Ghideon

Please stay on topic, only adress the conservation of momentum issue. I'm beginning to loose track of which of my comments you support and which ones you disagree upon. You seem do have changed your mind regarding earlier agreements which is fine. But please add citations, especially when commenting on the statements you earlier agreed about that you do not agree about anymore. I have to know which part(s) of mainstream physics you want to refute to be able to respond properly. Makes no difference, the upstroke still can't have positive contribution to the ability to ascend. And it contradicts your earlier post:

It is not necessary to add an analysis of heat losses since it makes the situation more complicated. But by doing so the upstroke has a larger negative impact on the possibility to ascend, confirming my objections to the design.

I have not discussed conservation of energy. I have used conservation of momentum to adress issues with the saucer.

Your description violates conservation of momentum. Also please add citations to the statements you earlier agreed about that you do not agree about anymore.

Please go back to the points where we agreed earlier. Read carefully and state what modifications you want regarding conservation of momentum.

Your description violates conservation of momentum.

In the previous steps we have shown that according to conservation of momentum it is not possible for an object to ascend if the ascent is supposed to be the result from having the object perform an an initial ascending move, pusing air upwards. At best it is a zero-sum game where the initial upwards move of the object results in zero momentum. Hence, each upstroke by the saucer have at best, under theoretically idealised circumstances, a zero effect on the saucers capability to lift. Never ever can the upstrokes help lifting the saucer since even if the theoretically perfect situation the saucer will be located at a lower position relative to the starting position of the upstroke. This invalidates any claims that the saucer could use the inertia of the upwards moving air to generate lift. Note that it is a generally applicable result; frequency, type of engine, amplitude etc have no impact. The upstroke can't have a positive effect on the saucers ability to hover or lift; only a negative or zero effect. All previous and future descriptions and analogies about any positive effect of the saucers upstroke is not compatible with the conservation of momentum. Any claim based on the upstroke having the possibility to help generating lift is therefore refuted. No further analysis or design of the upstroke is required. Do you agree? Conclusion: The saucer and the proposed propulsion ideas are unfortunately not compatible with laws of physics, in this case conservation of momentum.

Ok! Next step: we introduce the saucer again, as object B. Saucer is stationary in the air at this time. How this is accomplished is not important yet, in this case we neglect the effect of gravity. Let the initial push as discussed in previous post (where object “B” pushed some air “A”) be the first upstroke of the saucer. Internal construction of saucer is not important, we only assume that it can push some air up, at least once. The saucer push some amount of air "A" up with momentum P and hence the saucer has a momentum P down. The best possible theoretical outcome of this upstroke is if the saucer B at some time later somehow is affected* by the air so that momentum P is transferred to the saucer. This would result in a zero momentum down for the saucer, making it stationary again. The saucer is at this time at a slightly lower position than initially. Do you agree? The saucer has not yet performed a downstroke. *) Again, how the interaction is possible or the physical phenomenon(s) involved is not important now, it could be collisions, draft, drag, turbulence, friction or other. Only important thing is that the interaction follows the laws of physics (conservation of momentum) and that no external forces are involved. Any losses is also neglected at this time. B (saucer) is not allowed to perform any additional actions that may affect momentum or movements.

The above is an agreement to my previous post, right? The fact that A and B may be separated by an arbitrary distance after some time is of course true, but not important to the conservation of momentum in this discussion

Ok, lets move on! The result from my previous post was that air (A) has a momentum P in one direction and Object B has momentum P in the opposite direction. Then, let the momentum P of air A by some means of interaction* be able to affect object B, immediately or at some time later. The maximum amount of the momentum P that can be transferred from A to B is, not surprising, P. The result is still conservation of momentum for the system consisting of A and B; A and B are now at rest again relative to the starting position. Do you agree? Next post I'll try to get time to include an image, the explanation is maybe unnecessary complicated. *) How the interaction is possible or the physical phenomenon(s) involved is not important now, it could be collisions, draft, drag, turbulence, friction or other. Only important thing is that the interaction follows the laws of physics (conservation of momentum) and that no external forces are involved. Any losses is also neglected at this time. B is not allowed to perform any actions that may affect momentum or movements.

