Question |
| Asked by: |
Jeremy O'Connor |
| Subject: |
Physics behind gyro-based propulsion. |
| Question: |
Despite the many claims made by developers of gyro-based (linear thrust) propulsion, that one or more of Newton's laws of motion are seemingly broken, I can definitively say that *NONE* of the three laws would be broken, in any successful design of a gro-thrust device. In fact, they would all be obeyed in such a device (even in an unsuccessful design). The rationale behind the point I am trying to make is that the theory needs to be developed along with any physical design, and such a theory a priori honours all accepted laws of physics. So any claims to the contrary need to be re-evaluated using sound physics. I welcome any comments on my position. |
| Date: |
13 October 2003
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Dave - 14/10/2003 10:03:48
|
| | Absolutely agree. See Q. "building a machine"
No laws of physics are broken. The theory is sound (and simple) but the mechanics are awkward due to the stresses involved.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dr D.Fisher - 16/10/2003 01:06:22
|
| | How precisely do you imagine that propulsion could occur in the absence of reaction? Are you sure that you really understand Newton's laws? If so, how can you reconcile your position with the conservation laws and Noether's theorem? The only way in which such propulsion could occur would be by exploiting an existing gradient (which would supply the required energy and obviate reaction). For instance, one could exploit the Lense-Thirring or Wisdom effects; but these are truly minute and unexploitable using any foreseeable technology.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jeremy O'Connor - 16/10/2003 13:01:14
|
| | I did not say that (some) propulsion would occur in the absence of reaction. And I never took a position that would violate any conservation law. In fact, if you read my question again, you would notice that I said quite the opposite, i.e. all laws of physics would be obeyed in any working or non-working incarnation of a gyroscopic based linear thrust engine.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dr D.Fisher - 17/10/2003 02:29:19
|
| | I still do not understand your position. How can you say that the device will obey Newton's laws, when Newton's laws rule out, by definition, the very existence of such a device? Or are you saying that some, as yet unknown force, will be found which makes the device work and this force will, again by definition, obey Newton's laws? No amount of tinkering with classical mechanics will make gyroscopic propulsion viable. Introducing general relativity can make propulsion viable but, because of the appearance of 'powers of c' in the equations, the effects are far beyond experimental testing.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jeremy O'Connor - 17/10/2003 10:10:45
|
| | My position is as follows. When I say that "the device will obey Newton's laws", what I am saying is that *all* physical devices obey Newton's laws. I am not saying that one or other device does or does not obey them. I have no intention of tinkering with classical mechanics. Again, any device that could be constructed will obey classical mechanics - but this is what I have already stated in previous postings.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dr D.Fisher - 18/10/2003 00:36:07
|
| | We agree then. All 'physical' devices obey Newton's laws. A gyroscopic propulsion device would not obey Newton's laws. Therefore it is not a physical device, and cannot exist. As indeed they don't.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
mw - 18/10/2003 21:04:44
|
| | use your eyes
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dr D.Fisher - 19/10/2003 00:43:42
|
| | Assuming that the latter cheap shot is directed at me, I would suggest that the writer is the sort of person who believes that David Blaine can levitate (without trickery) because he 'used his eyes' or thinks that the Sun obviously orbits a stationary Earth (just use your eyes). Don't rely on your eyes; use your brain as well.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 19/10/2003 00:45:01
|
| | Dear Jeremy,
The well meaning, path blocking Dr Fisher is quite right.
You cannot have a device that moves in one direction without lobbing something in the opposite direction and having to re-examine Newtons third.
However you and he and Dave need to learn that the only way to be sure of others claims is to do confirming (or otherwise) experiments yourselves. Einsteinian thought experiments are not enough and not needed when fairly simple (though I admit that there are some nasty twists in the thought paths) engineering is all that is required .... together with the ability to shut out all the people telling you that there is nothing down that path despite not having trod it themselves.
Glenn (of this site) trod the path but seems ashamed of his early attempts (as they are no longer shown).
I would be proud! Few have any idea how hard it is to carry out the needed engineering work with your fingers in you ears to block out all those (sometimes well meaning souls) telling you it can't be done.
