Community > Forum > Technology & Science > Motion induction propulsion engines

Motion induction propulsion engines

Posted by: inventor - Fri Feb 26, 2010 1:20 am
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 46 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Motion induction propulsion engines 
Author Message
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:44 am
Posts: 707
Location: Haarlem, The Netherlands
Post Re: Motion induction propulsion engines   Posted on: Sun Sep 23, 2012 7:33 pm
1. Momentum equals mass multiplied by velocity, force equals mass multiplied by acceleration. They're different by definition.

2. There is no such thing as "explosive force polarization". There's no such thing as an explosive force either, and polarization may refer to a number of things, non of which are related to Newton's laws of mechanics.

In all the examples that you mention, there are many forces at play. Let me do the first. There is a high-pressure gas inside a boiler. This means that the gas is pushing against the boiler walls, and that each square inch or square centimetre of the wall experiences a certain outward force (that's what "pressure" means). There is also gas (a gas mixture in this case, air) on the outside of the boiler. It also pushes against the boiler walls, but in the other direction, inward. It does so with a certain force as well, and so each square inch or cm of the wall also, simultaneously experiences a certain inward force. If the pressure is equal inside and outside, each square inch of the boiler's walls will experience an equal force inward and outward, and it will not move (assuming that the forces are not large enough to crush the wall).

Now, if the pressure on the inside of the boiler is higher, then the outward force is larger than the inward force, so the sum of the two forces is a positive outward force, and the boiler's walls will move outward. This puts a stress force on the walls' material which, assuming that the walls are made of metal, will induce an equal and opposite force (by Hooke's Law, it's ultimately caused by the electromagnetic attraction force between the electrons and the atomic nuclei in the metal). The farther the walls expand, the greater the opposing force, until either a balance is reached or the metal rips apart. It's the same effect as with a toy balloon, except that a metal boiler is much stronger and so the deflection is smaller.

So there is no polarisation of force, whatever you mean by that. Forces have a direction, and almost always there are a bunch of them in play. A rigid body reacts to such a bunch of forces acting on it simultaneously as if there was only one force acting on it, one force equal to the (vector!) sum of all the forces.

3. If you put a gun into space and fire it without supporting it, it will start moving in the opposite direction that the bullet is moving, in such a way that the sum of the momentum of the bullet and the momentum of the gun are the same. There's no logical explanation for this conservation of momentum, it just appears to be the way the universe works.

4. Here's what will happen. The burning of the fuel and oxidiser will heat the contents of the cylinder (which I'll assume to be gaseous). This means that the gas molecules will bounce around more quickly (that's what temperature means, it's a measure of how fast an object's molecules are moving). If the temperature of the contents of the cylinder is the same everywhere, nothing happens, because the outward force on one side of the cylinder is counteracted by the outward force on the other side of the cylinder (and the forces inside the wall keep the cylinder together, see above). If say the left end of the cylinder is hotter than the right end, the force on the left side is larger and the cylinder will accelerate to the left. Of course, the hot gas on the left side will push equally hard against the colder gas on the right side (those gas molecules bounce around randomly, without a preferred direction, so the force is the same in all directions, or isotropic). That push causes a wave to propagate through the colder gas which eventually reaches the right side, and pushes the cylinder right back again. In the end, the cylinder will bounce around a little, but its centre of gravity will always remain in the same place. A Newton's cradle is a similar effect.

Ultimately, the container will end up in exactly the same position it was in before. Anything other would violate the law of conservation of momentum, which says that the sum of the momenta of all objects in the system (in this case the cylinder and all the molecules of gas inside) must remain the same, or the laws of thermodynamics which say that the gas molecules inside the cylinder must ultimately spread out evenly. A state in which the cylinder is spinning, and its contents are spinning in the opposite direction, is also consistent with these laws, but friction between the gas molecules and the cylinder walls would ultimately stop the spin.

5. There are many different possible models of our universe. Making a new one is easy. The trick is to make one that actually matches our universe, i.e. that correctly predicts the outcome of any experiment that we could care to do. Newton's laws predict the outcome of a whole lot of experiments correctly, which is to say to within the experimental error. No experiment is perfect, so there's always some uncertainty. Newton's laws may say the result should be 3, and the experimenter may be able to determine that the result is not less than 2.9 and not more than 3.2. In that case, the model was correct. If Newton's laws had predicted 3.5, then either they're wrong for the conditions tested, or there's some problem with the experiment that was overlooked. If many experiments are done and a particular model is right over and over again, we accept it as fact.

