It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Inertial impulse space drive

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: tachyonator7
you can't have it both ways compadre. let me quote you: "the top side of the spring is being held by the top of the outer tube, which is pushing down the sides of the tube, down on the ground".

you clearly say when spring is fired tube is pushing aginst the ground which resists the "downward force" so it jumps up. if there is a "downward force" tube will necessarily appear heaveir, which it doesn't.


Learn how to read.

I was explaining how the spring is being held by the top of the outer tube, and how the top of the outer tube (the weight of it) is pushing down on the sides of the tube, down on the ground. Much like the top of a table (the weight of it) is pushing down on the legs of the table, down on the ground.

I was explaining how the downward force of the upper part of the spring is CANCELED OUT because it is in contact with the ground. It is the upward force of the bottom of the spring that causes it to lift off the ground. The only reason it lifts off the ground is because force 2 is canceled by the ground, and force 1 is not canceled. Once the device loses contact with the ground, and the second spring is released, both forces cancel each other out.

Your trouble with reading comprehension, and your bias towards thinking everyone but you is wrong, has led you to be confused.



originally posted by: tachyonator7
yes you did, if it pushes against the ground in order to jump, it HAS TO appear heavier and that is not the case.


I didn't say it pushes against the ground in order to jump. I said the ground cancels out the downward force, leaving only the upward force to lift the device off the ground. Did you even look at the graphic I made?



See red arrow pointing down? That is the downward force. It is canceled by the ground. See the green up arrow? That is the upward force, which causes the device to lift off the ground.

Learn to read.


originally posted by: tachyonator7
springs contract toward the opposite end, not the center.


No, stretched springs contract towards the center. We have already gone over this. You agreed that when both sides of a stretched spring are released at the same time, both ends contract towards the center. That never changes.


originally posted by: tachyonator7
what do you imagine force 2 is acting against? force 2 exists only while the left side is attached. after one side is released, whole elastic-energy potential is transfered into a kinetic energy of the spring towards the opposite end. so nothing canceles and you are completely wrong.


When the spring is stretched and attached at both ends, force 1 is pulling towards the center, and force 2 is pulling towards the center. Both forces are pulling the ends of the outer tube towards the center, but the walls of the tube are stopping them.

When one side of the spring is released, both force 1 and force 2 are able to contract towards the center of the spring as they initially intended. As shown here:



Force 1 (green arrow) is contracting with very small resistance (the weight of the left half of the spring and inertia combined) and force 2 (blue arrow) is contracting with a large resistance (the weight of the entire tube, the weight of the right half of the spring, and inertia). Force 1 has less mass and more velocity. Force 2 has more mass and less velocity. They both cancel each other out. Since they both cancel each other out, the device doesn't move anywhere in zero gravity and a vacuum. The only thing that moves is the spring.



originally posted by: tachyonator7
furthermore, let's put the tube on the wheels. when spring is fired, does the tube oscillate back n forth or it moves in one direction without backward motion at all? it moves in one direction, of course.


The example I originaly stated is better than wheels. I was talking about being in zero gravity in a vacuum.

Depending on the type of spring you use, there are two outcomes... 1: The tube oscillates back and fourth (going nowhere). 2: The tube doesn't move at all.

Some springs that are at rest (equilibrium) are fully contracted and can't really be compressed, only stretched. That type of spring will result in outcome 2. Some springs that are at rest are not fully contracted and they can be compressed, and stretched. That type of spring will result in outcome 1.

In the end, your device will go nowhere.


originally posted by: tachyonator7

1: I never claimed it got heavier. The mass of the tube and spring doesn't change.
2: Simply no.


1. yes you did
2. yes indeed



1: No I didn't. See the graphic above.
2: Simply no. Newtons 3rd law exists.....
edit on 1-10-2014 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-10-2014 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: boncho

i don't claim math and physics of a mass streched on spring is wrong, on the contrary, but that it is in no way conflicting this phenomena. weareone is wrong and so you are. let's stick to the experimental observations, as they are what actually matters, not false interpretations of the newtons 3rd law.



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: tachyonator7
let's stick to the experimental observations, as they are what actually matters, not false interpretations of the newtons 3rd law.


Newtons 3rd law is based on experimental observations.... and confirmed with mathematics.