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dr D.Fisher - 19/10/2003 18:15:57
|
| | Thankyou for the support, Macmad, but before scientists rush into replicating experiments they (unlike NASA engineers re Podkletnov) look to see what might be wrong with the original evidence. In the case of Laithwaite, everything is wrong. His 'theoretical' writings shows that he did not understand the relevant physics, his demonstrations do not prove anything (in particular, his swinging of a heavy gyroscope around his head should be classed with the 'finger levitation' party-trick as a means of fooling gullible audiences) and, except in his last few years, he did not even make proper measurements. The Japanese gyroscopic weighing experiments should have never been published. They were based upon unpublished work by a Russian crackpot and were incompetent. Only an idiot uses a chemical balance to weigh a 'dynamic' object. It was shown years ago, by a skeptic, that weighing an ordinary electric door-bell can reveal an apparent loss in weight when it is ringing. Experiment by all means, but test each prototype by hanging it from the ceiling. If it does not hang permanently to one side of vertical, it is not working and should be abandoned.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dave - 21/10/2003 11:15:57
|
| | Dr Fisher, You seem to have filled your head with excessive trivia relating to this subject and are totally ignoring the simplicity of the physics, i believe this is because you have not managed to translate the basics into a workable application. Translating rotational energy into linear propulsion is not new but finding a device that actually can do this in a workable way, is. Again, i agree with the question and say that there are no laws of physics broken in such a device.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dr D.Fisher - 22/10/2003 00:28:59
|
| | It is the very simplicity of the physics which means that one cannot convert rotational motion into nett linear motion; they are ‘separately conserved’. I know that such conversion appears to happen in numerous everyday situations, but that is because of the hidden role played, ultimately, by the Earth. There is no way, in isotropic and otherwise-empty space, in which any assembly of rotating wheels or oscillating masses can produce nett rectilinear motion. This is ruled out by Newton’s third law. But this law is, in effect, only a corollary of the energy conservation law. And behind that law lies Noether’s theorem, which associates a conservation law with each fundamental symmetry of space and time. How can one explain the import of Noether’s theorem without understanding all of its complicated associated mathematics? There is a simple way in which one can get at the import of the theorem, and it is this: imagine that you have constructed a model automobile, a model aircraft, a model rocket and a prototype reaction-less propulsion device. Now, ask yourself in what direction each model will move when set in motion. From elementary reasoning and the very design of the device, you can be sure of the direction of motion of the first 3 devices; that is, you can imagine the road, air-stream or exhaust moving in a given direction and the model going the other way. But what about the reaction-less device? With nothing to react against, there is no obvious direction in which your device should move. If it is wheel-like, what makes it choose any particular angle of departure? If it is oscillatory, why should it move more in one direction than the other? Now, if it is your own design, you may have some good reason why you think it should move in a given direction, but could you convince someone else of that? Alternatively, if it was somebody else’s design, do you think that you could guess in what direction he thought it should move? For instance, many reaction-less drive inventors try to exploit ‘centrifugal’ force, in the mistaken belief that a) it is a real force and b) acts radially. If you also hold these misconceptions, the direction of motion of his device will be obvious to you. If you do not, you will laugh at what he is trying to achieve. As I do, at all such devices.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
webmaster@gyroscopes.org (Glenn) - 23/10/2003 01:09:28
|
| | I‘m sorry to disappoint but I’m going to have to continue to be open minded on the whole subject of gyroscopic propulsion. I’ve done quite a large number of experiments over a good few years now. I started with quite complex devices/experiments that made it difficult to interpret the results. I’ve since moved to simpler experiments that seem (at the moment at least) to be heading in a logical direction. I will published the findings regardless how long it takes. Sorry for the wait so far.
I think that science indicates that gyroscopic propulsion is improbable. However it is not unknown for science to be wrong. I see science as just a representation of our current knowledge and understanding of the world around us, by its very nature it just shows the human races understanding. Science should and is always being updated. I think before we even start to debate whether something ‘breaks’ classic mechanics / Newton’s laws, we need to truly understand what we are looking at. We may find that ‘it’ is as yet, an unknown new force. Then again it could be just our misunderstandings.
