@cougarrcsnva, yup, similar to the "dean drive" but its only in my concepts/drawings, unfortunately for now, I don't have the time, money and place to experiment on it. but I'll give it a try someday :)
What your trying to do (even if you don't know it) is create a false neutral center with cintripital force. I know how, but the machine I made rips itself apart. I'm still working on finding a method that doesn't do that. Plus it takes about 4 times the energy to cause motion than just pushing/lifting the thing by cable & motor.
I think lots of people know how, but a great method is still elusive.
The two weights are rotating around a stationary point so net effect is zero. Place your mouse cursor between the weights , that is the stationary point. It is a flywheel.
yeah sorry but no it wouldn't work. One of the key problems would be frictiton but have to say that don't give up thomas edison failed a hundred times before he invented the light bulb
Conservation of energy says that you can't create energy, but your design proposes to do just that. Since you cannot create energy, you're design is inherently flawed. In order for the wheel to continue turning, the weight that is sliding downward would need to impart more force on the wheel than the other weight, but since both weight the same, that is impossible. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
@theflyingfish66 no it would not work. There is no such thing as a free lunch for me.but for the world food and dance .i will show you how you get the free food. i know at least 4 ways. all you have do is stand up and shows it and it is simple .
well if you had a spring or a magnet that can push the cubes. that would cause a momentum effect.. that would keep that pattern moving constantly and get your design to work.. :)
deff wouldnt work as shown...the weight to the outside would have more leverage and cancel most of the momentum from the other weight...maybe if you could reduce friction on it so that it slides down faster...but you might still need to tweak it a bit...idk.....cool idea tho
Like all 'perpetual motion' designs, the 'principle' is fundamentally flawed. One falling weight cannot lift another identical weight AND overcome the friction and air resistance in the contraption. Note that the planetary gears, and their associated bearings etc are superfluous, and only add more friction and air resistance to defeat the design. Einstein was right, you know...
this will not work, i can virtually garuantee that.
the "bottom" slideshape slows the entire mechanic down. the shape that slides down will give the mechanic a little boost, but both shapes cannot create more or constant hight energy since they are all dragged down by gravity and cannot create a counterforce to that.
Perhaps the weighted squares might need to be a slightly heavier metal to add the force needed for rotation, but you might be right. Too much weight on one side the "X" would probably counter balance the rotation. There might be a certain speed that should allow it to continually flow. Perhaps if there were two connected to the ends of the pole and it rotated in a gyro configuration? Too much sci-fi? Perhaps... =)
cool idea, dont think it'll work. the offset weights WILL provide an additional force to the disk, but as the weights are retracted past the centre and and onto the opposite side, a force opposing the initial force will accelerate the disk back in the direction it came.
The result will be that the entire system will vibrate along an axis from the top right to the bottom left.
I had a similar idea, where the disk is ringed by masses on actuators that will displace outwards to provide the offset
There is much more waste of time than this video. which some people super yachts produced in more than 3-4 years. which is cost milions of dollars . It just made for their afew hour better sex fantasy place for once a week.. which one is waste? tell me! I gues he should keep work againist Ulliminati teories. one day will succes.
The blocks actually would not stay to the outside if the mechanism ran slowly like in the animation. They would move just as shown, yet produce negligable effect.
But even if they moved as shown at a high rate they would not produce a uni-directional force. The blocks are basically just moving around their own axis, not the main gears axis so no uni-directional force relative to the main gear is produced.
The weight force being applied to the blocks would easily overcome the inertial force of the rotating gear, within seconds. The blocks would fall to the bottom, and stay there. The wheel would cease moving.
If you look carefully in the video, the wheel continues to rotate clockwise, even when all of the weight is on the left hand side, which should counter-act this motion.
Keep thinking outside the box though :) Keep exploring physics.
Nice animation, but the blocks would go to the outside and stay there. There is no force in evidence that will move them in the opposite direction.
Try swinging a bucket of water around in a circle on a hot summers day. You can make the bucket swing completely upside down and the water will not "fall" out of the bucket!
@mickycheese27 I think it's the idea that the square blocks turn the main gear, and self-maintain the circular motion, therefore turning the four outside gears which would power a battery or something. Basically it's a generator :P
I seem to remember seeing something like this on the Discovery Channel a while back. It was similar, but different. There were no blocks but a system of gears, wheels and rotating arms to provide the inertia. The guy put it in a small boat in a swimming pool and it moved the boat to the other side.
Don't know how practiacl it is, though. Might be more practical if it could be manufactured in nanoscale and actually built in to the molecular structure of an object.
Alfred Dean Tried to do this with millions of dollars of funding from the US DOD anyway after 20 years or so he gave up trying. The goal was to convert rotational force into linear force and to attach one to a submarine and instantly you would have a spaceship. Many approaches were tried, though a successful Dean Drive prototype still remains elusive.
Your all wrong , i know what this device is trying to do, you need a power source to drive it, not free energy. It puts a force in one direction and moves the thing.
High school physics, anything going on within a system is just internal forces which cancel out in the big picture of things. Pushing the weight in one direction gives you push in the other, but that's negated when the weight hits the wall and applies a force opposing whatever you got in the beginning.
