inertial propulsion

[pacerodi]

Congrats! You recreate the planetary system.

[manoftnuva]

Ранние разработки "Пепелац-1" в Сколково 0_о

[johnroach1]

Go to approachconcepts "dot" com for real inertial propulsion.

[xassxass]

Stick slip drive.

[manoftnuva]

turn the chair back on feet !

[ScottishProfessor]

Interesting. Right idea (forget the plasma).

[abaddon1112]

now.. imagine for a second that instead of the weights at the end of those mechanisms are instead ionized plasmas moving at speeds ludicrously higher than those shown here.

[dadig154]

Yes, it would make the device more efficient as long as it was on a surface - land or water - because of the static/dynamic friction it would create. But it wouldn't fly or be of any use in space.

[mityno1]

NASA has a paper called, "Responding to Mechanical Antigravity".

It is a very good 101 basics must-read!

It explains why so far, no mechanisms have actually achieved linear thrust in free space.

Google: NASA/TM—2006-214390

click "I'm feeling lucky"

[reggieqqq]

Thanks for the very interesting reading. I'm glad they have developed a method for addressing such wild claims.

The interesting thing about this device is that the drill is only inducing a slight wobble (yes, torque) into the mechanism which keeps the system in motion with very little effort.

[OilisOver]

@mityno1 no linear thrust yet ??? google: Veljko Milkovic and click (i'm feeling lucky not needed) ;-)

[johnroach1]

@mityno1 You can see the rioters slow down as this thing moves forth. That

means it obeys the conservation of momentum. It really works, but if you

do a patent search you will see at least one patent similar to this, but I am

sure that it really works.

[dadig154]

Nice but not inertial propulsion. This is an Oscillation Thruster and exploits the difference between static and dynamic friction - so it needs to be in contact with a surface to work. For a better explanation google; nasa/tm-2006-214390 it explains it better than I do.

[mityno1]

Sorry, I didn't see your post until after I posted up the same thing.

[reggieqqq]

Thanks for the very interesting reading. I'm glad they have developed a method for addressing such wild claims.

The interesting thing about this device is that the drill is only inducing a slight wobble (yes, torque) into the mechanism which keeps the system in motion with very little effort.

[Inertiatek]

This system has a two to one turn ratio. I did the vector analysis for all four quadrants and this looks like it will work.

[reggieqqq]

Yes, and if you draw a spline following the path of travel for the weights it very closely resembles a hypercardiod microphone pick-up pattern. Cancelation occurring toward the rear of the pattern with a spike at the absolute rear center.

[exasimpol]

I am interested in inertial mass propulsion, and as you have no money, but I suggest that you follow a path more "impressive" for your videos, try to build a "balanced" it takes a lot of speed, and then changes its configuration and off balance, "single shot" the effect will be more attractive

[graphicsms]

is this thing for real? As fun as it was to build this thing on "nothing to do" Saturday, the amount of energy it would take to create a scalable version of this (that actually produced usable linear propulsion of value for a, let's say, vehicle) would be insane. Small return of energy, lots of wasted energy canceling out 80% of the usable force of the engine = not something anyone would make use of. Sorry though, good try!

[reggieqqq]

Hi g,

I've been thinking about this thing for a number of years and have built many iterations which all seem to point to positive results. interestingly enough, a "wobble" imparted upon the system starts the spinning and keeps it there with very little effort. I can imagine a coupled system which shares the wobble with even less energy. I've been attempting to model it in phun in zero gravity but haven't quite figured out how to produce the wobble. I'll let you know... Thanks for your thoughts.

[intj123]

umm excuse me if I'm wrong but is that angular rod attatched to the electric motor necessary? seems like you can directly attatch the motor to the axis of the pendulums. The thing actually sort of moves in a direction though, not bad.

[Innomen]

OP: Why don't you model this in "Phun" and test it in zero g?

[jabberwock11]

This doesn't actually work for sure. It breaks conservation of momentum. It is most likely producing fast intense pulse of inertia which overcomes friction in one direction, which is offset by a slower but less intense pulse that doesnt overcome friction in the other direction. This is the same a shifting your weight around on a skateboard so you can move yourself. However this wont work in space.

[acedovick]

Check out the Thornson inertial engine project.  Or perhaps Macquan1 Both working inertial engines that transform circular motion into linear motion. I have built a small version of the thornson one to see for myself. Works fine

[jabberwock11]

Except it's not working. You just think it is. Same way I can move myself on a skateboard without touching the ground. It's just friction. People have been trying this crap for years and it never works. If it worked it would be worth billions. So why isn't anyone making money?