_________________
Say, can you feel the thunder in the air? Just like the moment ’fore it hits – then it’s everywhere
What is this spell we’re under, do you care? The might to rise above it is now within your sphere
Machinae Supremacy – Sid Icarus


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
User avatar
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:19 pm
Posts: 189
Location: Outside Wonko the Sane's house.
Post Re: Motion induction propulsion engines   Posted on: Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:52 am
A reciprocating piston generates no net thrust, any momentum it generates moving in one direction is canceled by coming to a stop at the end of travel. That's why reaction engines (Rockets) throw the mass out one end, stopping it cancels out the effect. You might get at best a slight impulse, (By slight I mean divide the distance traveled by the piston by the difference in mass between the piston itself, and the entire craft) then another impusle in the other direction when the piston returns to start position. Net effect, your ship vibrates in place. A rotary action can cause the ship to turn, again in place, but that way you don't have to throw out reaction mass just to spin around. It doesn't work linearly because of the piston's need to return to the same position.

I'd thought about using annihilation, and mass generation at both ends. sending a solid bar rearward to be broken down into gamma rays, reflected forward (Eliptical field) and compressed back into matter to be sent back again. After running the calculation, the Gamma ray reflections transfered enough momentum to prefectly cancel out the rearward motion of the mass, no net effect. I consider such bootstrap drives as impossible as perpetual motion, you can't cancel out the mass, and therefore, any derived energy, like momentum.

_________________
"You can't have everything, where would you put it?" -Steven Wright.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 9:47 pm
Posts: 801
Location: Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) - capital of Israel!
Post Re: Motion induction propulsion engines   Posted on: Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:35 am
I do have an idea, but it doesn't violate conservation of momentum:

You can have a spacecraft on a continual cycle between, say, the moon and earth. As it makes it's route, another craft in the right position, while the first craft passes by, can use magnets to push itself in the opposite direction. So both crafts will be accelerated in opposite directions - and the only source of energy you need is electricity, for the electromagnets.

_________________
“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.”
-Anonymous


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:15 pm
Posts: 845
Location: Columbus, GA USA
Post Re: Motion induction propulsion engines   Posted on: Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:52 pm
Not very practical.

If you meant that the two objects are in opposite orbits, you either get very little momentum change, or you have to do so with extreme violence because of the very brief time that they can effect each other. The proximity they would have to pass would be very hairy too.

If you meant they were travelling in the same vector, the object that donates its velocity will need to be accelerated somehow before it can boost the other again and/or return to it's orbit.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 9:47 pm
Posts: 801
Location: Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) - capital of Israel!
Post Re: Motion induction propulsion engines   Posted on: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:34 pm
I meant opposite orbits (or opposite directions). Yes, they would have to pass very close to each other, but I don't think that that would be so hard, with today's technology. There doesn't just have to be one pass, also - you could have multiple craft in both directions. The upside is, that you would be able to avoid using any fuel (except as needed to maneuver, and to interact with other space vehicles, like those going down to or up from the Earth or the Moon). You could get all the energy you need from solar panels, and then use that energy to push and pull using electromagnets. And that's a very big upside - it is much harder to get fuel in space, than on earth, if it is even available at all.

_________________
“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.”
-Anonymous


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:15 pm
Posts: 845
Location: Columbus, GA USA
Post Re: Motion induction propulsion engines   Posted on: Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:23 pm
At a relative velocity of over 15 km/s, you will have about a thousandth of a second of effective influence time on each pass. Even with Ridiculous Gauss, you aren't going to get that much kick from them even if you can get the fields within inches of each other. Each vehicle will have to mass exactly the same or one will get more acceleration that the other and mess up the matched orbits. And they will burn a lot of maneuvering propellant correcting and aligning such precision orbits (the Earth is lumpy), and have to do it over and over, probably thousands of times to build up to escape velocity. Almost assuredly more than by just using the propellant for direct thrust.