It won't work fast because the max speed it could turn at is less than gravity. Also, the downward force it countered by the upward force that it takes to lift the other weight simultaneously. Sorry. I hope you had fun making the model though!
this can not Work!!! conservation of energy and momentum dictates this... the third law of thermodynamics is also in conflict with this.. energy is unfortunatelly not reversible. and third yo'are forgeting that while that mass is moving from the center it will slow down the rotating disk due to gyration caused by the momentum... If it would work you'll be getting free energy...and energy is never free!!!
It's a pretty clever idea, but I don't think it would work the way you want it to. You have two forces acting on the weights: gravity and centripetal. At low speeds the gravity will be the dominate force and it will work the way you described in the video and provide a small downward thrust due to impulse (change in momentum). At hight speeds, however, the weights will remain stationary as the centripetal force dominates. It will then act as an unbalanced mass system and just shake violently.
@tetriscoter No, it wont work at any speed. It will shake though. He may be able to get it to bounce off one way on a surface with friction as you're right that it will shake, but not have any net effect at all in free fall.
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
bloodstone1445 The laws of physics have always been broken and will be broken again and it is people with your attitude that makes humanity go no where but in one big circle
@bloodstone1445 Do you even think before posting , or you throw the conservation bullshit when you don't know how to start calculating the physics of the device ? Do the math , think , figure out how it works (because you don't have a clue now) and rethink your stupid comment
personal advice : don't take current physics for granted , more and more of it is proved to be wrong , get an own opinion and do not rely on unrelated conservation theories
If you are implying that the system will power itself by the movement of the weights then the answer is defiantly no.
The problem with it lies in conservation of energy. To pick up the next weight it would require as much energy as it produced by dropping the last weight. Then there is the air resistance / friction added to that.
If it was able to maintain momentum without adding additional energy it would be "creating" energy from nothing which breaks the first law of thermodynamics.
after starting the rotation, the top sliding weight will merely slide to its slot end at the bottom. the left bottom one will remain at its bottom. If you spin it harder you may get 3 or 4 revolutions, but as one other pointed out, the weights would then be held to the outer circumference by centripical force, after wich, as I said, they'd both fall to the bottom...
i think the upper block wouldnt be making enough momentum to raise the lower block since the lower is further out. weight X distance = moment. physics is a bitch, but its a good idea tho
Thanks for sharing, you must have put in a lot of work to animate this conceptual device. You make no claims, and ask an honest question. I am dismayed by the number of YouTube members who delight in posting negative comments. We used to call such people 'uncouth!' [uncultivated]
If you could get it to work I'm sure you would make a mountain of money (billionaire easily). You could power any vehicle without any external thrust including spacecraft. However since no one will ever get this to work it's a mute point.
It's very clear English. The fact that English isn't your first language or your reading comprehension is bad or that you won't or don't know how to follow a thread is not my problem. My position was clear from my first comment on this video. I said " it breaks conservation of momentum". How much more clarification do you need?
I said "If", and then I said "no one will ever get this to work" in the next sentence. You are just being a contradictory now. You deserve rudeness because you are playing a fool to get into an argument. However you are in the wrong room. This is abuse you snotty faced heap of parrot droppings.
If it could work it still couldnt power a spacecraft. Thats the point theres no contradiction and being abusive over it just shows how immature you are.
If it worked it would be a constantly revolving mechanism. You then stated that this constantly revolving mechanism could power a spacecraft without thrust.
My question to you was how do you propose a spacecraft can be powered with a revolving motor and no thrust?
It was a simple valid question to which you have said nothing but abuse. If you cant offer an answer dont bother to respond.
LoL, You're a fucking brain-dead moronic idiot. Either that or you are playing stupid. Ether way it isn't worth arguing with a fuckhead like you since you apparently can't even parse a sentence correctly.
I have no problem with comprehension. You wrote something puzzling and I questioned it. Your responses have been nothing but irrational and abusive and still no answer to the original question.
If you feel insulted by simple questions, thats something you might like to work on in private.
If you cant offer an answer without immature abuse, dont respond. Your 47 years old for gods sake grow up.
You still don't get it noob. My position was clear in my first post. You are just acting like it isn't there, because you like to argue. By your definition of the word "work" most of those flying machines around before the Write brothers first flew "worked" because they shook and bounced on the ground. You came here for a fight and you got one so shut the fuck up and take your medicine. As for my profile, I think I put in some random numbers, LOL.
Well as this is accelerated the weights wont move along the tracks anymore, they will just be held against the outer edge due to centrifugal force.
Now Im not too sure how the centripetal force comes in to play with this. interesting idea though, but realistically I cant see how this would cause a force in one direction..
It won't work. All this does is find a new way to throw mass around. It will just shake back and forth. Hundreds of people have tried to build and patent stuff like this but none of it has ever worked because it breaks conservation of momentum. If you can get it to work you will be a billionaire, but I guarantee you are wasting your time. Sorry..
Most inefficient. If this is supposed to produce forward motion in one direction it is overkill. Just hook the motor(s) up to a set of wheels and BAM, you got a more efficient mode of forward motion.
The concept is sound but the mass is too light or else the acceleration if no where near great enough. the device design shows the potential but can not possibly sustain the forms, masses, or velocities needed to provide even basic lift.
Still a worthy consideration, but not doable in this form.
Scientific retard alert!! The energy in the simulation comes from gravity. If you're using magnets to make the blocks move, it still wouldn't work as many other people explain below. What purpose could this possibly serve?
