can be built with pistons and cylinders:
imagine you are at the top of a 10 story building, at the bottom a cannonball is shot horizontally and is tight with a rope you are holding with a frictionless gloves
lets neglect gravity and consider the rope weightless, the ball is going straight and since you are letting the rope glide in your hands it keeps that direction for as long as necessary
you apply a force or tension to the rope of 1 kg during one second when you are right above the cannon, that pulls you downwards but the trajectory of the ball is now slightly upwards
you wait for as long as necessary without applying tension to the rope
till the ball is in your horizontal at an altitude of 10 stories
now when the cannonball is in your horizontal you keep a constant tension of 1kg on the rope what means you are being pulled rightwards and UPWARDS
at a given moment youll have the ball going totally upwards so all you have to do is hold the rope tight and be pulled up
when the ball is shot you apply the 1 kg tension when the ball is right underneath you
if after applying the 1 kg tension the ball takes 1000 seconds to get to my horizontal it would be the same effect if I applied a constant tension of 1 gram during those 1000 seconds this would be more convenient
by holding a tension of 1 gram or 1 kg I mean to let the rope glide and go away in such a way that the force indicated by a dynamometer put in the rope would be that one of 1 gram or kg actually my gloves wouldn’t be frictionless anymore they would cause a slight friction that would cause a slight tension
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 is annulated by a symmetrical set that acts like in a mirror
lets suppose we throw the ball with a given energy and we apply a tension of 1 gram during 1000 seconds, the radius will increase a lot and the w decrease a lot so if it took to the ball to reach my horizontal 1000 seconds in reaching my vertical might take 2 or 3 or even 10 times more depending on the tension, the less the tension the more the radius what means the less the w and the more time the 1 gram force is applied in each quarter
so the initial kinetic energy is transformed into horizontal force and vertical force of which the upwards force will be 2, 3 or 10 times more than the downward force depending in the applied tension in the rope or the resultant radius
one of the interesting things of my engine is that like it is kept all time spinning the lateral forces are kept as energy
to build this engine would be very simple you need a pair of hollow cylinders that spin holded by their middle counterotatory in the inside there are two pistons facing each other and that always keep a constant distance so when one expands the other retracts
the movement is made in such a way that while the cylinder spins the piston that is pointing to 6 oclock is let go away from the center of spin and therefore the piston aiming to 12 is taken towards the center, when the pistons reach the horizontal the senses are inverted and the piston that before was let away from the center now is taken towards the center, each piston will be at the same distance from the center when they are vertical, when they are horizontal the difference in distance of each piston to the center is maximum one piston will have move totally away from the center while the other piston will have even pass through the center
said with another words all times a piston is in the bottom half of the circle its let go away from the center and if its at the top of the half is taken towards the center
the more the variation of radius the more the thrust therefore would be interesting that when the piston is taken towards the center it can go through it and pass it
theres only one gearing necessary and would be the one that relates the spinning with the movement of the pistons to this same gearing could be attached the spinning force that would produce the thrust I think the ideal would be using a motorcycle chain to unite the ends of the cylinder where the axes of the pistons are with the center axe of the cylinder using two chains for each piston axe united to the cylinder axe for reasons of balance
the amount of thrust depends on the w, the variation of radius and the weight of the pistons
imagine you are at the top of a 10 story building, at the bottom a cannonball is shot horizontally and is tight with a rope you are holding with a frictionless gloves
lets neglect gravity and consider the rope weightless, the ball is going straight and since you are letting the rope glide in your hands it keeps that direction for as long as necessary
you apply a force or tension to the rope of 1 kg during one second when you are right above the cannon, that pulls you downwards but the trajectory of the ball is now slightly upwards
you wait for as long as necessary without applying tension to the rope
till the ball is in your horizontal at an altitude of 10 stories
now when the cannonball is in your horizontal you keep a constant tension of 1kg on the rope what means you are being pulled rightwards and UPWARDS