“Nitro MacMad” spoke about the removal of the older experiments from this site. I did that for two reasons. One, The new site design means they need to be reformatted to keep the same style and secondly because some text needs to be rewritten because it’s partly incorrect. I’ll try and put them up again as soon as I have time.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 28/10/2003 01:32:22
|
| | Even an open-minded person should have a hard time believing in gyroscopic/inertial propulsion. Let's not even consider the physics for now. With dozens of patents, numerous web sites and hundreds of claims, I have never seen any remotely convincing evidence that any of these devices actually work. I would like to see one, just one demonstration of any device pass a simple pendulum test. If an inertial drive actually worked, it would be earth-shattering news. The inventor would be a millionaire (if not billionaire). Instead proponents of these devices often align themselves with weird science, UFOs and what not. In any case I would like to retain an open mind, but I find it hard given the state of research in this area. The original poster wrote, "The theory needs to be developed along with any physical design". I respectfully disagree. What needs to happen is for someone to prove their device works, regardless of if they have a theory or not.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jeremy O'Connor - 28/10/2003 12:46:38
|
| | I agree with you that a working incarnation of a "gyroscopic based propulsion device" needs to be developed. All I am saying is that it needs (eventually) to be described theoretically, by a physical model.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 06/11/2003 19:09:28
|
| | Dear Jeremy, Glenn, Dave, Dr. Fisher, Ram, mw et al,
Would you like to know about one that works?
NM
PS I am sorry Dave, if I've filed before you and a little sorry Dr Fisher as you will kick yourself when you realise that your despised Laithwaite was so-o-o-o-o close.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 07/11/2003 02:45:31
|
| | Yes Nitro, I would love to know about one that works. But does it pass a pendulum test? And I'm not talking about those bumpy pendulum tests where someone tries to eyeball the center of mass of the device on a wildly swinging pendulum. I'm talking about a test in which the device can hold the pendulum off center at some measurable distance. If it can pass this test I will be reasonable convinced that it works. At minimum I think this would convince many scientists that such a device warrants further investigation. Do you have something to demonstrate?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
James Bean - 02/12/2003 02:30:23
|
| | Late post but...
One: I would have to say, if it doesn't pass the pendulum test, pitch it and rethink the concept or the engineering. One of them let you down.
Two: Newton's third law? You've gotta be kidding. While forces may be seperately conserved vis a vis rotation and linear motion, how, for the sake of argument, does one tell the difference in any meaningfull way, between linear motion and a circular motion of near infinite radius?
I agree forces must balance, and energy must be conserved, if not lost to friction, heat and a myriad of other parasites, and all new ideas must obey classical mechanics at least in a gross sense. That's not the point, the point is that engineering a new and interesting solution requires applying laws in an obedient yet fundamentally unanticipated manner.
The question one should ask when presented by a thing that meets these criteria should not be, "where's the trick?" but "why didn't I think of that?"
That said, if the inventor won't let you kick the tires, don't by the spaceship.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Brad H - 20/01/2004 21:16:25
|
| | Lots of misconceptions here, I see. Someone needs to point out here that 'rotational' motion and 'linear' motion really are very similar things indeed. Rotational motion is ONLY possible in the presence of a mutually stabilizing set of forces. Imagine a metal ring orbiting around its center of gravity. Examine any single point along the ring and you will find that there is another point somewhere on the ring (or possibly region of points) that is producing forces in the opposite direction as the particle you are examining.
In reality, each particle in the ring is trying to move in a straight line, but there is another particle, or set of particles, traveling in a different direction (possibly with a different velocity) that is holding it to its path of rotation.
Imagine that this spinning ring breaks apart. Every particle will now be traveling in a straight line and the center of mass of the device (relative to some frame of reference) has NOT changed.
If one puts some thought into this, one will come to the conclustion that rotational motion is ONLY possible if newton's third law is satisfied. Otherwise gyroscopes would not work in the first place.
I agree with many of the skeptics here, and would point out that an education in physics would help many of the believers to quickly become skeptics themselves.
I would also like to point out that there is NOTHING wrong with being a skeptic. We just want the truth, and we won't believe anyone's claims until we see proof. It's our way of stopping the spread of gossip and false information. If presented with enough evidence (such as the passing of a certain set of scientific tests), the TRUE skeptic will admit his mistake, and accept the truth. It is, however, the responsibility of the believer to convince the skeptics otherwise.
Best of luck, and keep on trying!