This device is trying to utilize the rotating weights in a patern that adjusts the radius of their rotation around a centerpoint. By increasing the radius on one side and shortening it on the opposite the side the centripital force is greater on one side then the other. This causes the whole contraption to generate a propulsion force in that direction.
I can assure you that this would not work as depicted. And even if it did, it wouldn't power anything. Newton's laws say an object in motion continues in motion. Big deal. The earth will spin forever too. And just like the earth, the best you can do is break even. Suck any power up and it will slow down. That said, friction ensures that you will never even be able to break even, let alone generate any power.
Real machines are subjected to resonant vibrations that tear them to pieces. Before you waste any money trying to build this, I want you to go out and attach a one pound weight on one side only of your lawn mower blade and start it up. Let me know how that works out for you.
Nope.. Unless the weights movements are mechanical, when the circle they're on accelerates they will be stuck in the "out" position. Just like water in a balloon, when you spin it fast enough the force pushes the water to the sides.
1 wht you have created heare is two boxes tht rotates in a circle.
2 if you however made them accelerate, and deaccelerate you would also learn something real fasinating:
THE SHIT DONT MOVE. .. I know i even built one. The reason why? Because its a circle. All it ever does is to beautiful explain the newstons laws of equal force. Internal propulslion is impossible (IP),, but I still belive it is.. so good model you got there. We can all learn better then.
It would not work because between 7 and 9 o'clock is where the most force is required to lift the weight. This system is lifting it with 5 o'clock power. That's all folks! Think about it!
it doesn't work only because the inner wheel get a momentum from the "cube" when it throw it forward. If you want antigravity, yu have to find something that pushes as much the earth than it pushes the ship, but in the opposite direction, and from far, that's the trick.
very good idea.. would not work because it would be angled downwards.. and i would not advice you to put stuff like this on youtube because if you do discover or invent something of value you can be sure its stolen and patented within a few days.
i agree, also a direction blocking guide would not let the action cube turn into the wrong direction in motion, but the concept could really work, stepping momentum and caliber cube wheight's, a thing to work about, funny and simple
its a cool concept, look up a 2d physics sandbox called 'phun' one of the examples is very simerler, its a good concept, but thats a bad simulation, for amatures in physics simulation get 3dsmax 6 onwards, (i recomend 9) it has the havok physics engine :) which is cool
both phun and 3dsmax can keep you ammused (at least in the building physical secarios front) for hours
i had a weird dream about a centripetal machine like this one but it had a magnet on the front of it that pulsed like a strobe light, im just freakin out cos it looks so much alike
I have seen something like this before, it was something I took apart a few years ago and I rember it moving very much like that...it was outta a factory and the machine was all busted up, hmmm I wounder if any toys have somethinglike that on it, I am sure I have seen it a few times.
That one won't work, I don't believe. But your idea has some great potential. Because this IS NOT a perpetual machine, energy (space-nuclear?) could be used to drive the cubes on linear induction (think Mag-Lev train) so that they are constantly moving back and forth on their tracks. Making them always be at the end of their track at one point (Call it North) of the circle, and in the center at the opposite point (South). With my understanding of Inertia, this would create...
(continued)... an imbalance in a very steady direction (The North point on the circle). I just don't know what you would call that imbalance, but it is some form of force.
The automatic transmission has sun gears and a base gear at the out put shaft used to divide the work into gear ratios. The automatic transmission was invented in 1901 by Henry Ford and put into use in 1953 by Chrysler as the Torque Flite. This experiment was already tried a hundred years ago and failed. Next time you drive your car your already performing this experiment all the way down the road. Thanks for coming out.
What you have here is a "reactionless drive." These things don't work. At least, they don't work in space. Sometimes they work on land or on water, but that's because they can react* against the land or water.
But you're thinking, man, and we need more of that. Keep it up.
Hey that was a nice animation and a vry intelligent mechanical system... but Infortunelly will not work as u want.. remember.. every action makes a reaction (Newton's 3rd law).. so at the same time that u move the ballast to one side, the whole machine go to the other side, ok. is like try to swim in the space vacuum, u will shake a lot and dont will move a inch.
So..if u wanna test your machine.. check out the program PHUN!, on google or YT. Is a 2d Physics Simulator.. vry simple but allows u to build really complex things.. as your propulsion system.
I dont know, but if we dont make an escale project we dont know never. Wat is the propulsion requiered to move, on water?, on space?, but in zero gravity, this movemente parts where go?
its a design for a propulsion motor that uses centripital force to move something forward as oppose to wheels or any device to make tractive contact . Its actually a pretty good idea, but unfortunatley it wouldnt work in space. The weights would just be forced to the outer edge of the disk and not move. But if you introduced some electro-magnets into the system to repel the weights from the edges at the correct timings, to the right distances.couldwork
I think it could be a great way to take a little bit of energy and torque from say a wind or water driven source... add gravity and inertia to the magnetic centripetal turbine to copper coils or carbon nanohelixes, technically you are not creating energy, just using energy that is there already but in new different ways, enclose it in a vacuum to supercool, and to remove air resistance. then spin the whole thing on a second perpindicular axis. I wish i had the means to simulate this easily :)
It'd work for attitude control, that is keeping the space craft pointed in whatever direction you want, but not for actual motion. Newton's laws apply here for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction, IE the wall of the space craft will push back on the ball canceling out any net velocity change.