Ok! Let’s say we have an object “B”. Object B is surrounded by air. Initially B is at rest relative to the air and the air is free from movements. There are no external forces on the air or the object. At this time the sum of momentum, “P” is zero in the system consisting of air and object B. Now the object B pushes some amount of air*, let’s call it “A”. Conservation of momentum states that total P is still zero. Therefore the momentum of the pushed air is equal to the momentum of object B. Do you agree? I will not analyse the rest of your post at this time, it is not yet required. *) Note that the shape, mass, speed etc of the object B or air A is not important at this stage. It is not important where the air will go yet. It is not important how air molecules interact.

I would not go as far as saying meaningless. A lot of progress in various areas are made by extrapolating or making valid assumptions, testing ideas and so on. In this case however, once a analogy or explanation is presented it is rather vague or lacks details. I then try to connect the dots and figure out what the explanation is supposed to tell. If my knowledge is not enough about the concept I try to find reliable sources. Then the main problem arises; all information from scientific sources (scientific papers etc) confirms the opposite of your claims. There seems to be no room for new laws of physics in the scientific community regarding common concept such as drag, friction, turbulence, water and other areas covered so far on the four pages. When it is impossible to find any material at all supporting something it is maybe because the idea is wrong. Since the moderators have let this thread stay open I have no problem to continue the discussion as long as I learn something new* and there is still some hope that you are prepared to learn a few things. That said, how abut trying a new approach (again...), lets remove each and every thing that adds complexity and create refutations (or support, even though I strongly doubt that will be the outcome) based on a minimum set of things. Ok? Again, as stated in my previous attempt this will be moving forward at a limited pace, initially there's no need for a saucer or anything, my analysis will only use this: Are you familiar with conservation of momentum? You don't have to explain it, just state if you know about the concept so it can be used as a starting point in my analysis. I have limited time to move ahead in the wrong direction. *) or new ways to express or explain things I already knew ,quite common in this topic.

It has been refuted in great detail in my post above. Inverting and cropping the image does not help, it is still invalid as explained in the detailed analysis. Here is the conclusion again:

Why not use the bio field for gender (or other details) that individual members want to tell? "72 years old retired male carpenter ..."

I had hoped for a more straightforward answer, are the following two answers what you intended to say? Answer: Yes. Answer: No, something else is needed. Some comments regarding the last post: I know that already. It was You introduced the helicopter and said you had experimental confirmation of a vortex, stated it under a picture of a helicopter generating one vortex, in a post linking to material about the vortex: So what did you experimentally confirm? It looks like the interpretation of the experimental result a not a solid theory but more like a set of guesses. I know that the helicopter does not explain the propulsion. You introduced the helicopter. This is again an example why I keep requesting more details. Your vague descriptions of various concepts and phenomenons makes time consuming to produce a detailed analysis regarding the saucer. Next time, be very careful, detailed and specific about what the issue is (bold by me), I need to know if the issue is something you consider important as support for your design or not. Not yet, one concept at a time. First the helicopter issues, I'll adress other concepts later.

To meet your request of more details in the analysis and/or refutal this attempt will move forward at a slower pace. It may require several answers to specific questions as well as documentation about assumptions made. In this first post regarding the new information considering vortexes only one aspect will be addressed, Vortex Ring State (VRS). Once VRS is analysed, later follow-ups will address other vortex phenomena around the saucer. Initial assumptions: I will base any analysis on facts available on the web, from reasonably reliable sources. I assume the saucer is supposed to follow the known laws of physics, no concepts such as anti gravity, negative masses etc is required. When a description, analogy or model is not clearly defined in your posts I will make reasonable assumptions. To make sure that VRS is actually occurring in helicopter flight (sometimes wikipedia is wrong) I checked some official sources regarding helicopter incidents. One such example is https://www.havkom.se/assets/reports/Swedish/486037039_rm2005_01.pdf. Unfortunately the page is in Swedish but I’ll use it anyway and translate relevant parts since the report is from investigating a real helicopter crash and covers many aspects and comes from a usually reliable source. Final conclusion is that VRS played a central role in the outcome: (Translation may have issues) Now that we have concluded that VRS is an issue that can make a helicopter crash it seems kind of counter intuitive that it could make the saucer fly. But additional details are necessary. Vortex Ring State, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_ring_state: Verifying this information leads to https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/helicopter_flying_handbook/media/hfh_ch11.pdf The conclusion regarding the information above is that VRS does not apply to the saucer since the saucer is designed as a solid disc. A second set of vortices through the centre is not possible unless there are holes through the saucer. None of the pictures of the saucer suggest that the saucer has holes in or near the centre. But before arguing against VRS I did some additional research and found that there exists other definitions where a single vortex occurs, still leading to the defined VRS. See https://dspace-erf.nlr.nl/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.11881/256/01_basset.pdf?sequence=1: This is more similar to your helicopter picture above. Note, above describes a single vortex, not two. Question 1: Is this enough details to refute the saucer's connection to VRS as defined on Wikipedia page about VRS*? This is important since it allows for simplifications in future followups. If yes then the logical conclusion is that the saucer relies on a vortex similar to the tip vortex, described for instance here https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060024029.pdf: Question 2: Is the next step an analysis of a single vortex occurring around the rim of the saucer, as seen in your picture? If answer is yes then the next follow-up will contain a more detailed analysis of that specific phenomenon. *) This shows a possible problem with relying on wikipedia as a single source. It is better to supply references to more detailed sources.