at a given moment youll have the ball going totally upwards so all you have to do is hold the rope tight and be pulled up
when the ball is shot you apply the 1 kg tension when the ball is right underneath you
if after applying the 1 kg tension the ball takes 1000 seconds to get to my horizontal it would be the same effect if I applied a constant tension of 1 gram during those 1000 seconds this would be more convenient
by holding a tension of 1 gram or 1 kg I mean to let the rope glide and go away in such a way that the force indicated by a dynamometer put in the rope would be that one of 1 gram or kg actually my gloves wouldn’t be frictionless anymore they would cause a slight friction that would cause a slight tension
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 is annulated by a symmetrical set that acts like in a mirror
lets suppose we throw the ball with a given energy and we apply a tension of 1 gram during 1000 seconds, the radius will increase a lot and the w decrease a lot so if it took to the ball to reach my horizontal 1000 seconds in reaching my vertical might take 2 or 3 or even 10 times more depending on the tension, the less the tension the more the radius what means the less the w and the more time the 1 gram force is applied in each quarter
so the initial kinetic energy is transformed into horizontal force and vertical force of which the upwards force will be 2, 3 or 10 times more than the downward force depending in the applied tension in the rope or the resultant radius
one of the interesting things of my engine is that like it is kept all time spinning the lateral forces are kept as energy
to build this engine would be very simple you need a pair of hollow cylinders that spin holded by their middle counterotatory in the inside there are two pistons facing each other and that always keep a constant distance so when one expands the other retracts
the movement is made in such a way that while the cylinder spins the piston that is pointing to 6 oclock is let go away from the center of spin and therefore the piston aiming to 12 is taken towards the center, when the pistons reach the horizontal the senses are inverted and the piston that before was let away from the center now is taken towards the center, each piston will be at the same distance from the center when they are vertical, when they are horizontal the difference in distance of each piston to the center is maximum one piston will have move totally away from the center while the other piston will have even pass through the center
said with another words all times a piston is in the bottom half of the circle its let go away from the center and if its at the top of the half is taken towards the center
the more the variation of radius the more the thrust therefore would be interesting that when the piston is taken towards the center it can go through it and pass it
theres only one gearing necessary and would be the one that relates the spinning with the movement of the pistons to this same gearing could be attached the spinning force that would produce the thrust I think the ideal would be using a motorcycle chain to unite the ends of the cylinder where the axes of the pistons are with the center axe of the cylinder using two chains for each piston axe united to the cylinder axe for reasons of balance
the amount of thrust depends on the w, the variation of radius and the weight of the pistons
Nexialist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no idea whether you have something or not, but I will say that you have destroyed all hopes of patenting it or selling the idea, by publishing it in an open forum.
Patent Law is very strict, and what is public before patenting is not patentable afterwards.
p.s. a picture is worth a thousand words
Patent Law is very strict, and what is public before patenting is not patentable afterwards.
p.s. a picture is worth a thousand words
Hah! Your idea is nothing compared to mine! (Well, I think, cause I didn't read your post in detail) You, know Sunday brain shutdown.
Ok, here's my idea. Put a winged vechicle on a track. Propel said vechicle with an electric motor and a propeller. Now as the cart flys down the track, use the lift to crank a generator. The wings can flap up and down. Power motor and charge battery.
Nobody has ever been able to answer why this doesn't work. 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."
As long as your mechanical inefficiencies don't go over 80K, you get a net gain.
Please somebody tell me what's wrong with this.
Ok, here's my idea. Put a winged vechicle on a track. Propel said vechicle with an electric motor and a propeller. Now as the cart flys down the track, use the lift to crank a generator. The wings can flap up and down. Power motor and charge battery.
Nobody has ever been able to answer why this doesn't work. 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."
As long as your mechanical inefficiencies don't go over 80K, you get a net gain.
Please somebody tell me what's wrong with this.