@cougarrcsnva, yup, similar to the "dean drive" but its only in my concepts/drawings, unfortunately for now, I don't have the time, money and place to experiment on it. but I'll give it a try someday :)
peeweeiviv 1 month ago
What your trying to do (even if you don't know it) is create a false neutral center with cintripital force. I know how, but the machine I made rips itself apart. I'm still working on finding a method that doesn't do that. Plus it takes about 4 times the energy to cause motion than just pushing/lifting the thing by cable & motor.
I think lots of people know how, but a great method is still elusive.
Mahhn 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am interesting.
Please watch You Tube"New Amazing Invention for EV-4"
dftdmt 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please watch You Tube"New Amazing Invention for EV-4".
dftdmt 6 months ago
naw its not gonna work, becase its not going to create enough torqe and it will loose momentum pretty fast
gman9997 7 months ago
The idea is there but you got it wrong, the motion of the weights is wrong. I have the correct motion but ill keep it a secret for now, hehe.
peeweeiviv 7 months ago
@peeweeiviv What do you mean the motion of the weights is wrong? Have you come up with a way to create inertial propulsion using a similar method?
cougarrcsnva 1 month ago
The two weights are rotating around a stationary point so net effect is zero. Place your mouse cursor between the weights , that is the stationary point. It is a flywheel.
packrat541 8 months ago
yeah sorry but no it wouldn't work. One of the key problems would be frictiton but have to say that don't give up thomas edison failed a hundred times before he invented the light bulb
stuffofdream 8 months ago
Conservation of energy says that you can't create energy, but your design proposes to do just that. Since you cannot create energy, you're design is inherently flawed. In order for the wheel to continue turning, the weight that is sliding downward would need to impart more force on the wheel than the other weight, but since both weight the same, that is impossible. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
theflyingfish66 10 months ago
@theflyingfish66 no it would not work. There is no such thing as a free lunch for me.but for the world food and dance .i will show you how you get the free food. i know at least 4 ways. all you have do is stand up and shows it and it is simple .
greenearthnazi20204u 10 months ago
NO IT WON'T, SORRY
trx125tracy69 10 months ago
Well ya see, now I know how this will work and im not telling anyone here. Good luck.
Digitalman271 1 year ago
Comment removed
johnroach1 1 year ago
You moronic twat.
If you think it will work, you're a moronic twat.
If you're trolling, you're a moronic twat.
You moronic fucking twat.
bdf2718 1 year ago
well if you had a spring or a magnet that can push the cubes. that would cause a momentum effect.. that would keep that pattern moving constantly and get your design to work.. :)
kungfumaster12 1 year ago
deff wouldnt work as shown...the weight to the outside would have more leverage and cancel most of the momentum from the other weight...maybe if you could reduce friction on it so that it slides down faster...but you might still need to tweak it a bit...idk.....cool idea tho
hardhatg69 1 year ago
It doesn't work. There is a reaction force between the guides and the blocks that compensates. If you don't beleive me build it.
WaiteDavidMSPhysics 1 year ago 2
I love the fact no-one can work it out.
I hope no-one does. It would create chaos.
novata01 1 year ago
Like all 'perpetual motion' designs, the 'principle' is fundamentally flawed. One falling weight cannot lift another identical weight AND overcome the friction and air resistance in the contraption. Note that the planetary gears, and their associated bearings etc are superfluous, and only add more friction and air resistance to defeat the design. Einstein was right, you know...
MrDevo49 1 year ago
this will not work, i can virtually garuantee that.
the "bottom" slideshape slows the entire mechanic down. the shape that slides down will give the mechanic a little boost, but both shapes cannot create more or constant hight energy since they are all dragged down by gravity and cannot create a counterforce to that.
but i'm not a physician. i just guess.
greets
Ainigma 1 year ago
In a "closed system" like this, the sum of all internal forces and the sum of all internal torques are equal to "0" ( zero ) ...
Then, nice machine, but I don't think that it can run ...
DonElgazo 1 year ago
Perhaps the weighted squares might need to be a slightly heavier metal to add the force needed for rotation, but you might be right. Too much weight on one side the "X" would probably counter balance the rotation. There might be a certain speed that should allow it to continually flow. Perhaps if there were two connected to the ends of the pole and it rotated in a gyro configuration? Too much sci-fi? Perhaps... =)
strke4ce 1 year ago
No.
billwrin 1 year ago
We always think that magnets can do work , for they do when combined with energy.
Take away energy from the equation and no work will be done.
But keep coming up with ideas, along with me and everyone else.
twinboost 1 year ago
cool idea, dont think it'll work. the offset weights WILL provide an additional force to the disk, but as the weights are retracted past the centre and and onto the opposite side, a force opposing the initial force will accelerate the disk back in the direction it came.
The result will be that the entire system will vibrate along an axis from the top right to the bottom left.
I had a similar idea, where the disk is ringed by masses on actuators that will displace outwards to provide the offset
strigger 1 year ago
a ridiculous waste of time
prickett233 1 year ago
There is much more waste of time than this video. which some people super yachts produced in more than 3-4 years. which is cost milions of dollars . It just made for their afew hour better sex fantasy place for once a week.. which one is waste? tell me! I gues he should keep work againist Ulliminati teories. one day will succes.
living4game 1 year ago
As a can opener it might work.
>)
Quinzio 1 year ago
The blocks actually would not stay to the outside if the mechanism ran slowly like in the animation. They would move just as shown, yet produce negligable effect.