Interesting post with new details! Good question. My quick answer is that I think it is possible to do an initial analysis without detailed mathematics. I'll have to do some reading before I can get back with valid comments to continue the discussion. +1 for bringing up VRS. I did not know that about helicopters!

(bold by me) That is probably a reasonable view of the situation, because since this thread started I have already spent a few hours* refreshing my knowledge in various areas. It’s been quite a while since I studied for instance draft and static vs kinetic friction. Visiting this forum and posting in this topic is both a way to learn more and, sometimes, to be able to provide some answers. But so far this thread has focused on refuting the various analogies and examples given since they are not describing the details of the propulsion. Once a reasonably detailed model of the saucer propulsion is provided I will see what further studying that is required on my part to refute the design. There's indeed a large probability that I'll have to spend some time studying, and/or ask other members. I’m prepared to do my part regarding further studies. Are you prepared to study physics in more detail to allow you to understand the answers already given in this thread? I don't think I have commented on the exact timing of the bounces against the ground for this specific car? If you disagree please provide quotation and your line of reasoning. In this case I suppose you mean the car shown at 00:57-01:09 in the video. The car has seem to have shock absorbers; white rods positioned at each wheel. I suspect that affects the timing of the bounces vs the timing of up and down movements of the "propeller/umbrella". Analysing the cars suspension adds complications that are not needed in an analysis of the hovering saucer. I fail to understand that sentence. *) You probably have noticed that I only answer approximately once a day; I have limited time read references, cross check my responses against reliable sources and to translate to english.

That may indeed be the case depending on the purpose of the examples. Some of the examples are excellent at showing issues with the saucer design. Unfortunately none of the examples supports a successful use of the design of the saucer propulsion in air or space (or water). Correct. I do not have to take everything into account, only enough details to show that the saucer seems to contradict the known laws of physics*. It is your job to explain points with enough details so that an analysis is possible. What I try to do is to keep only necessary details to do an analysis. If, for instance, if it follows from the description of the propulsion that momentum is not conserved for the system, then analysing turbulence or every air molecule in detail is not necessary. Good point, but an exact model is not necessary initially. I think you just have to create a model that is slightly better than the ones I have tried in this thread. By better I mean including more parameters or more concepts that better explains the saucer. Not analogies or examples, but more vectors, flows or whatever you need to make the thing lift. If your model includes more of the details needed and is better at predicting that the saucer, as designed, can fly then we can compare that model the laws of physics and to the simplified model I posted. Unfortunately you have not yet used that understanding to present an explanation that can be analysed from a physics/scientific point of view. If "result" equals the videos posted in this tread they unfortunately have limited scientific value. I have already explained that in earlier posts. *) I have also stated that aerodynamics is not my day job; errors in my analysis are always an option!

The last posts are a slight improvement since it describes air, but still there are problems. Let's see: No comment, wrong language in picture. A flying bullet is it is affected by air resistance, that is correct. Why a new analogy again? You tell me, bullet and gun is your analogy. It seems reasonable to assumed that the pressure will somehow equalise, I have not modelled the dynamics of a slowing bullet I do not know. How? By what force? Was the bullet fired straight up, slowing due to gravity and air resistance and then falling down back to the gun? I have not modelled a bullet so I do not know how you believe that. Show your calculations of your bullet model. That’s cool, doubt and reasoning may bring new ideas forth. But doubt is not enough, show how your calculations and models that are better at predicting the behaviour of the saucer. Since I have not used a bullet fired from a gun analogy I had no reason to include a bullet and gas molecules in the calculation. I tried to model your saucer in a simplified way and in that model drag due to air resistance was included. Drag does account for air resistance. If you have a more precise model show the applicable formulas for a comparison. I used simple model to show that even in a simplified case it was impossible for the saucer to fly by using the suggested propulsion. If you believe differently then show how it works. Momentum is conserved. The air moves since some of the momentum of the bullet was transferred to the air. Further than what? How much further? This is not in any way a correct analogy. It is not a correct description of a shock wave. It is not a description of the saucer propulsion. If you are curious about blast waves ask a question in a separate thread. Why are you continuously adding new and invalid analogies?

