Flying saucer. Picture, project of a spacecraft

[MasterOgon]

4 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

 

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Your saucer uses inertial propulsion, and inertial propulsion has already ben sent to space and failed? How will your version work? 

 

It does not work as angravity.

4 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

The peculiarity of this engine is that it can repel almost everything that offers resistance. Therefore, if the solar wind resists, then the engine can push off from it. If you set a sail on it.

It works like a spring.

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

I can hear the sound but I see no lift at all. I suppose someone off-camera throws the saucer? How does the results compare to a set of experiments without the engine running?

 

I think it is obvious that I am throwing a saucer. The disadvantage of my design is that it shakes around a small magnet. But it is necessary that the light wing moves in one direction and the rest of the mass in the opposite direction.
Therefore, the strength of the saucer is very small. It is almost none. But if it is thrown, the oncoming flow creates resistance and the effect becomes stronger.
The behavior of the saucer depends more on the angle at which I threw it than on the force of the engine. Therefore, I did not take control shots, faithfully nothing is clear.

At this moment saucer at the end of the path slows down. And you can hear how the sound of the engine is changing due to the fact that the eccentric energy is redistributed:

 

Here you can see how the saucer lands more gently than one would expect:

 

Note that in the final stage, the force that overturns the saucer increases.
If you look carefully, I think you will notice. To make the experiment more precisely, I could not.

Edited November 28, 2018 by MasterOgon

[Ghideon]

Ok, I see no real explanation how this is supposed to work and no math, lets try another angle. You seem to have some basic equipment available, maybe a set of experiments* can be arranged?

First: Why does the saucer not lift off the ground** when you just start the engine and do not throw the saucer? What are the limiting factors according to your model? (weight, rigidity, frequency...)

Second: How can the lift, if any, be measured with equipment you have available?

Idea 1: Do you have a sensitive scale available? What happens if you run the engine in saucer while the saucer is placed on the scale? The scale should read less weight if the lifting force is generated? Then what does the scale read if you place the saucer upside down with engine running? The saucer should try to press itself down, increasing the reading. Problem here is that vibrations and any flow of air will affect measurements.

Another line of reasoning starts with these two statements:

On 2018-11-27 at 7:29 PM, MasterOgon said:

This principle is possible in virtually any environment capable of providing resistance in which waves can be created and reflected. This allows you to effectively use the resistance of the environment due to its inertness.

and

1 hour ago, MasterOgon said:

But if it is thrown, the oncoming flow creates resistance and the effect becomes stronger.

Also, pictures above shows a device on water.
Idea 2: Do you expect the effect you want to use is greater when the resistance is provided by a medium with greater density? If so, how about building a submersible saucer? Then it may be possible to balance the buoyancy of the saucer so it is almost neutral. Place saucer at the bottom, just heavy enough to sink, with engine running. Does it move up? Then do the opposite: reduce weight so the saucer floats, turn it upside down and start engine. Will it dive to the bottom? 
This setup has other issues, for instance that water is not compressible.

I'm not expecting this to work but may inspire or give insight why I am very sceptic about the possibility that the propulsion will work.

 

*) I'm aware of forum rules, maybe the thread needs to be moved for this discussion...
**) I'm assuming the saucer is supposed to take off vertically like a helicopter if you succeed with the design.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Ghideon
spelling & grammar

[MasterOgon]

6 hours ago, Ghideon said:

First: Why does the saucer not lift off the ground** when you just start the engine and do not throw the saucer? What are the limiting factors according to your model? (weight, rigidity, frequency...)

 

8 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

The disadvantage of my design is that it shakes around a small magnet. But it is necessary that the light wing moves in one direction and the rest of the mass in the opposite direction.

This means that the ratio of the mass and power of my model is such that it will not be able to take off. This is the same as the screw from the ship to attach to the helicopter. The correct scheme, but giving a weak effect.

 

6 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Second: How can the lift, if any, be measured with equipment you have available?

Idea 1: Do you have a sensitive scale available? What happens if you run the engine in saucer while the saucer is placed on the scale? The scale should read less weight if the lifting force is generated? Then what does the scale read if you place the saucer upside down with engine running? The saucer should try to press itself down, increasing the reading. Problem here is that vibrations and any flow of air will affect measurements.

The fact is that the contact of the saucer with something either leads to the fact that it is repelled from it. And pure measurement is possible only if it is not in contact with each other. I tried to descend the thread, but the saucer is repelled by the thread.
In these videos:

The only way is to drop it from a height and measure the speed of the fall. But this requires a great height and free space. There are differences in the video below. But the result was most likely influenced by the fact that the saucer was pushed  away from my hand.