But even if they moved as shown at a high rate they would not produce a uni-directional force. The blocks are basically just moving around their own axis, not the main gears axis so no uni-directional force relative to the main gear is produced.
Thopter 2 years ago
The weight force being applied to the blocks would easily overcome the inertial force of the rotating gear, within seconds. The blocks would fall to the bottom, and stay there. The wheel would cease moving.
If you look carefully in the video, the wheel continues to rotate clockwise, even when all of the weight is on the left hand side, which should counter-act this motion.
Keep thinking outside the box though :) Keep exploring physics.
DarkTrinityX1 2 years ago
Nice animation, but the blocks would go to the outside and stay there. There is no force in evidence that will move them in the opposite direction.
Try swinging a bucket of water around in a circle on a hot summers day. You can make the bucket swing completely upside down and the water will not "fall" out of the bucket!
Perhaps you should try another configuration.
Keep thinking about it in different ways! :))
ContaMuir17a 2 years ago
How would the gears rotate they would need some sort of power
mickycheese27 2 years ago
@mickycheese27 I think it's the idea that the square blocks turn the main gear, and self-maintain the circular motion, therefore turning the four outside gears which would power a battery or something. Basically it's a generator :P
sam6555 2 years ago
yes but there needs to be some source of power to push the blocks so it can start it circular motion and if stopped then you'd have to start it again
mickycheese27 2 years ago
not workable, it will be countered by weight and friction, not to mention the workload/
pyrioni 2 years ago
I seem to remember seeing something like this on the Discovery Channel a while back. It was similar, but different. There were no blocks but a system of gears, wheels and rotating arms to provide the inertia. The guy put it in a small boat in a swimming pool and it moved the boat to the other side.
Don't know how practiacl it is, though. Might be more practical if it could be manufactured in nanoscale and actually built in to the molecular structure of an object.
Just my two cents.
shaunmc3433 2 years ago
i like your 2 cents!!!!!!!!!!
universalmoor 2 years ago
Thanks. I try.
shaunmc3433 2 years ago
i mean, get real, if you speed it up, the blocks will be slung to the outside, gravity will not pull them in
smartstuff2buy 2 years ago
NOT IF THEY ARE LOWERED BY GEARS
universalmoor 2 years ago
Alfred Dean Tried to do this with millions of dollars of funding from the US DOD anyway after 20 years or so he gave up trying. The goal was to convert rotational force into linear force and to attach one to a submarine and instantly you would have a spaceship. Many approaches were tried, though a successful Dean Drive prototype still remains elusive.
omegaman1971 2 years ago
Your all wrong , i know what this device is trying to do, you need a power source to drive it, not free energy. It puts a force in one direction and moves the thing.
arado240dd 2 years ago
High school physics, anything going on within a system is just internal forces which cancel out in the big picture of things. Pushing the weight in one direction gives you push in the other, but that's negated when the weight hits the wall and applies a force opposing whatever you got in the beginning.
nabiul2 2 years ago
Make an actual prototype. You will probably need to turn that at least 1000 rpm in order to see if works.
Frostybeard 2 years ago
It won't work fast because the max speed it could turn at is less than gravity. Also, the downward force it countered by the upward force that it takes to lift the other weight simultaneously. Sorry. I hope you had fun making the model though!
fireburner81 2 years ago
if that relies on gravity, it won't work at high revolutions
jasanpahaf 2 years ago
how about involving magnetism ?
carldepp 2 years ago
this can not Work!!! conservation of energy and momentum dictates this... the third law of thermodynamics is also in conflict with this.. energy is unfortunatelly not reversible. and third yo'are forgeting that while that mass is moving from the center it will slow down the rotating disk due to gyration caused by the momentum... If it would work you'll be getting free energy...and energy is never free!!!
mountainLeader001 2 years ago
It's a pretty clever idea, but I don't think it would work the way you want it to. You have two forces acting on the weights: gravity and centripetal. At low speeds the gravity will be the dominate force and it will work the way you described in the video and provide a small downward thrust due to impulse (change in momentum). At hight speeds, however, the weights will remain stationary as the centripetal force dominates. It will then act as an unbalanced mass system and just shake violently.
tetriscoter 2 years ago 14
@tetriscoter No, it wont work at any speed. It will shake though. He may be able to get it to bounce off one way on a surface with friction as you're right that it will shake, but not have any net effect at all in free fall.
WaiteDavidMSPhysics 1 year ago
@WaiteDavidMSPhysics Agreed.
tetriscoter 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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
exasimpol 2 years ago
Conservation of energy and momentum says NO
bloodstone1445 2 years ago 19
bloodstone1445 The laws of physics have always been broken and will be broken again and it is people with your attitude that makes humanity go no where but in one big circle
elitechrstn 2 years ago
Im NOT a physicist, but my intuition still tells me NO for gravity only operated in one direction, therefor gravity can not spin something.
Im NOT a physicist by I defiantly know how to use my intuition. It beats delusion.
bloodstone1445 2 years ago
I dont believe theese uliminati teories.
living4game 1 year ago
@bloodstone1445 Do you even think before posting , or you throw the conservation bullshit when you don't know how to start calculating the physics of the device ? Do the math , think , figure out how it works (because you don't have a clue now) and rethink your stupid comment
personal advice : don't take current physics for granted , more and more of it is proved to be wrong , get an own opinion and do not rely on unrelated conservation theories
TheKaos90 4 months ago
Comment removed
bloodstone1445 3 months ago
How could this propel anything?
steelefist 2 years ago
NASA published a paper called, "Responding to Mechanical Antigravity" back in 2006.