No it would not. I have made several attempts to explain how the analogies presented are invalid in the context of vertical propulsion through the atmosphere. Lets try a new angle: Start from one of the failed analogies, from there work backwards to construct a matching setup that includes the saucer. Then we will see if there is a possibility that you may find differences. One analogy you have used is a hand in water/spoon in tea analogy. In the following scenarios I will not be very stringent and some statements may lack precision. The point is to show why your analogies fail to answer valid questions. Not to be physically advanced or exact models. Here’s a scientist with a spoon, cup and tea, let’s name this scenario 1. Proportions and scale is not correct but not important for the analogy. The scientist does as you propose and force the spoon forward. That results in an opposite, resisting, force from the tea. Luckily our scientist is prepared, with both feet on a floor with large enough friction. The force from the feet is balanced by friction forces from the floor so the scientist does not slide backwards. Next scenario (2) is a saucer, just hovering in air. The saucer is just beginning an upstroke, trying to push air upwards. As seen in this picture there are force A again, this time pushing air up. Force B is resistance from the air. Force mg is gravity pulling the saucer down. This scenario does not have a force C and therefore is not a valid analogy for a description of the tea cup scenario. That also means the opposite; spoon in tea cup is not a valid analogy for the saucer. The water/tea/hand/spoon is a failed analogy for flying saucer. You can not use it to explain how the saucer is supposed to fly. Repeating the same analogy again does not help. Period. So a modification is needed. Since the scientist needs support from the floor that is a good start to draw scenario 3. See the picture below where the saucer is held in place by a clamp. Now the force C is back into the picture and balances mg and B so that the sauce kan make an upstroke. This analogy is a better match than the previous one but there are some issues: Air is compressible and has relatively low density. The gravity is also a problem; mg was not part of the initial setup with the teacup. Forces are vertical, not horizontal as in the teacup. The final version takes care about the issues. In scenario 4 the saucer is submerged in tea and fastened at the bottom. When saucer applies force A to the right the water resistance, force B tries to hold the saucer back, or push it back, similar to the scientist in scenario 1. The force C applied at the point where the saucer is mounted is able to handle this so the saucer does not move. Now I have worked backwards from a failed analogy. The starting point with the tea and the final analogy with saucer matches relatively well but it does not match the flying saucer. Are you now able to see that scenarios 1 and 4 are similar but scenario 2 is completely different? Any scientific predictions or explanations of flight through air in scenario 1 is not useful for explaining or predicting the outcome from propulsion experiments with scenario 2. By now it should be rather clear that analogies you try to use as an explanations for the propulsion fails. Again, can you explain the propulsion of the saucer in air, without using any analogy at all, including a mathematic model, backed up by reliable mainstream scientific papers or by providing evidence for new science needed. In speculations* you have to provide support for your idea. I'm trying to create questions and point at issues in such a way that it its possible to learn. I do not think your idea of propulsion is working and even if I did my task in speculations is to find issues. I'm beginning to think that some learning may be required to continue this discussion in a meaningful way. *) If you ask questions about mainstream science for instance in engineering the situation may be different. In some threads several members are cooperating and attempting to solve various issues. That is not the case in this section.

I'll clarify my point; The saucer you are testing and describing seems to be designed opposite to what current mainstream physics would suggest. By opposite or upside down I mean a saucer shaped object vibrating/moving with a slow upstroke and a fast downstroke. This is the opposite to the design suggested by you; your version relies on a fast upstroke followed by a slow downstroke. Therefore I asked you to clarify this by describing the details about this aspect of the propulsion since your design seems to be wrong. If devices designed with a slow upstroke and a fast downstroke could work or not I had no opinion on since it did not matter. The only point I tried to make was that such a design seems to be less impossible. By stating that such devices does not work you have added one more argument against your proposed saucer. If a "correctly" designed device does not work, how would it be possible for your opposite version work in this case? Designing a more wrong version of something does not automatically make it work. The link seems to be in another language than English so I have not checked any of the material. Yes. I have tried that at a larger scale. As kids we used to run as fast as possible around a small swimming pool and then at a given signal turn around and try to swim. The force from the water was impressive. But I think I have said a few times; can you please explain how the water (or tea) analogy is explaining your proposed vertical propulsion through air?