Prince of Pastry
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Somewhere in the oggin
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I sort of understand what you mean. Of course, the idea is fundamentally flawed though, because if there's no net change in momentum over time (i.e. stuff coming out of the back), then there's no thrust. Sorry.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West Sussex England
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect in the vacum of space your 737 example may work but on terra firma we have gravity to deal with and yes 50K of thrust is capable of lifting 130K of aircraft but for how long? If fuel were free and limitless then maybee it works? I stand and wait to be corrected for there are far more inteligent people than me out there. As far as I know Newtons laws are infallible i.e as the wise man always said you dont ever get anything for free! Every action and all that!
Regards
Keith
Regards
Keith
Paxing All Over The World
lets neglect gravity and consider the rope weightless,
--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
I'd also like to point out that Helicopter engines can generate more "thrust" than their weight. Actually they seem to like to use watts as a power unit, but when you do the math the max amount of engine output is greater then the power of gravity.
Hmmmmmmm......
C'mon guys, somebody knows the answer to this question! (I don't)
See I'm fine with the fact that a 100 pound rocket producing 100 pounds of thrust will hover. So what's the excuse for most airplanes? F15 generates more thrust than weight, I've been told, so it makes sense to me that it can fly.
Hmmmmmmm......
C'mon guys, somebody knows the answer to this question! (I don't)
See I'm fine with the fact that a 100 pound rocket producing 100 pounds of thrust will hover. So what's the excuse for most airplanes? F15 generates more thrust than weight, I've been told, so it makes sense to me that it can fly.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: out of a suitcase
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The engines (or thrust) does not support the weight, the wings do that or in the case of a rotorcraft the rotor blades. The engines(or thrust) merely propel the aircraft forwards fast enough for the aerofoil to provide the lift I daresay that if you could sit a 737 vertically on its tail and run the engines at take off power all you would get would be a lot of noise!! and the aircraft would not move this is why vtol aircraft engines are extremely powerful in relation to their weight
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Earth (unfortunately)
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the F15 is using its thrust to suport itself (straight up) its behaving a lot more like a rocket than an airplane.
Airplanes do not need more thrust than lift to fly!
Thrust doesn't support an airplane, lift does. All the engines need to do is supply the speed to create the required dynamic pressure. In fact, with a Cl greater than 1 you can create more pressure differential over the wing than dynamic pressure.
How much dynamic pressure will be generated for an amount of thrust depends on the overall efficiency of the airplane.
Fakepilot
When you're looking at the thrust generated by piston engines, you have to look at the propulsive efficiency of the propeller/rotor blades. Engines produce power, propeller creates thrust. The propulsive efficiency of a helicopter main rotor is many times higher than most fixed wing engine propellers.
palgia
Airplanes do not need more thrust than lift to fly!
Thrust doesn't support an airplane, lift does. All the engines need to do is supply the speed to create the required dynamic pressure. In fact, with a Cl greater than 1 you can create more pressure differential over the wing than dynamic pressure.
How much dynamic pressure will be generated for an amount of thrust depends on the overall efficiency of the airplane.
Fakepilot
When you're looking at the thrust generated by piston engines, you have to look at the propulsive efficiency of the propeller/rotor blades. Engines produce power, propeller creates thrust. The propulsive efficiency of a helicopter main rotor is many times higher than most fixed wing engine propellers.
palgia
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Home for bewildered engineers
Age: 59
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>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."
Atsa nothing. Consider a glider. No thrust, yet it doesn't plummet from the sky. Now THAT's efficient. I'm surprised that Ryanair aren't using JUST gliders. Think of if, no fuel costs. And if we ignore the cost of airframes and crew : we could have free flights.
Alternatively, I could check whether today is "National Troll Day"...
>can lift and hold some 130K pounds. So in this case, you get
>80K pounds for "free."
Atsa nothing. Consider a glider. No thrust, yet it doesn't plummet from the sky. Now THAT's efficient. I'm surprised that Ryanair aren't using JUST gliders. Think of if, no fuel costs. And if we ignore the cost of airframes and crew : we could have free flights.