It is a very good 101 basics must-read which explains many of these mechanisms and their apparent effects.
Google: NASA/TM—2006-214390
click "I'm feeling lucky"
mityno1 2 years ago
If you are implying that the system will power itself by the movement of the weights then the answer is defiantly no.
The problem with it lies in conservation of energy. To pick up the next weight it would require as much energy as it produced by dropping the last weight. Then there is the air resistance / friction added to that.
If it was able to maintain momentum without adding additional energy it would be "creating" energy from nothing which breaks the first law of thermodynamics.
goingtoeatpizza 2 years ago
I dont think that will work. Even if u drive to wieghts remember everything has an equal and opposite reaction. So in essence ull be going now where.
MrZealot1 2 years ago
i like how it looks but im a little scetchy to if it would work... those weights shouldn't slide..
have them mounted to a system that ensures there followed path!! that way it works even in high rpms!
44nathanambrose 2 years ago
sadly, a quick, "no".
after starting the rotation, the top sliding weight will merely slide to its slot end at the bottom. the left bottom one will remain at its bottom. If you spin it harder you may get 3 or 4 revolutions, but as one other pointed out, the weights would then be held to the outer circumference by centripical force, after wich, as I said, they'd both fall to the bottom...
KEEP THINKING though, we're losing innovative thinkers!!
ymi2b 2 years ago
i think the upper block wouldnt be making enough momentum to raise the lower block since the lower is further out. weight X distance = moment. physics is a bitch, but its a good idea tho
aw11ccc 2 years ago
Thanks for sharing, you must have put in a lot of work to animate this conceptual device. You make no claims, and ask an honest question. I am dismayed by the number of YouTube members who delight in posting negative comments. We used to call such people 'uncouth!' [uncultivated]
WarzSchoolchild 2 years ago 2
If you could get it to work I'm sure you would make a mountain of money (billionaire easily). You could power any vehicle without any external thrust including spacecraft. However since no one will ever get this to work it's a mute point.
jabberwock11 2 years ago
jabberwock11: "You could power any vehicle without any external thrust including spacecraft."
And how would a spacecraft propel itself through a vacuum without external thrust?
goingtoeatpizza 2 years ago
Try quoting me in context next time.
jabberwock11 2 years ago
Jabberwock11: "Try quoting me in context next time."
You made a strange remark and I questioned it. Instead of replying with arrogance why not clarify your perspective?
goingtoeatpizza 2 years ago
It's very clear English. The fact that English isn't your first language or your reading comprehension is bad or that you won't or don't know how to follow a thread is not my problem. My position was clear from my first comment on this video. I said " it breaks conservation of momentum". How much more clarification do you need?
jabberwock11 2 years ago
Theres no reason to be rude. My question was regarding the spacecraft remark. How was that taken out of context.
goingtoeatpizza 2 years ago
Don't be a tard. Click on "view all ## comments" and read it as a thread.
jabberwock11 2 years ago
You said If you could get this to work it could power a spacecraft without thrust.
Regardless of wether or not it would work the point is this is a mechanical device and to propel an object in a vacuum you need thrust.
Why are you being so defencive over that?
goingtoeatpizza 2 years ago
I said "If", and then I said "no one will ever get this to work" in the next sentence. You are just being a contradictory now. You deserve rudeness because you are playing a fool to get into an argument. However you are in the wrong room. This is abuse you snotty faced heap of parrot droppings.
jabberwock11 2 years ago
If it could work it still couldnt power a spacecraft. Thats the point theres no contradiction and being abusive over it just shows how immature you are.
goingtoeatpizza 2 years ago
"If it could work it still couldnt power a spacecraft."
That's like saying if pigs could fly they still couldn't fly. You are just being an asshole troll.
jabberwock11 2 years ago
Not really.
Your argument was "if it worked".
If it worked it would be a constantly revolving mechanism. You then stated that this constantly revolving mechanism could power a spacecraft without thrust.
My question to you was how do you propose a spacecraft can be powered with a revolving motor and no thrust?
It was a simple valid question to which you have said nothing but abuse. If you cant offer an answer dont bother to respond.
goingtoeatpizza 2 years ago
LoL, You're a fucking brain-dead moronic idiot. Either that or you are playing stupid. Ether way it isn't worth arguing with a fuckhead like you since you apparently can't even parse a sentence correctly.
jabberwock11 2 years ago
jabberwock11,
I have no problem with comprehension. You wrote something puzzling and I questioned it. Your responses have been nothing but irrational and abusive and still no answer to the original question.
If you feel insulted by simple questions, thats something you might like to work on in private.
If you cant offer an answer without immature abuse, dont respond. Your 47 years old for gods sake grow up.
goingtoeatpizza 2 years ago
You still don't get it noob. My position was clear in my first post. You are just acting like it isn't there, because you like to argue. By your definition of the word "work" most of those flying machines around before the Write brothers first flew "worked" because they shook and bounced on the ground. You came here for a fight and you got one so shut the fuck up and take your medicine. As for my profile, I think I put in some random numbers, LOL.
jabberwock11 2 years ago
sa marche pas 7 2 mer
MegaStingers 2 years ago
Well as this is accelerated the weights wont move along the tracks anymore, they will just be held against the outer edge due to centrifugal force.