Sorry, I don't understand*. Mistake by whom and where is the mistake made? I fail to see the connection to saucer propulsion through air or how this new analogy is supporting previous claims in this thread. I believe someone with cooking or chemistry skills may provide better answers; there are many types of jelly. A common property is, as far as I know, that jelly does not return to its original position after impact from a ship. Jelly can be cut** with a knife. Again an example of a weak or imprecise analogy does not describe the saucer propulsion. Jelly is not a useful analogy for the experiments in water. And water propulsion is not very useful when describing vertical propulsion through air. So far the provided references and analogies fail to describe how the saucer will lift, or predicts that the saucer design is invalid. Please submit an explanation that is in English, is compatible with mainstream science (or, if new concepts are needed, explained in detail with mathematic models) and is internally consistent. Another option at this time is of cause to submit a revised saucer design since the current seem to have to defy the laws of physics to be able to fly. *) Might just be language issues, English isn't my first language. **) wikipedia/Gelatin_dessert and wikipedia/Fruit_preserves_Jelly

This text contradicts this one Mixing translations with your own ideas without stating what is quoted and what is your interpretations makes discussion hard. I tried to run the wikipedia page through google translate*, the result might not be good enough; I find no support for your propulsion idea. I do not know if the word liquid in this case is applicable to gas. As I have said many times by now; horizontal movement in water is not the same as vertical movement in air. I might have missed to comment on this passage from the translated text (Sorry, I don't have time to re-read all the posts to check) That seems to imply that a quick movement in water meets greater resistance than a slow move, similar to the draft formula I used a few posts ago. Hence it looks like the saucer is designed upside down; the quick movement that generates large force must be downwards, not up. I am somewhat familiar with that. I scored depressingly low on my first physics test. I believe I have improved slightly over the years but not without considerable effort. Your experiments are cool but unfortunately lack of physics knowledge may lead to wrong interpretations of the results. During experiments in water, what mass did the boat have compared to the water? How large was the tank? Was there any waves bouncing back from the edges, disturbing the setup? Without further analysis I'd say that a floating device on water is more an analogy to a ballon with the same density as air; there is no force needed to make it hover, only to move it sideways. Again, the proposed analogy fails to prove anything regarding propulsion through air. In an early post I explained this and suggested an underwater test but that idea was rejected. It does not have to be complex. But it needs to be in english, compatible with science (mainstream or new concepts explained in detail with mathematic models) and internally consistent. At this point that seems hard; for each iteration of the various kinds of explanations there seems to be more issues added rather than any supporting evidence. *) https://translate.google.se/translate?hl=sv&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fru.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FИнерцоиды

Thanks! I had to review this, there's room for misunderstandings. The nomination for a Nobel price starts a year before the ceremony so a 1928 nomination could mean a nomination for the 1929 prize. I fail to see the connection between a nomination 1929 and a failure to receive the price due to political connections during 2nd world war. Note that the Jordan wikipedia page talks about 1950's: Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascual_Jordan I haven't had to track down original sources for the nomination procedure but I do not think Einstein could have submitted a nomination for 1954 price back in 1929. I also have not access to the source(s) listed for the Wikipedia claims regarding nominations by Einstein 1929. Einstein seems to have been an active nominator: Nominator in 9 nominations: Physics 1919 for Max Planck Physics 1924 for James Franck, Gustav Hertz Physics 1926 for Arthur Compton Physics 1932 for Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger Physics 1933 for Erwin Schrödinger Physics 1940 for Otto Stern, Isidor Rabi Physics 1945 for Wolfgang Pauli Physics 1954 for Walther Bothe Chemistry 1929 for Carl Bosch Source https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/redirector/?redir=archive/ Above is an extract from the digital nominee archive available from the Nobel Foundation. Since the organisation manages the Nobel price I have reason to believe they have pretty good access to reliable original records. Obviously there may be errors in the data (or in my research of the data). Conclusion: The official records does not support the statement made on wikipedia. I leave to other members to evaluate the reliability of the material I have provided.