I am correct. Everything I say has already been proven with experiments...
edit on 1-10-2014 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: tachyonator7
a reply to: boncho

i don't claim math and physics of a mass streched on spring is wrong, on the contrary, but that it is in no way conflicting this phenomena. weareone is wrong and so you are. let's stick to the experimental observations, as they are what actually matters, not false interpretations of the newtons 3rd law.



Umm... the experimental observations support everything we've been saying. Im done posting in this thread, as you are either trolling or you haven't graduated high school. You can't even wrap your head around friction, or the basic understanding of conservation of momentum or movement in a frictionless environment.

You think that a person can move a boat in a frictionless environment, that a person space walking can jiggle their body around the ISS. (The principles are the same btw.) There is a reason a tether is used during spacewalks.

Most importantly, you don't actually care about creating or inventing any type of propulsion device, as you stated yourself, the entire system isn't important. As in, it's not important the amount of energy used to load your hypothetical device. When in reality that is the most important thing. (Regardless of it functions or not.)

When designing engines the first thing you say to yourself is "what is the efficiency of the engine?" because that is what makes it worth pursuing or not. You could have an entirely novel type of engine, but if the mechanical efficiency is poor, or it cannot produce any usable amount of thrust, heat, momentum, etc, it's a fools errand.

Lastly, everything you need to know about your idea is already in this thread, but you refuse to accept any knowledge related to it. And I say knowledge as in, tried-tested, empirical study-information, mathematical representations which are tied to thousands of experiments all saying the same thing, and it is not even close to what you are claiming.

No reason to continue feeding the troll, I'm off with Bedlam and going to sail into the sunset, maybe stop by the Moon on our air tube powered sail ship...
edit on 1-10-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-10-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   

I was explaining how the downward force of the upper part of the spring is CANCELED OUT because it is in contact with the ground.


so downward force is "CANCELED OUT in contact with the ground" but it doesn't excert force on the ground?? and you tell me to "learn to read" after making such confused and contradictory statement.

would you please illuminate me and the rest of the world, how does a force "CANCEL OUT" in contact with the ground WITHOUT acting against it?


I didn't say it pushes against the ground in order to jump. I said the ground cancels out the downward force, leaving only the upward force to lift the device off the ground. Did you even look at the graphic I made?


again the same contradiction. learn to read your own claims, you keep conficting them.


No, stretched springs contract towards the center. We have already gone over this. You agreed that when both sides of a stretched spring are released at the same time, both ends contract towards the center. That never changes.


when one side is released, it contracts towards the opposite side.


Depending on the type of spring you use, there are two outcomes... 1: The tube oscillates back and fourth (going nowhere). 2: The tube doesn't move at all.

Some springs that are at rest (equilibrium) are fully contracted and can't really be compressed, only stretched. That type of spring will result in outcome 2. Some springs that are at rest are not fully contracted and they can be compressed, and stretched. That type of spring will result in outcome 1.

In the end, your device will go nowhere.


i don't know what you mean by "springs that can't be compressed, only stretched", that's nonsense. we are talking normal spring that can be stretched and compresses when released. just to confirm, you claim device will go nowhere. keep in mind what you said..


1: No I didn't. See the graphic above.
2: Simply no. Newtons 3rd law exists.....


1. self-contradiction
2. yes
edit on 1-10-2014 by tachyonator7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: tachyonator7

When I was in school, I was dumb enough to think somethng, somewhat similar to this, would work.
Rather than using springs, I set up a "slug" which would move on a rail when attracted by an electro-magnet. This slug would be raised vertically up the rail and fall back when it threw a switch which cut off the current to the magnet. It worked fairly well but would only "jump" up about a foot off the floor each time the current was turned on. I then added a switch at the bottom and wired them to come on and off as the slug went up and down.

I don't think my science teach really understood what I had in mind as she only gave me a C for this science-fair project. My point was: If several of these were put together, they should be able to move a craft in space where there is very little gravity to overcome.
Because the current pulled the slug up but was off when it fell back, if other devices were used to also move the craft, the slug should remain in its then current position until the craft moved up to it.

I think I could supply a rather crude drawing of this device if anyone would care to try to replicate it. I would be quite interested if it could be made work as I had envisioned it so long ago.