Now Im not too sure how the centripetal force comes in to play with this. interesting idea though, but realistically I cant see how this would cause a force in one direction..
aarperry 2 years ago
It won't work. All this does is find a new way to throw mass around. It will just shake back and forth. Hundreds of people have tried to build and patent stuff like this but none of it has ever worked because it breaks conservation of momentum. If you can get it to work you will be a billionaire, but I guarantee you are wasting your time. Sorry..
jabberwock11 2 years ago
thats a nice swastica xD
seboat 2 years ago
If you build it you will know...
Some Clocks have similar systems in them...
XoXabaras 2 years ago
Most inefficient. If this is supposed to produce forward motion in one direction it is overkill. Just hook the motor(s) up to a set of wheels and BAM, you got a more efficient mode of forward motion.
UnderManiac 2 years ago
nice perpetual motion, shame its impossible due to friction and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
dswright71 2 years ago
i'm sorry for your illusion,it can't work,due to the law"action-reaction",it seems work because you forget some reaction forces.
If you really believe in this mechanism,try to build it,it isn't so complicate to build,then try,and when it will no work,cry.
steam1981 2 years ago
loco
DSKontrolando 2 years ago
F = M A
A = V/T
The concept is sound but the mass is too light or else the acceleration if no where near great enough. the device design shows the potential but can not possibly sustain the forms, masses, or velocities needed to provide even basic lift.
Still a worthy consideration, but not doable in this form.
DocWolph 2 years ago
Nice,,,i think friction would be a problem also but great idea
G0neguy 2 years ago
funciona o no funciona? is really?
marioalonso0304 2 years ago
Scientific retard alert!!!In the first animation, why doesn't the red ball follow the laws of motion?
b3a7les 2 years ago
Scientific retard alert!! The energy in the simulation comes from gravity. If you're using magnets to make the blocks move, it still wouldn't work as many other people explain below. What purpose could this possibly serve?
b3a7les 2 years ago
A great way to save on man-labor!
Or maybe to move an assembly line without electric energy.
Even as a good home-decoration.
velcor 2 years ago
Comment removed
poijkeop 3 years ago
ok, anyone who thinks this is going to work is an idiot
JUKIO01 3 years ago
you're more likely to benefit by harneshing the energy of the movement than using this for propulsion i reckons
Unlocalist 3 years ago
what is gonna keep the two cupes form the centrifugal forces
leviterande 3 years ago
This device is trying to utilize the rotating weights in a patern that adjusts the radius of their rotation around a centerpoint. By increasing the radius on one side and shortening it on the opposite the side the centripital force is greater on one side then the other. This causes the whole contraption to generate a propulsion force in that direction.
Thesaint7811 3 years ago
its called fricton :D
straytheory 3 years ago
I can assure you that this would not work as depicted. And even if it did, it wouldn't power anything. Newton's laws say an object in motion continues in motion. Big deal. The earth will spin forever too. And just like the earth, the best you can do is break even. Suck any power up and it will slow down. That said, friction ensures that you will never even be able to break even, let alone generate any power.
IsLikeThat 3 years ago
Real machines are subjected to resonant vibrations that tear them to pieces. Before you waste any money trying to build this, I want you to go out and attach a one pound weight on one side only of your lawn mower blade and start it up. Let me know how that works out for you.
geocam2 3 years ago
I think thats way off but thats just my opinion.
docscot11 3 years ago
Nope.. Unless the weights movements are mechanical, when the circle they're on accelerates they will be stuck in the "out" position. Just like water in a balloon, when you spin it fast enough the force pushes the water to the sides.
DHMIII 3 years ago
a very bad idea.
1 wht you have created heare is two boxes tht rotates in a circle.
2 if you however made them accelerate, and deaccelerate you would also learn something real fasinating:
THE SHIT DONT MOVE. .. I know i even built one. The reason why? Because its a circle. All it ever does is to beautiful explain the newstons laws of equal force. Internal propulslion is impossible (IP),, but I still belive it is.. so good model you got there. We can all learn better then.
Punishment7 3 years ago
love the massive attack =)
xgritzx 3 years ago
It would not work because between 7 and 9 o'clock is where the most force is required to lift the weight. This system is lifting it with 5 o'clock power. That's all folks! Think about it!
Rotitomato 3 years ago
it doesn't work only because the inner wheel get a momentum from the "cube" when it throw it forward. If you want antigravity, yu have to find something that pushes as much the earth than it pushes the ship, but in the opposite direction, and from far, that's the trick.
kalish86 3 years ago
true, or that uses some other gravity sink like the sun.
7anceParker 3 years ago
GREAT IDEA............
627458700 3 years ago
nah, if you let it go in empty space it'd just vibrate.
will15767 3 years ago
HAHAHAHAHA
moaninglory 3 years ago
Such a device would break the law of conservation of momentum. I mean, it would not work - would not produce thrust.
szlamx 3 years ago
very good idea.. would not work because it would be angled downwards.. and i would not advice you to put stuff like this on youtube because if you do discover or invent something of value you can be sure its stolen and patented within a few days.