Alternatively, I could check whether today is "National Troll Day"...
Prince of Pastry
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Somewhere in the oggin
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fear that may be the case. Shame on me for biting (twice)
http://www.pprune.com/forums/showthr...hreadid=163230
http://www.pprune.com/forums/showthr...hreadid=163230
Sootikin,
I'm not trying to be a troll. I'm ok with gliders, because they convert altitude to speed, which is turned into lift. And then friendly drafts help out too. And gliders cheat, they get the tow plane to use it's fuel.
All my life I'm taught that whenever you get an action there's a reaction, i.e. nothing's free. So I don't see how adding thrust one way gives you more than twice the thrust another way. Someone mentioned time, however there's no time in force.
Mad Flt Scientist, I invoke thee!
I'm not trying to be a troll. I'm ok with gliders, because they convert altitude to speed, which is turned into lift. And then friendly drafts help out too. And gliders cheat, they get the tow plane to use it's fuel.
All my life I'm taught that whenever you get an action there's a reaction, i.e. nothing's free. So I don't see how adding thrust one way gives you more than twice the thrust another way. Someone mentioned time, however there's no time in force.
Mad Flt Scientist, I invoke thee!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: spain
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if you aply a force of 1 N to 1 kg during 1 second you get an speed of 1 m/s but if you apply it during 2 seconds you get double speed
if you aply a tension on the cable that holds the cannonball that is shot underneath you of w*w*m*r it will make a circle but if you apply half tension it will make an outwards spiral this is not studied well enough i think
the tension is constant because you aply the tension you want now the low constant tension means the radius increases which means the w decreases which means the cannonball stays longer in the second quarter of the spiral than in the first which means that the constant tension or force is aplied more time in the second quarter than in the first
the ball loses kinetic energy what slows even more the w but the tension is always the same
fakepilot about your question why a 737 with 50k force produces 130k force i have some weird explanation:
the wing makes the air flow in such a way that the higher the speed the less friction or resistance for the air to flow
the air goes in a trajectory and at a speed that the resistance of the air to flow becomes 0
the air now goes so fast and in such trajectory that the friction goes beyond 0 and becomes negative
a negative friction means thrust and this is what produces the extra 80k
this idea is based on schauberger ideas
if you aply a tension on the cable that holds the cannonball that is shot underneath you of w*w*m*r it will make a circle but if you apply half tension it will make an outwards spiral this is not studied well enough i think
the tension is constant because you aply the tension you want now the low constant tension means the radius increases which means the w decreases which means the cannonball stays longer in the second quarter of the spiral than in the first which means that the constant tension or force is aplied more time in the second quarter than in the first
the ball loses kinetic energy what slows even more the w but the tension is always the same
fakepilot about your question why a 737 with 50k force produces 130k force i have some weird explanation:
the wing makes the air flow in such a way that the higher the speed the less friction or resistance for the air to flow
the air goes in a trajectory and at a speed that the resistance of the air to flow becomes 0
the air now goes so fast and in such trajectory that the friction goes beyond 0 and becomes negative
a negative friction means thrust and this is what produces the extra 80k
this idea is based on schauberger ideas
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: spain
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in my 7 last lines i was neglecting the hold dinamic sustentation concept the same reason many people in 1900 said flying was imposible
but i was thinkin in this flow "experiments" in which water made flow in spiral tubes would show at certain speed negative friction
i think the reason your invention wont work is becasue you wont be able to crank lift to conver it to force unless the plane actually really goes up
but like lift and weight are balanced, the force with which the plane will go up (the only way to cranck it is by the plane going up) will not be lift, but will be produced by the plane going up direction and the force with wich it will go up will be equivalent to the force of thrust sent down
but i was thinkin in this flow "experiments" in which water made flow in spiral tubes would show at certain speed negative friction
i think the reason your invention wont work is becasue you wont be able to crank lift to conver it to force unless the plane actually really goes up
but like lift and weight are balanced, the force with which the plane will go up (the only way to cranck it is by the plane going up) will not be lift, but will be produced by the plane going up direction and the force with wich it will go up will be equivalent to the force of thrust sent down
Well at least Raaaid tried to answer my question. That's better than most. Yes, I'm bitter.