Brad H
P.S. Faith is simply a belief, without proof, of someone else's beliefs.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harvey Fiala - 09/09/2004 05:36:10
|
| | I wholeheartedly agree with Ram Firestone's answer of October 28, 2003, wherein he disputes Jeremy O'Connor's contention that "The theory needs to be developed along with any physical design". And this applies not only to gyroscopic propulsion, but any type of device that seems to perform in an unusual manner. Some people are gifted with mechanical or practical insights into mechanisms or chemistry or other processes, but yet know nothing about differentials or integrals or relativity or Newton's Laws. It would be seriously wrong to criticize someone who developed a device that worked, but had no idea of how or why it worked. This is where those gifted with a deep understanding of the laws of physics should step forward and attempt to explain how it works instead of "blacklisting" the "inventor" or calling him a crackpot. It takes a team of gifted people to fully develop, understand, and exploit new devices.
It would be just as wrong to criticize those who think they understand the known laws of physics very well for not having invented all the devices that are inventable using those laws of physics. Should we call our top-notch physics and math professors stupid for not being able to invent all inventable devices and solve all math problems? I don't think so.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
jason sinclair - 06/01/2005 06:34:34
|
| | It appears that the laws of motion can't be broken as such.
To thow in some of my own personal theories.
I would argue that it is impossible that any object could travel in a true straight line (due to opposing universal forces) and also it is equally impossible for any object to travel in a true circle (as it is thus far been theoretically impossible to determine a quantative measure for a circle.). All forces are held somwhere in between circular and straight motion. The main difference beteen circular motion and straight motion is that the former has a centre if it does an orbit.
I don't think it is possible that a perpetual motion devise could therfore be made.
This is not to say that perpetual motion cannot exist as it is likely that it does.(the combination of all universal forces probably create perpetual motion)
However. the people that understand the forces at hand are more likely to develop systems that can harmonously interact with existing forces and therfore create designs that aid in less reaction than current technologies
I don't think it is possible that a perpetual motion device can be made but i do beleive that the experimentation in this area will likely produce better mechanisms to cope with the influx of force and therfore less power needed to aid them.
In theory it would be possible to create an "almost" perpetual type of machine. The gyroscope could thus provide answers in that area.
Newton's laws don't discourage the investigator as he states in his first law " Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. "
It is the forces that discourage the investigator and it is only through investigation of these forces where on will be able to find a pathway to uniform motion. It is highly unlikely that the uniform motion is either a straight line or a circular motion but a mixture of the two.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Eric James ----- - 28/04/2005 07:11:20
|
| | Jeremy,
By the very definition of the first law of motion, force must be applied from an external source in order to disturb equilibrium (induce motion) in an object.
Therefore any self-contained device that moves past its boundries MUST clash with the laws of motion. There's no way around it.
So, either Newton's laws are correct and motion from an internal force is impossible, or Newton's laws are incomplete (if not wrong) and such a device is possible.
One must consider that Newton devised his laws in a time of relatively primitive mechanical development.
Eric
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 29/04/2005 06:27:50
|
| | Eric,
You got it all correct in one.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Victor Geere - 29/04/2005 11:14:01
|
| | Eric,
I refer to your comment about expansion:
http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=7
To elaborate on that, consider the following:
A weight is attached to a flywheel with a magnet and a long piece of string. As soon as the flywheel is spun fast enough, that the centrifugal force overcomes the magnetic force that keeps the weight attached to the flywheel, the weight will shoot of in a direction until the piece of string is tight. The momentum of the weight will jerk on the piece of string hard enough to make the flywheel move in the same direction. The weight and the flywheel will join up again somewhere along the piece of string, and you can repeat the exercise.
You need to keep in mind that the force that caused the flywheel to spin IS an external force conserved for a while inside the flywheel. All you need to do is unbalance it for a short while.
Newton's laws are not broken here. You can also read:
http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=388
Sandy, I wouldn't take your comments too seriously until you've read about the difference between mass and weight, which you can Google or read at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mass.html after which you might want to revisit:
http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=355.
Anybody who is really serious about Newton's laws being broken should publish his findings in a scientific journal and send his Sunday best to the dry-cleaners in anticipation for a Nobel Prize nomination. That will most certainly vindicate you.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Eric James ----- - 30/04/2005 06:27:16
|
| | Victor,
In the case of a string attachment (as you described), it is still an expansion. Pulling the string back in, stopping the rotation and reattaching the weight to its original location will put the whole assmbly right back where it started from. The center of gravity for the whole system never moves.