GGAndersson 3 years ago
i agree, also a direction blocking guide would not let the action cube turn into the wrong direction in motion, but the concept could really work, stepping momentum and caliber cube wheight's, a thing to work about, funny and simple
gonzalolage1974 3 years ago
Yeah SolidWorks! XD
PlanckLimit 3 years ago 2
The weights would end on the bottom
tkkfishyghost 3 years ago
its a cool concept, look up a 2d physics sandbox called 'phun' one of the examples is very simerler, its a good concept, but thats a bad simulation, for amatures in physics simulation get 3dsmax 6 onwards, (i recomend 9) it has the havok physics engine :) which is cool
both phun and 3dsmax can keep you ammused (at least in the building physical secarios front) for hours
alec :)
alecTHElion 3 years ago
It will not work too :) Look what you doing with mass - they just rotating on circle. No impulse - no moving.
AlexanderA80 3 years ago
i had a weird dream about a centripetal machine like this one but it had a magnet on the front of it that pulsed like a strobe light, im just freakin out cos it looks so much alike
toamaori 3 years ago
he went in your dream and stole your idea...pat pending
love1617love 3 years ago
I have seen something like this before, it was something I took apart a few years ago and I rember it moving very much like that...it was outta a factory and the machine was all busted up, hmmm I wounder if any toys have somethinglike that on it, I am sure I have seen it a few times.
ThudFalls 3 years ago
1 thing is for sure, its very hypnotic
ferentus2 3 years ago
Nice but can it rev 50000 to 100000 RPMs for at least 15 minutes at a time?
attovishnu 3 years ago
That one won't work, I don't believe. But your idea has some great potential. Because this IS NOT a perpetual machine, energy (space-nuclear?) could be used to drive the cubes on linear induction (think Mag-Lev train) so that they are constantly moving back and forth on their tracks. Making them always be at the end of their track at one point (Call it North) of the circle, and in the center at the opposite point (South). With my understanding of Inertia, this would create...
bobbyinedmonton 3 years ago
(continued)... an imbalance in a very steady direction (The North point on the circle). I just don't know what you would call that imbalance, but it is some form of force.
Could you remodel this based on those specs?
bobbyinedmonton 3 years ago
The automatic transmission has sun gears and a base gear at the out put shaft used to divide the work into gear ratios. The automatic transmission was invented in 1901 by Henry Ford and put into use in 1953 by Chrysler as the Torque Flite. This experiment was already tried a hundred years ago and failed. Next time you drive your car your already performing this experiment all the way down the road. Thanks for coming out.
WOTnos 3 years ago
What you have here is a "reactionless drive." These things don't work. At least, they don't work in space. Sometimes they work on land or on water, but that's because they can react* against the land or water.
But you're thinking, man, and we need more of that. Keep it up.
* Thus making it no longer reactionless.
SailorBarsoom 3 years ago
Has no one else noticed that the blocks would settle at the bottom, leaving the notches in an x shape?
k1rbyguy 3 years ago
Yeah... sorry man. This isn't gonna work.
jabillingsley7 3 years ago
Hey that was a nice animation and a vry intelligent mechanical system... but Infortunelly will not work as u want.. remember.. every action makes a reaction (Newton's 3rd law).. so at the same time that u move the ballast to one side, the whole machine go to the other side, ok. is like try to swim in the space vacuum, u will shake a lot and dont will move a inch.
IagoSouz 3 years ago
So..if u wanna test your machine.. check out the program PHUN!, on google or YT. Is a 2d Physics Simulator.. vry simple but allows u to build really complex things.. as your propulsion system.
IagoSouz 3 years ago
what happened to newton's third law?
agungk 3 years ago
Newton's third law... if an apple falls on your head, your lunch money goes unspent!
wfd57fatman 3 years ago
I dont know, but if we dont make an escale project we dont know never. Wat is the propulsion requiered to move, on water?, on space?, but in zero gravity, this movemente parts where go?
elreservista 3 years ago
its not a perpetual motion device... derr.
its a design for a propulsion motor that uses centripital force to move something forward as oppose to wheels or any device to make tractive contact . Its actually a pretty good idea, but unfortunatley it wouldnt work in space. The weights would just be forced to the outer edge of the disk and not move. But if you introduced some electro-magnets into the system to repel the weights from the edges at the correct timings, to the right distances.couldwork
FailedSquare 3 years ago
I think it could be a great way to take a little bit of energy and torque from say a wind or water driven source... add gravity and inertia to the magnetic centripetal turbine to copper coils or carbon nanohelixes, technically you are not creating energy, just using energy that is there already but in new different ways, enclose it in a vacuum to supercool, and to remove air resistance. then spin the whole thing on a second perpindicular axis. I wish i had the means to simulate this easily :)
toamaori 3 years ago
pienso qe el mismo giro del sistema armado forzaria los bloqes hacia afuera,por lo tanto al no caer no provocarian propulsion
chileyork 4 years ago
The word centripetal has always fascinated me
Beautiful music and nice to be the 1000th viewer!
wilhelmbernadotte 4 years ago
No funciona, el centro de masa se mantine constante. Hay que estudiar un poquito mas.
fede654321 4 years ago
It'd work for attitude control, that is keeping the space craft pointed in whatever direction you want, but not for actual motion. Newton's laws apply here for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction, IE the wall of the space craft will push back on the ball canceling out any net velocity change.
subach 4 years ago
so like an inertial stabiliser?
toamaori 3 years ago