Centrifugal Propulsion

[AbnormallyHonest]

If you had a rotating body generating large amounts of centrifugal inertia, but used electromagnets to balance the centripetal force, releasing isolated portions of that centripetal force in tangent to rotation, could that cause the angular momentum to be transformed to linear momentum? That displacement could accelerate mass off the ground.

[Manticore]

Does this actually mean anything?

[Strange]

This is a spinning wheel with loads attached.When you release the load at the right time it carries on in a straight line. If you get the timing right, it will go straight up.

It is possible but I don't know if it is practical. I can see all sorts of mechanical problems. When you release one of the loads you will get a reaction in the wheel. Also, after that the wheel will be unbalanced until you release the load on the opposite side. 

I can't see any obvious advantage of this approach.

Or are you thinking of this as a way of getting the wheel off the ground? In which case the problems seem even greater and the advantages less.

[Area54]

I read it, perhaps incorrectly, as a variant of the perpetual question about perpetual motion.

[studiot]

I think we are being abnormally hard on abnormallyhonest so I am going to place +1 for encouragement.

 

Remember David and Goliath?

It was called a slingshot.

Another way that the rotational energy can be converted to translational is used in a children's toy called a spinner-copter.

And also, of course, in a real helicopter, it is the source of lift generation.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

It was called a slingshot

That's the word I was struggling for! Thank you.

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

And also, of course, in a real helicopter, it is the source of lift generation.

Is that the same thing? I thought that worked the same way as any other aerofoil/wing? But I suppose it does generate linear momentum, just not tangentially. So it seems tangential to the topic.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

If you had a rotating body generating large amounts of centrifugal inertia, but used electromagnets to balance the centripetal force,

You don't "balance" the centripetal force. If there is no centripetal force, there is no circular motion. 

[studiot]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

That's the word I was struggling for! Thank you.

Is that the same thing? I thought that worked the same way as any other aerofoil/wing? But I suppose it does generate linear momentum, just not tangentially. So it seems tangential to the topic.

I did say

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

Another way that the rotational energy can be converted to translational

So I am trying to point this thread in the direction of a mechanically correct proposition.
Swansont was, of course, quite correct there.

Note also that the propellor on a ship or aircraft also converts rotational energy to translational (for the body concerned).

It have also seen serious propositions to store energy in the high speed rotation of heavy flywheels, to later be used to drive vehicles.
This is instead of a conventional IC engine or battery.

 

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

So I am trying to point this thread in the direction of a mechanically correct proposition.

By taking it off topic? 

[studiot]

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

By taking it off topic? 

Off topic?

A correctly operated hand hammer "converts angular momentum to linear momentum."

But this part of the same sentence is mechanically unsound. " releasing isolated portions of that centripetal force in tangent to rotation"

So which is preferable

Helping a fellow member develop a mechanically sound proposition

or

Everybody sniping and squabbling and going away grumpy?

Edited August 25, 2017 by studiot

[Area54]

I agree. My own remarks about "perpetual motion" were, it seems, more a reflection of my own ignorance and reading comprehension than any stemming from Abnormally Honest.

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

Off topic?

A correctly operated hand hammer "converts angular momentum to linear momentum."

But this part of the same sentence is mechanically unsound. " releasing isolated portions of that centripetal force in tangent to rotation"

So which is preferable

Helping a fellow member develop a mechanically sound proposition

or

Everybody sniping and squabbling and going away grumpy?

Rather than talk about completely different systems wouldn't it be better to explain in more detail why the proposed system is not practical?

[studiot]

Thanks A54.

So far my examples have involved significant conversion but more subtle effects are also used.

The rotational energy is used to drive a linear adjustment system in both a steam governor and the advance/retard mechanism in an IC engine electromechanical distributor.

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

Rather than talk about completely different systems wouldn't it be better to explain in more detail why the proposed system is not practical?

When the requirement from the OP is clearer then the answers can be more focused, as here

 

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Rather than talk about completely different systems wouldn't it be better to explain in more detail why the proposed system is not practical?

Helicopters are quite useful. 

[Strange]

Just now, dimreepr said:

Helicopters are quite useful. 

I didn't say they weren't. But they don't help explain why the OP's idea might (or might not) work.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

I didn't say they weren't. But they don't help explain why the OP's idea might (or might not) work.

I'm sorry I was being facetious (just an example of rotation creating lift).

[AbnormallyHonest]

On 8/25/2017 at 5:44 AM, swansont said:

You don't "balance" the centripetal force. If there is no centripetal force, there is no circular motion. 

Yeah, you can delete this topic. It was an idea I started, and accidentally posted... twice I believe.