There's lots of motion (particularly angular and implied counter angular) to you concept that can easily cause confusion as to what actually would happen, but the truth is that it doesn't really move (as an entirety).
Eric
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Victor Geere - 30/04/2005 12:47:34
|
| | That would have been the case of two static weights expanding at the ends of a piece of string. You are not keeping in mind that the weight does not push the flywheel away when it is flung into a direction. If the flywheel and the weight weigh the same, they will meet again halfway along the piece of string when it has been extended. And for every cycle you will gain half the length of the piece of string. Try it on an airbed and amuse yourself.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Eric James ----- - 30/04/2005 19:26:41
|
| | Victor,
You are incorrect. The flywheel does react to the lost weight. The only difference to simple expulsion being that the flung mass will have a relative angular momentum value with the center of mass of the gyro, versus simply having a linear trajectory from the center of mass of a "normal" propulsion concept.
Think like this: If a flywheel spins in space and splits in two, will only one-half of the flywheel fly away?
Eric
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Victor Geere - 30/04/2005 22:13:32
|
| | I like your way of thinking Eric. The only thing that keeps me here is learning something every now and again. I will have to do a couple of mass x velocity calculations to put this into perspective for myself, but for the moment I will accept that your argument makes sense.
If Newton's laws and internal propulsion are mutually exclusive (of which I'm not convinced), I'll put my money on Newton.
I still don't consider gyroscopic propulsion as internal propulsion though, but I think we will have many conversations about that still.
Cheers.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Eric James ----- - 01/05/2005 00:06:55
|
| | Victor,
Thank you for the kind compliment.
I wouldn't bet on Newton.
Eric
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Victor Geere - 06/05/2005 12:51:23
|
| | Why is centripetal and centrifugal force not equal?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Orlowski Zygmunt - 18/02/2006 20:35:27
|
| |
Clean energy
The entire world is looking for a source of clean energy. I have discovered a certain paradox basing on which a machine called METOZ can be built which by harnessing the gravitation of our EARTH can produce clean energy.
The energy producing process is demonstrated in:
http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/paradox.html
and can be very easily confirmed by an experiment.
I am also in possession of a set of calculations which prove that the METOZ machine:
1/ does not consume water / 39 A5-pictures /;
2/ does not consume compressed air / 39 A5-pictures /;
3/ produces energy to the outside = 4 839 kGm during a „swing cycle” /39 A5-pictures /;
/ this is a „weight cycle” = the centre of gravity of the water in the METOZ machine sinks ( downward movement ) /
4/ energy is produced / released to the outside = 44 600 kGm during the „straightening cycle” / 39 A5-pictures /.
/ this is a “pressure cycle” = the water mass centre of gravity inside the METOZ machine travels upwards (upward movement) /
Features: 1/; 2/; 3/; 4/, of the machine owing to appropriate dimensions of individual elements of the lever mechanism.
The METOZ has an even-arm lever of a 1.72 m length. The centre of gravity of the lever lies beneath the lever suspension point. The METOZ is equipped with two cylinders of a 1.6 m diameter each. Piston sidewalls do not contact directly with cylinder walls. The lever swing changes between and .
Figures ( 3 x 13 x 4 = 156 ) present temporary, consecutive action situations at intervals of . The middle figure presents the machine and the side figures the position of the left and right cylinder and the mathematical description of these situations.
In the past I have made two models, which confirmed the legitimacy of my theoretical assumptions concerning the METOZ machine. I have got photographs.
I am looking for a person who would be interested in my invention. I can offer ample information. I look forward to hearing from you.
http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/three_levers.html
13 - 03 -2005 Gdynia, Polska Zygmunt Orłowski
P.S. The term “gravitational paradox” use in this description relates to the mathematical and physical description of the action of the METOZ-machine.
THE EARTH GRAVITATION CAN BE THE SOURCE OF CLEAN ENERGY.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments concerning machine "METOZ"
"METOZ" is able to realize the cycle "deflection" and the cycle "straighening." Both cycles are in accordance with current physic's laws. "METOZ" as machine can not work and hand over the energy because it would be inconsonant to the law of conservation of energy.