[18yrsold002]

well government conspiracy... OBVIOUSLY! Seriously. Why else would the brilliant inventions be held away from commercial production and limited only to PRIVATE testing and Youtube demonstrations?

[Innomen]

Regardless of being right or not that logic is very bad, Possibility does not guarantee inception.

It's like saying that because the Chinese didn't turn their bells and fireworks into cannons that cannon's are impossible.

Doesn't work that way.

I don't mean to be cliche, but people said HTA flight wasn't possible.

And it's not just profit you should consider, its disruption. Direct electricity to propulsion would change everything.

[jabberwock11]

HTA flight doesn't break any laws of physics. This does. "Profit" has nothing to do with it except to point out that if anyone already had this working they would be a billionaire by now and we would all know about it. Clearly know one has succeeded and in all likelihood never will.

[Innomen]

First time for everything man.

And you're not hearing me about profit. There are significant global security issues here. A functional version of this device would allow for infinitely variable blast radius weapons.

(mount a couple to a 2000 pound chunk of metal send it to orbit a few times and "land" it on target area) I can see this technology being universally suppressed the same way we would suppress plans for how to make plutonium out of bisquik and paper clips.

[jabberwock11]

The energy you get from dropping something on the earth would be equal to the energy you put in to raise it up, unless you want to break conservation of energy. However since it seems you don't mind throwing out rules of physics, go nuts. throw them all out. Maybe there's a way to cast magic spell and such ehh? Why not? God does it right? I hear Al-Qaida is working on curses that kill millions. Sheeesh I'm done. This is getting stupid.

[Innomen]

Oh please. Don't give me that.

This isn't perpetual motion, it's an electro mechanical propulsion system. Quit pretending like you have the vaguest idea what you're talking about.

[jabberwock11]

LOL! So you think you can build a propulsion system by throwing weights around and then you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm no expert but YOU clearly don't understand conservation of momentum. To move you need to throw mass in the opposite direction. There is no way to do it with spinning weights. This is basic high school physics. Go back to school. You are making yourself look stupid.

[jabberwock11]

And in addition let's for a second assume you could break conservation of momentum (which you can't); you would still need the same amount of energy to raise your missile into orbit that you would get back on impact, otherwise you are talking about over unity which is the same realm as perpetual motion.

[Innomen]

I feel it is possible to convert energy (current) directly into momentum and that this could perhaps be done though manipulation of centrifugal forces.

You're improperly closing the system.

This device would ultimately be using the energy from the sun, just like everything else here.

An explosion is a gradual accumulation of force released suddenly. The device in question would gradually accumulate momentum in space and transform it into kinetic energy at time of impact. No over-unity there.

[jabberwock11]

Let's see we have "I feel" vs a few hundred years of tried and true physics. I'll go with the physics. Furthermore unless you have a good explanation of how said device uses energy from the sun ...IT DOESN'T, so there is no gradual accumulation of anything. You have to put energy in to get it back out. Just making up something off the top of your head doesn't make it work unless you happen to be god (assuming he exists). Are you god?

[Innomen]

*facepalm*

I guess I know what the 11 in your name means, so I'll try to be kind, it's hard being 11 these days I'm sure.

I feel takes up less characters than: In my opinion it is perfectly consistent with known physical law that:

We're talking about something with electric equipment, in space, so it's power source would be the same as other space based platforms, Panels.

You are dogmatically opposed, not rationally.

[jabberwock11]

Well I see you have stopped trying to use any kind of logic and are just going to claim you are correct by fiat. "I feel" or "In my opinion" doesn't matter. You are simply wrong. You won't find a high school physics teacher much less a real physicist who will agree with you in the slightest. As for solar panels, since you can't break conservation of momentum you can't do much with that energy.

[Innomen]

You are simply wrong. is fiat as well.

COM does not apply here, yet you keep bringing it up. Just like you keep trying to drag religion in so you can paint me as a magical thinker.

You object just because you think you're supposed to.

The whole of your position thus far has been an argument from authority and a personal attack.

Grats on accomplishing nothing. :)

[jabberwock11]

"COM does not apply here"

LOL! Ok, well I'll just let you look stupid.

[Innomen]

COM does not apply here because the entire event occurs within a single closed system,

The sun the earth and the device are elements in a single system, expending fuel in the process of controlled movement.

It's is no more a violation than a rocket is.

it's just orders of magnitude more efficient, because no mass is exiting the system as mass it is being converted to heat and thrust so it looks like magic to those with narrow vision.