My main problem with "free" sources of energy means that if things lined up correctly in the universe, a self-substaining release of "free" energy could result, releasing more energy, gaining more, until the universe blows up. So I'm not a big believer in perpetual motion or "free" energy.
Another idea is that somehow the motion of the airfoil through the air unleashes the potential energy of the compressed air. Air is under pressure after all. Then the wake and vortexes are the areas of "low energy" left behind, eventually corrected by gravity.
Just an idea....
I search on.
My main problem with "free" sources of energy means that if things lined up correctly in the universe, a self-substaining release of "free" energy could result, releasing more energy, gaining more, until the universe blows up. So I'm not a big believer in perpetual motion or "free" energy.
Another idea is that somehow the motion of the airfoil through the air unleashes the potential energy of the compressed air. Air is under pressure after all. Then the wake and vortexes are the areas of "low energy" left behind, eventually corrected by gravity.
Just an idea....
I search on.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fakepilot
Try this one on for size then.
Same aircraft, rolling slowly along the ramp, with engines at idle.
Now the engines are producing almost zero thrust, yet somehow still supporting the 130K pounds.
If you can spot the error in my statement then you ought to be able to spot the error in yours.
Thats because it doesn't.
The aircraft is being held up by a different force than the thrust. In flight, its a reaction force from the air - i.e. lift. On the ground, its a reaction force from the ground.
In both cases there are frictional forces at work that are quite a bit smaller than what is holding the aircraft up. You need enough thrust to cancel out those forces.
Hence, on the ground, a trickle of thrust is all that is required to keep the aircraft moving.
In flight, the faster speeds mean a lot of drag, so quite a bit more thrust is required. But it is still relatively small compared to aircraft weight unless you start looking at supersonic speeds.
But its the same concept in both cases.
CPB
Nobody has ever been able to answer why this doesn't work. 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."
Same aircraft, rolling slowly along the ramp, with engines at idle.
Now the engines are producing almost zero thrust, yet somehow still supporting the 130K pounds.
If you can spot the error in my statement then you ought to be able to spot the error in yours.
All my life I'm taught that whenever you get an action there's a reaction, i.e. nothing's free. So I don't see how adding thrust one way gives you more than twice the thrust another way.
The aircraft is being held up by a different force than the thrust. In flight, its a reaction force from the air - i.e. lift. On the ground, its a reaction force from the ground.
In both cases there are frictional forces at work that are quite a bit smaller than what is holding the aircraft up. You need enough thrust to cancel out those forces.
Hence, on the ground, a trickle of thrust is all that is required to keep the aircraft moving.
In flight, the faster speeds mean a lot of drag, so quite a bit more thrust is required. But it is still relatively small compared to aircraft weight unless you start looking at supersonic speeds.
But its the same concept in both cases.
CPB
Psychophysiological entity
The other reason that you can't patent your idea is that it's immediately obvious...a bar on a British patent for many years.
Furthermore. It's like another well known idea utilizing a cannon ball, rope and gloves. (Except that the gloves are hi friction)
The ball is spun on an horizontal axis, while standing on the edge of a cliff. The ball is then allowed to fly off upwards. The hi friction gloves allow one to suddenly grip the rope, thus allowing the spinnee to follow the ball.
Furthermore. It's like another well known idea utilizing a cannon ball, rope and gloves. (Except that the gloves are hi friction)
The ball is spun on an horizontal axis, while standing on the edge of a cliff. The ball is then allowed to fly off upwards. The hi friction gloves allow one to suddenly grip the rope, thus allowing the spinnee to follow the ball.