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   
I viewed the video posted by the OP. The device in the video moves because the pendulum produces a waddling effect on the vehicle. It increases friction on one side which causes the wheeled car to pivot slightly back and forth as the pendulum moves creating a forward movement. Notice that the inventor has sheets of paper on the desk to increase the friction coefficient of the surface the device is rolling on.

If this device was placed on a low friction surface such as ice it would just oscillate in one spot.

As a youngster, I did this all the time with a skate board.
edit on 1-10-2014 by eManym because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: eManym

Shush! Don't break the illusion!



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: tachyonator7



newtons 3rd law states that for every action there is equal and opposite reaction


Wasn't it Buddha who originally said that?



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Eppur si muove!

www.youtube.com...
edit on 1-10-2014 by tachyonator7 because: ats bugs



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: tachyonator7
Eppur si muove!

www.youtube.com...

Would you like a video of my car driving?

It has the same relationship (or lack there of), to space travel, as your video.



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: tachyonator7

No, it doesn't. The only way I could see it "working" is if the springs are pre-loaded prior to your spacecraft even launching. Once "sprung", how are you going to reload the spring without causing an opposite force against your spacecraft?

For example, in your highly technical video of a bottle in the bath, you release the spring and it goes forward. Now try pulling on that spring to reload it.... What happens to your bottle?



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: tachyonator7
so downward force is "CANCELED OUT in contact with the ground" but it doesn't excert force on the ground?? and you tell me to "learn to read" after making such confused and contradictory statement.

would you please illuminate me and the rest of the world, how does a force "CANCEL OUT" in contact with the ground WITHOUT acting against it?


When the downward force of the spring attempts to move the outer tube down, it can't. It is blocked by Earth. This prevents the tube (and the top half of the spring) from experiencing any inertia and creating kinetic energy downwards (canceled out). The tube simply can't move down, so instead the spring is moved up. The upward movement of the spring (and inertia) causes no extra force to be exerted down on the ground.

Simple.


originally posted by: tachyonator7
again the same contradiction. learn to read your own claims, you keep conficting them.


Again, you don't know what you are talking about. The only contradiction is the one you created in your mind because of lack of knowledge of all the energy / forces in play.


originally posted by: tachyonator7
when one side is released, it contracts towards the opposite side.


No. When one side of a spring is released, that side contracts towards the middle of the spring. The opposite side of the spring also contracts towards the middle, however since that side is fixed in place, the middle of the spring is moved instead. So the entire spring appears to move to one side.

I can't believe you are arguing this.

Both sides of the spring contract towards the middle (equilibrium). When you do the math, and try to calculate the force required to extend or contract the spring using Hooke's law, you can simplify the equation by combining both forces into one, since both forces act together to do the same task (contract or expand). So maybe that is why you are confused.



originally posted by: tachyonator7
i don't know what you mean by "springs that can't be compressed, only stretched", that's nonsense. we are talking normal spring that can be stretched and compresses when released.


You aren't even aware that there are different types of springs?

You don't know the difference between an Extension Spring and a Compression Spring?



Extension springs supply a force by extending or pulling on them.




Compression springs apply a force by compressing or pushing on them.


Most extension springs don't supply any force when compressing them because they are not compressible when at rest. They only supply a force when stretched. This is the type of spring you used in your graphics.

Compression springs apply a force when they are compressed. They also supply a force when they are extended too. This is because at rest they can both be compressed and or stretched.

If you used a compression spring in your device, the spring would contract towards equilibrium, and inertia would cause it to pass equilibrium and compress. Then it would expand towards equilibrium, and inertia would cause it to pass equilibrium again. Then it would contract again... etc. It would oscillate until it reached equilibrium.

If you used an extension spring, the spring would simply contract towards equilibrium and come to a dead stop with little to no oscillation. There would be little vibration.

If you don't know these basic things.... it only highlights other things you don't know about basic mechanical engineering.


originally posted by: tachyonator7
1. self-contradiction
2. yes


You still don't have any clue...
edit on 1-10-2014 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: tachyonator7

That only worked because the equal and opposite reaction was stopped by the clothes pin in the guys hand resting against the bottle. It was only allowed to travel forward. Just like your spring device would lift off the ground, because the ground would prevent the equal and opposite reaction from taking place, and would only allow it to move forward.

We all know your device will lift of the ground, but once in the air, it wouldn't go anywhere. It would have nothing to prevent the equal and opposite reaction.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join