I propose to execute the following intelectual process:
we have found ourselves in the Europe of XVII century. We know the trigonometry in the scope of being occured for "METOZ." We know what is the even-arm lever and moment of force too. Just appeears Mr. Baise Pascal / 1623--1662/ and he publishes his hydraulics law with adequated experiment. All thinkers are sure that this law is correct and quite real. This time someone invents machine "METOZ". Now turn up the following questions:
1/ why the implementation of the cycle "deflection" is impossible?
2/ why the implementation of the cycle "straightening" is impossible?Both groups: opponents and followers of bulding "METOZ" live in XVII--th century and they not know that:
a/ the idea of an "energy" will be introduced into science scarlerly in mid. of XIX century,
b/ the law of conservation of the energy will be exist scarlerly after 1847 y.
QVESTION!!!
WHAT KIND OF RATIONALY ENTERELY / ARGUMENT/ CAN BE DREAMED UP THE OPPONENTS OF BUILDING THE MACHINE "METOZ' IN XVII CENTURY.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My idea is very difficult for understanding. It is not difficult for
engineer - mechanic, who knows very good the Pascal's law and even-arm lever. Please open GOOOOOL and next klick index of metozor
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 18/02/2006 23:56:12
|
| | Hello Orlowski,
In the end, pressure does not convert to mass. There is no gravitational force on pressure and Archimedes is still the 2,000-year-old giant here. I’m very sorry. What a gorgeous mechanical, pictorial explanation you’ve created to simplify an otherwise difficult conception. My hat’s off to you in a big way, but no cigar. It won’t work.
Glenn H.
P. S. Forgive me. We are not Gods. We can’t create energy. Perpetual motion isn’t possible, but perpetual conversion is. It’s going on everywhere. It always has been. Oddly, an Austrian? on this site just ‘today’ reiterated you cannot get something from nothing.
You must become an engineer, Orlowski. You have a special gift for it.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Orlowski Zygmunt - 25/02/2006 19:45:18
|
| | for.Mr. Glenn Hawkins . Please open GOOGle, metozor and next
http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/?S=A
Overthere are pictures and descriptions about METOZ machine.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn H. - 26/02/2006 15:43:22
|
| | Dear Orlowski,
Thank you for shearing Metoz with everyone. You’ve done a tremendous amount of work and I especially like your presentation of lever three. Seeing in may help some folks here realize how best to balance a particularly sensitive test they may want to do.
I looked at your site before replying to you the first time, but I admit I only skimmed through it. I thought I understood enough, but I’ll be happy to go over it more carefully now that I know you actually answer your mail. So many on this site don’t. I’ll try to evaluate it in some detail, but since I’ve already said it’s a fine work you’ve done, I don’t know if my opinion beyond that will change. I’m going to it now. I’m studying it again… now.
http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/energy_for_everybody.html
(B.) You say, “In consequence of a negligent carrying out of a lever a right scale pan has come down and a left scale pan has risen.” What does this mean? Negligent means the lack of carring out an action. My question is why do you think these pans change posision?
As you open and close the valves the atmospheric pressure does not change. The pressure inside the total cavity, that being both pans is equal per square inch in all directions. That is equilibrium, the nature of pressure to exert equal force on both pans. Neither moves, but remain balanced at equal heights.
Even if the two pans in Metoz would oscillate up and down like a sea saw, concider that energy would be required to constantly replace the pressure used from the high pressure tank.
(C.) & (B.) I don’t understand how you reason that one pan would move, while the other would not? Until I do there’s not much reason to continue reasoning this out, but I’ll do as you ask. Ok, I don’t see how Pascal 's Principle is used to any advantage here. In fact his principle explains the opposite of what I see. http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/section/Underwater_and_in_the_Air/Pressure/941987638.htm The trouble with this explanation is that it doesn’t explain the 100-cn piston moves a distance of only 1:100 related to the 1 cm piston movement.
If this weren't so I could use the grip of my hand on a series of connected pistons and chambers to generate a force to the 10th power and beyond. There isn't any increase in energy to be created from Pascal's Law, but only as in a lever such as we find in hydraulics.
(E.) ‘Straightening you say.’ The introductions of pressure would in no way cause the pans to straighten or, rather move to equal heights. Gravity, however would cause the connected fluids to reach an equal height. But consider, at the very first cycle gravity would not have dislodged either pan to move up, or down in relation to one another.