It's an elegant idea, just not practical.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 9:47 pm
Posts: 801
Location: Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) - capital of Israel!
Post Re: Motion induction propulsion engines   Posted on: Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:08 am
Perhaps a better idea would be to use lasers, instead of magnets. You would still get the same effect, but you could do it at a longer range. And by lasers, I mean that both spacecrafts lase the other's solar sails (laser sails).

_________________
“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.”
-Anonymous


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:40 am
Posts: 427
Location: California and Michigan
Post Re: Motion induction propulsion engines   Posted on: Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:51 am
What about some type of micro cable? like a nano tube cord, with a strong magnet on the end, have on a ring shaped ship the same mass as a rocket shaped ship, but a much larger diameter, shoot two or more cables from far far out, the moment your all hooked up, reel in like mad at the same rate on all the cables, and right at the perfect time, detach the cables. repeat... solar energy could use this to keep a body in orbit for ever, or to push it to further and further orbits, you could also use lasers to push, after the pass,
and the nano reels to pull in.

_________________
Let not the bindings of society hold you back from improving it.... the masses follow where the bold explore.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:40 am
Posts: 427
Location: California and Michigan
Post Re: Motion induction propulsion engines   Posted on: Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:55 am
another interesting idea is more then one ring shaped craft and rocket shaped craft, in synchronous orbit, so they are all in the same velocity, and eventually launch missions in multiple directions to exploit the effect and void propellant weight,

_________________
Let not the bindings of society hold you back from improving it.... the masses follow where the bold explore.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 9:47 pm
Posts: 801
Location: Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) - capital of Israel!
Post Re: Motion induction propulsion engines   Posted on: Sun Nov 04, 2012 2:54 pm
Sigma wrote:
What about some type of micro cable? like a nano tube cord, with a strong magnet on the end, have on a ring shaped ship the same mass as a rocket shaped ship, but a much larger diameter, shoot two or more cables from far far out, the moment your all hooked up, reel in like mad at the same rate on all the cables, and right at the perfect time, detach the cables. repeat... solar energy could use this to keep a body in orbit for ever, or to push it to further and further orbits, you could also use lasers to push, after the pass,
and the nano reels to pull in.



You run into the same problem as any motion induction engine - physics. As you pull the other spacecraft towards you, you are pulling yourself, by exactly the same amount of force, towards the other spacecraft. If you push each other away, you will both be pushed away by the same amount of force. This is only counter intuitive because we live on Earth, and on Earth, we can use the resistance of the earth we are standing on to pull something towards us without being pulled towards it.

_________________
“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.”
-Anonymous


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:40 am
Posts: 427
Location: California and Michigan
Post Re: Motion induction propulsion engines   Posted on: Mon Nov 05, 2012 5:09 am
No... both accelerate right at each other, one passes through the other, and they both end up in a higher orbit, its using the same reaction mass more then once, that does not violate anything

every action has an equal and opposite reaction, in this case, both actions are usable,

_________________
Let not the bindings of society hold you back from improving it.... the masses follow where the bold explore.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 9:47 pm
Posts: 801
Location: Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) - capital of Israel!
Post Re: Motion induction propulsion engines   Posted on: Mon Nov 05, 2012 7:23 am
It works both ways. If one of them gets to a higher orbit, the other one is going to be in a lower orbit. And then they are stuck.

_________________
“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.”
-Anonymous


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:15 pm
Posts: 845
Location: Columbus, GA USA
Post Re: Motion induction propulsion engines   Posted on: Mon Nov 05, 2012 4:01 pm
Or both are only going half as fast (D/V split between them). There is no free lunch.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:40 am
Posts: 427
Location: California and Michigan
Post Re: Motion induction propulsion engines   Posted on: Mon Nov 05, 2012 8:55 pm
Opposing orbits, one is going one way, the other the opposite, one is a smaller peg shape, the other a large ring, they orbit and then do it again, not a free lunch, two opposing orbits, and a crazy small keyhole, not ideal but possible

_________________
Let not the bindings of society hold you back from improving it.... the masses follow where the bold explore.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:15 pm
Posts: 845
Location: Columbus, GA USA
Post Re: Motion induction propulsion engines   Posted on: Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:46 pm
Great possibility to create lots of orbital debris anyway...


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


cron
© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use