6 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Also, pictures above shows a device on water.
Idea 2: Do you expect the effect you want to use is greater when the resistance is provided by a medium with greater density? If so, how about building a submersible saucer? Then it may be possible to balance the buoyancy of the saucer so it is almost neutral. Place saucer at the bottom, just heavy enough to sink, with engine running. Does it move up? Then do the opposite: reduce weight so the saucer floats, turn it upside down and start engine. Will it dive to the bottom? 
This setup has other issues, for instance that water is not compressible.

You can create a scuba saucer to see his work, but it does not make sense. The work of such an engine in the environment has long been described by mathematics.
According to the law of conservation of momentum, m Δ v = F Δ t {\ displaystyle m \ Delta v = F \ Delta t} {\ displaystyle m \ Delta v = F \ Delta t}, where m {\ displaystyle m} m is the weight of the sink with spring on the inercoid, Δ v {\ displaystyle \ Delta v} \ Delta v - their acquired speed, F {\ displaystyle F} F - force to accelerate the weight on the spring, according to the third Newton law, equal to the force of the weight on the inercoid, Δ t {\ displaystyle \ Delta t} \ Delta t is the time it takes for the weight to accelerate on the spring in one direction. If the magnitude of the impulse m Δ v {\ displaystyle m \ Delta v} {\ displaystyle m \ Delta v} is equal in absolute value for the forward and reverse direction of acceleration of the weight, then F {\ displaystyle F} F is greater in absolute value than Δ t {\ displaystyle \ Delta t} \ Delta t is smaller. When accelerating a weight in one direction with a large Δ t {\ displaystyle \ Delta t} \ Delta t, the force F {\ displaystyle F} F is less than the friction force at rest, while accelerating the weight in the other direction, the force F {\ displaystyle F} F is greater than the friction force rest and friction force of movement and the model is set in motion

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Инерцоиды
 The only question is how effective it can be.

 

By this I am not trying to prove that this is possible in principle. I just want to show that it can be more effective if improved.

By this I am not trying to prove that this is possible in principle. I just want to show that it can be more effective if improved.
Another explanation. My model creates an uneven lifting force. On the water, her work looks like this:

 

 

The following video saucer has unstable aerodynamics. In most cases, it raises the front part up or down.
If I throw it at the right angle, when the free-flowing overturning force is small, the force created by the operation of the wing stabilizes the flight.
And the saucer flies smoothly, with the front part tilted down, which is impossible without the engine running. Flying without an engine with such an angle of attack leads to the fact that the saucer flies down along the arc-like taektorii.

 

One more example. The engine on the video is very small, it can not be taken into account. Look at what happens after I give the saucer a vertical acceleration. In some cases, it does not fall down, but flies away with good acceleration. This will not be able to repeat the plane, if you throw it up.
This happens because the whirlwind, which is formed due to the fact that I pull the saucer up, remains after I let it go. Saucer gliding on it, like a surfer on a wave:

[DrP]

5 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

By this I am not trying to prove that this is possible in principle. I just want to show that it can be more effective if improved.

Couldn't the same be said about absolutely anything at all?

Here is my teleport device attached.  You step in box 1 and come out of box 2.  What do you think? It uses quantum uncertainty and paired particles spooky action at a distance to achieve the teleportation. (I'm not saying that it is possible in principle - just that if it was improved it would be amazing).
 
 I am not saying that it is possible - but if it was improved upon then I am sure it would be better than it is now.  

[MasterOgon]

I'm not trying to prove it because it’s already proven. I gave the link above.

 

One more example. Dip your palm in the water and make a sharp movement, and then stop or take a slow motion back. You will feel the pressure of water, which will continue to move by inertia as a result of the first movement. This is the force that drives the ship on video.

This is because the friction of peace is stronger than the friction of movement.

Depending on the environment in which this occurs, and at what speed, vortices or waves are formed.

If this system moves in water, then it can move in any other environment. Provided that she can interact with it. If this system moves in water, then it can move in any other environment. Provided that she can interact with it.

[DrP]

4 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

I'm not trying to prove it because it’s already proven. I gave the link above.

 

One more example. Dip your palm in the water and make a sharp movement, and then stop or take a slow motion back. You will feel the pressure of water, which will continue to move by inertia as a result of the first movement. This is the force that drives the ship on video.

This is because the friction of peace is stronger than the friction of movement.

Depending on the environment in which this occurs, and at what speed, vortices or waves are formed.

If this system moves in water, then it can move in any other environment. Provided that she can interact with it. If this system moves in water, then it can move in any other environment. Provided that she can interact with it.

Then it can't work in space then can it, as there is no air.

 

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, DrP said:

Then it can't work in space then can it, as there is no air.

1

Indeed, a ufo that doesn't fly is just an o.

[DrP]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, a ufo that doesn't fly is just an o.

If it has been identified then yes.

[dimreepr]

Just now, DrP said:

If it has been identified then yes.

what o hasn't been?

[DrP]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

what o hasn't been?

If I knew that then it would no longer be u.

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, DrP said:

If I knew that then it would no longer be u.

+1

just missing the f... u... 