Three books on fluid mechanics in fine print with math could weight 100Lbs. When I would see them I’d run the other way from them. I insist that you may enjoy re-read Archimedes. He most relates to you work, though he predates, Pascal by a hundred generations. As to his understanding of the lever his famous quotation is "Give me somewhere to stand and I will move the earth." It is however his detailed study of equilibrium that you might enjoy rereading most.
If I’ve missed anything please explain yourself in different ways.
Now, I’m very serious, Orlowski. You must pursue a degree in engineering. That is your Karma. That is right for you.
Sincerely,
Glenn H.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 27/03/2006 17:30:35
|
| | Tried to wade through this topic again after so many replies.
A few things discussed and stated as facts concern me:
Talk of enclosed systems, reaction-less devices, inertial propulsion. CONSERVATION of ENERGY??!!
Someone suggested "You cannot have a device that moves in one direction without lobbing something in the opposite direction and having to re-examine Newtons third." to argue why these machines are impossible.
YES I agree that you do need to lob something out in the opposite direction.
Someone else has stated that "an education in physics would help many of the believers to quickly become skeptics themselves."
Err, excuse me, but am I struggling to get my head around the theory. I don't think so. And i have an education in physics, chemistry, biomechanics, quantum mechanics, magnetism & electricity and engineering.
"By the very definition of the first law of motion, force must be applied from an external source in order to disturb equilibrium (induce motion) in an object."
Yes, yes, yes.
OK
We then make a machine that in itself is going no-where.
We then pump in energy which makes the gyroscopes spin. We then maybe pump in more energy to move the spinning gyroscopes. Currently this energy is absorbed into the system causing heat, vibration but not much in the form we are looking for, movement .
Even so, If that is not an applied external force, what is?
I believe that some of the so called physics and maths bods on here are incapable of explaining what is/could happen because they either do not understand what is happening or they have bogged themselves down in ridiculous theorem to try and explain their misunderstanding.
Keeping things simple seems impossible for certain individuals.
I can also definitively say that *NONE* of the three laws would be broken and a machine will be made that produces linear thrust.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Orlowski - 29/05/2006 18:00:04
|
| | Please find :
http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/for_greenpeace.html
Over there the air pressure problem is completely solvent. The colummn of water is constants.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
bastita bernard - 06/07/2006 16:08:23
|
| |
site
http://inventionconception.free.fr
best regards
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Orlowski Zygmunt - 14/10/2006 21:23:21
|
| | It is something new. METOZ about. .
http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/not_for_idiod.html Thanks for understanding.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Orlowski Zygmunt - 15/10/2006 20:49:27
|
| | It is something METOZ about , again
http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/cycle_str.html
http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/work_deflection.html
E-mail this to a friend
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Orlowski Zygmunt - 17/10/2006 21:43:42
|
| | http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/energy_exper.html
E-mail this to a friend
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Orlowski Zygmunt - 20/02/2007 22:13:39
|
| | It is something METOZ about.
http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/prolog_for_metoz.html
http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/not_for_idiot.html
http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/cycle_str.html
http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/work_deflection.html
http://www.metozor.nets.pl/metoz.htm
http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/energy_exper.html
Thanks for understanding.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 14/03/2008 20:29:23
|
| | Referring to the statements at the beginning of this thread, I agree with the following:
1) Newtons laws are entirely based on reaction physics
2) Conservation laws are supremely robust, and therefore a design which requires the violation of conservation laws is highly suspect.
3) Although a gyro seems to defy reaction, it is actually based on reaction, with the force being redirected perpendicular to the applies force.
I also disagree with the implication that it is impossible to create an engine that is not based on reaction physics. There are many ways to do this using established physics principles. It is true that such technology has not yet been developed, but from a purely academic perspective, the physics has been available for decades.
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 15/03/2008 14:37:05
|
| | A basketball completely enclosed is accelerating through space. Inside is some kind of engine powering it. You see an enclosed capsule. You recognize the acceleration. Now Jeremy, forget the magic inside of the capsule, which you cannot see, or fathom. Look to the only thing you can see, an accelerating basketball and explain to me how Newton’s laws could be upheld?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
