It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Newtons third law - could wheels work in space

page: 1
4
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 09:19 PM
Question one....

If in space you have an object consisting of say a 200 pound weight at the end of a rod that contracts when you switch on an electromagnetic solenoid does Newton's Third Law tell us that the rod will be propelled in the opposite direction to that of the contracting weight.

If so, shouldn't it be possible to build a rotating wheel consisting of many such rods that contract to pull a space craft forward and springs back in the opposite direction to help push the craft when the solenoid is turned off. With imbalances cancelled out by counter rotating wheels.

Question two....

Imaging a flying saucer with gas being rotated inside a ring at high speed. Could an air-foil strategically placed in the gas stream produce force that would move the flying saucer forward.

Question three....

Or am I too stupid to think about these things.

posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 09:25 PM

Or am I too stupid to think about these things.

Well When I read the title my 1st thought was its gonna take a big road. So stupidity is relative.

posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 09:33 PM

Your describing, basically, an inertial engine. There is quite a bit of data on the internet about this kind of device. We built one in 1996, it was heavy, vibrated like all hell, but it could carry itself and a 200 lb load 30 feet across the floor with no rolling wheels. With a bit of orbital weight refinement and a few other things it could work in space.

Cheers - Dave

posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 09:39 PM

Please tell me you have pics or vid or something?

posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 09:45 PM

Looks from just reading about inertial engines that none have proved to work in a friction-less environment (space). Thanks for the heads up dave,

posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 10:01 PM
I wish I knew what I was just reading.

I think I may have peeked into something strange here.. Oo

posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 10:54 PM

No. Not remotely possible.

And Newton’s Third Law is the reason why.

posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 02:31 AM

at a quick glance
ques 1 may work
ques 2 no
ques 3 many a inventions were brought about by free thinkers like you. so keep at it

posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 05:27 AM
Wheels do work in space. We call them gyro's.

posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 05:46 AM

You should be a engineer at NASA
sounds like great ideas I could see some potential for at cheap propulsion method.
You could call it CAG craft.

Controlled artificial gravity craft.

Could be the same control mechanism in your modern UFO

posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 06:28 AM

Yeah the Hubble telescope has them to rotate.

posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 06:34 AM

Imaging a flying saucer with gas being rotated inside a ring at high speed. Could an air-foil strategically placed in the gas stream produce force that would move the flying saucer forward.

In the Vedic texts of India , vimyanas (flying craft) were supposedly powered bu something similar. Instead of gas it was mercury (quicksilver)

posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 10:33 AM

What you have are simply variants of the classic save yourself from drowning by pulling on your own hair idea.

Won't work. Newton's laws tell you why.

posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 10:49 AM
The US military(and I assume other countires, highly likely the UK) , were messing around with saucer shaped craft on a similar principal, by using jet engines to circulate the force around the craft.

This was over 40 years ago.

posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 02:20 PM

originally posted by: thesungod

Please tell me you have pics or vid or something?

I have pics of the unit, i am not allowed to release them due to intellectual property agreements and nda's. But, I can build a better one, just don't have the funds to throw at it and I'm not looking as I have plenty of paid r&d and other work on my plate.

Cheers - Dave

posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 02:25 PM

originally posted by: glend

Looks from just reading about inertial engines that none have proved to work in a friction-less environment (space). Thanks for the heads up dave,

As far as I am aware, inertial engines have never been tested in space. However, on the ground, we achieved 1g and with a change to the design we could easily hit 2g's. What's that flight time to Mars at 1g acceleration to the halfway mark and 1g deceleration the rest of the way? I think it was 13 days. No loss of bone mass, that's a plus eh ;-)

BTW, it was demonstrated to the Canadian military, they didn't know what to think. Of course, the same happened with the avro arrow. Last time I dealt with sdi or DARPA my stuff fell into a black hole and became a non-exportable national security issue, so I have no love for advancing the military industrial complex. As soon as you get hit with national security sanctioning, your profit margin becomes zero, actually you lose your work as well.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 7/29.2016 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 06:33 PM

Was the mercury not supposed to be somehow spun thus generating some kind of magnetic energy field in the Vimyanas?

Don't think the actually expelled mercury as a propellant in the conventional sense.
edit on 29-7-2016 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 07:37 PM

Yes if we had engine that could propel spacecraft at 1G all the planets would be in easy reach. But perhaps more exciting is the possibility of interstellar travel, with probes to our closest neighbours returning transmitted data within 6 years. 1G seems easy compared to the acceleration of chemical rockets but maintaining that acceleration for long periods is the key for interstellar flight.

Avro arrow does make an interesting read!

The Moon / Luna: Closest to Earth (Supermoon): 356,577 km
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, no deceleration): 2h 22m 12s
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, decelerating halfway): 3h 20m 24s

Mercury: Closest to Earth: 77.3 million km
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, no deceleration): 1d 10h 52m 48s
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, decelerating halfway): 2d 1h 19m 12s

Venus: Closest to Earth: 40 million km
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, no deceleration): 1d 1h 5m 2s
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, decelerating halfway): 1d 11h 28m 48s

Mars: Closest to Earth: 65 million km
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, no deceleration): 1d 7h 58m 5s
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, decelerating halfway): 1d 21h 13m 1s

Jupiter: Closest to Earth: 588 million km
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, no deceleration): 4d 0h 11m 2s
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, decelerating halfway): 5d 16h 2m 2s

Saturn: Closest to Earth: 1.2 billion km
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, no deceleration): 5d 17h 25m 1s
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, decelerating halfway): 8d 2h 20m 24s

Uranus: Closest to Earth: 2.57 billion km
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, no deceleration): 8d 9h 6m 0s
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, decelerating halfway): 11d 20h 24m 0s

Neptune: Closest to Earth: 4.3 billion km
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, no deceleration): 10d 20h 7m 48s
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, decelerating halfway): 15d 7h 52m 48s

Pluto: Closest to Earth: 4.28 billion km
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, no deceleration): 10d 19h 31m 12s
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, decelerating halfway): 15d 7h 1m 12s

posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 07:45 PM

originally posted by: andy06shake

Was the mercury not supposed to be somehow spun thus generating some kind of magnetic energy field in the Vimyanas?

Don't think the actually expelled mercury as a propellant in the conventional sense.
Yes , but I believe the OP stated "spinning gases"

posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 07:48 PM

Ion propulsion could possibly give us the ability to travel to the other worlds in our system. Need to be rather more efficient than we are currently able to produce all the same.

new topics

top topics

4