[jabberwock11]

"It's is no more a violation than a rocket is. "

LOL! Keep going! You're a riot! A rocket expels mass.

[Innomen]

This might seem crazy but this german guy got kinda famous explaining how mass IS energy. *facepalm*

[jabberwock11]

No mass can be converted to energy. Also relativity retains COM so go back and try again. Making irrelevant references doesn't help you.

[Innomen]

Oh they are relevant, far more relevant than your petty insults and capslock :)

I say again COM doesn't apply because the movement is occurring within a single system.

What do you mean "no mass can be converted"... are you say no conversion IS POSSIBLE? Surely not.

"The total rest masses of the fission products (Mp) from a single reaction is less than the mass of the original fuel nucleus..." wiki fission

Any time you release energy you lose mass, however tiny.

[jabberwock11]

I mean "No, mass can be converted to energy" (missed a comma) ; as opposed to being energy. In any case I'm not going to argue further with someone who refuses to accept basic physics. It's a waste of my time and apparently yours. Unless you are Miguel Alcubierre or someone like that you have no credentials to talk about ground breaking propulsion. Neither do I but at least I'm not claiming anything that defies physical principles.

[Innomen]

Saying mass can be converted to energy like it somehow justifies your implication that thrust can not be achieved without expelling mass is hilarious.

I think it's fairly clear that you've steeped in over your head, expecting to drop about an hour's worth of wiki physics copy pasta and smugly move along.

No waste of my time at all, every actual claim you've made I have refuted, which was easy since you only made one.

IP clearly remains possible.

You may leave now :)

[Innomen]

How about this, you prove to me that its impossible to convert electricity into thrust and I'll go away.

My point is that there is no reason COM should prohibit such a conversion.

And you have provided none.

[jabberwock11]

You obviously don't even understand what COM is, so how can I prove anything to you? You don't accept laws of physics that a high school student knows. To put it bluntly to move something one way you have to throw something the opposite direction. WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

[Innomen]

Mass (which is energy) is being expelled, its just not in the form of chemical litter. Fuel is being expended, it's just electrical instead of chemical.

By your logic tungsten would be good rocket fuel because by throwing it away from me I have moved mass efficiently. There is an energetic component that you are ignoring.

A perfectly efficient rocket would create thrust without expelling anything, ion drives are very close to this ideal. They convert matter almost directly to thrust.

[mikeypnz]

Good means of shifting the centre of gravity and well done for proving the concept. Now you have to make it more efficient so it can go upwards :)

[SpiridonovRU]

friction powers

[fatjohn1408]

indeed static friction is higher then dynamic friction. Case closed. srry nice try

[kamalmichael]

excellent

[luxor95]

If you are attempting to design inertial drives be very weary of something called the 'stick-slip' principle that could stuff you up.

[reggieqqq]

Linked systems in motion exert and share forces much like compound and chaotic pendulums (youtube) exhibit. This happens throughout nature, space, atomic. One could imagine dark matter and dark energy within this realm.

[reggieqqq]

Yes it does. Each stroke creates about 1/2" of forward travel.

One interesting thing is that the spinning weights (each about 5 lbs.) spinning at around 100 RPM moves the ±200 lbs. "sled" up hill. as descompes2 pointed out higher speed and several coupled units would increase efficiency, balance and decrease vibration. We'll see...

[Subspace4d]

my friend try Veljko Milković pendulum its far more efficient. I am physicist and have calculated his semi centrifugal forces. Its the best way to make inertial propultion. Though your method works as well.

[reggieqqq]

Yes I built one using some spare parts and rubber bands. But does it work in space? Thanks for your direction and I'd like to hear more.

[Subspace4d]

Yes it work in space. You can calculate the centrifugal force by F=mv²/r...If this force does not complete the whole circle, then the resulting force only point asymetrically in one direction. So a thrust is generated as result. You can as well build this pendulum by two opposing magnets on the both ends of the main pendulum that as well consist of magnets. Drive the pendulum by bedini shematic.

[descompes2]

Wow it moves! really cool, imagine this at high speed with several units to smooth out the motion

[reggieqqq]

Yes it does and you're exactly right. I'm currently working on a very small version with tight tolerances which could theoretically spin up to around 10K RPM with three coupled units. Just need the funding... Oh well.

[Cicero19]

Very cool. Quite an innovative way to move.

[reggieqqq]

Thanks! I've built several iterations which all seem to point to similar qualities. Like others exploring the field I can see a way to move through space without bringing fuel. That would be innovative.