Edited November 29, 2018 by dimreepr

[MasterOgon]

44 minutes ago, DrP said:

Then it can't work in space then can it, as there is no air.

I already wrote about this at the very beginning. In space, the wing works like a solar sail.

 

[DrP]

6 minutes ago, MasterOgon said:

I already wrote about this at the very beginning. In space, the wing works like a solar sail.

Ah well - that clears that up then.

Edited November 29, 2018 by DrP

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, MasterOgon said:

I already wrote about this at the very beginning. In space, the wing works like a solar sail.

 

 

what happens when solar runs out of wind?

[MasterOgon]

The wing can work as an electric sail antenna.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, MasterOgon said:

The wing can work as an electric sail antenna.

can it???

[MasterOgon]

I am sure that the parabolic antenna will work no worse than the antenna of the cables. But cables can also be attached.

 

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, MasterOgon said:

I am sure that the parabolic antenna will work no worse than the antenna of the cables. But cables can also be attached.

 

 

identified... complete wanker  

[Ghideon]

Sorry, the link seems to be russian:

11 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Инерцоиды

Is this the same:? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionless_drive. If so, the article seems to supports my suspicion that the mechanism does not generate any lifting power:

Quote

a reactionless drive is a particular case of a propellantless drive as it is a closed system presumably in contradiction with the law of conservation of momentum and often considered similar to a perpetual motion machine...

A large number of infeasible devices, such as the Dean drive, are a staple of science fiction particularly for space propulsion.

Of course the saucer you test is traveling in air. But why does that make a difference? Very simply put (I've limited time right now) the failing devices in the link above rocks an internal mass back and forth. Your version rocks an external mass (air, water or solar wind particles) back and forth. Please describe how thrust or lift is generated. 

 

The formulas look garbled in my browser so I can't comment yet:

11 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

ccording to the law of conservation of momentum, m Δ v = F Δ t {\ displaystyle m \ Delta v = F \ Delta t}

 

[dimreepr]

15 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

identified... complete wanker  

sorry...

31 minutes ago, MasterOgon said:

I am sure that the parabolic antenna will work no worse than the antenna of the cables. But cables can also be attached.

 

 

 

[MasterOgon]

9 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Is this the same:? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionless_drive. If so, the article seems to supports my suspicion that the mechanism does not generate any lifting power:

Yes. It's just that in Russian Wikipedia there is a mathematical explanation of how this engine starts moving during an experiment. I brought him before the link. The experiments were conducted in such a way as to make interaction with the environment minimal. This was supposed to prove antigravity. But in all cases there was little interaction with the environment. Mathematics explains how it repels itself from the environment.

 

19 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Of course the saucer you test is traveling in air. But why does that make a difference? Very simply put (I've limited time right now) the failing devices in the link above rocks an internal mass back and forth. Your version rocks an external mass (air, water or solar wind particles) back and forth. Please describe how thrust or lift is generated. 

If you put your palm in the water and push the water one way quickly and the other slowly, the bulk will move to where you push it harder. You can spoon in the tea to chat. 

Medusa, too, pushes the water quickly, and retracts slowly. Its complex form is simply more effective. The saucer should work much harder to get the same effect.

 

35 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

The formulas look garbled in my browser so I can't comment yet:

In any case, you can see how it works.

40 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

sorry...

Nothing

[Ghideon]

5 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

Yes. It's just that in Russian Wikipedia there is a mathematical explanation of how this engine starts moving during an experiment.

So the Russian wikipedia page that i cannot read is supposed to support your case. And the english wikipedia page I can read does not. Maybe you can find some other reliable source that supports the mechanism your saucer depends on? Preferably an english paper.

Repeating the statement below does not help, I read it the first time:

5 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

If you put your palm in the water and push the water one way quickly and the other slowly, the bulk will move to where you push it harder.

Yes, but unless you are standing on a solid non-moving surface (the floor for instance) you will be pushed backwards when you thrust your hand forward to move water. I do not think the analogy is valid unless you are floating in the water. A more valid analogy is: sit in a canoe with a paddle. Now move the paddle back and forth. Do not lift or turn the paddle. The paddle will move some water and the canoe will move back and forth. 

Edited November 29, 2018 by Ghideon
spelling

[MasterOgon]

11 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Please describe how thrust or lift is generated. 

Based on the rule that the friction of calm is stronger than the friction of movement, the following is obtained. The saucer's rapid movement up is the friction of movement, and the slow movement back is the friction of relative calm. Heading up the saucer punches the air like a bullet, and heading back, it holds like a parachute.

A whirlwind created by fast motion is like a flywheel. It continues to rotate and creates wind directed at the bottom of the saucer, pushing it.
Slow backward movement, too, creates a whirlwind with opposite force, but it is much weaker.
If we consider this process as a wave, then a standing wave is formed around the saucer. By creating waves in opposite directions, the saucer does the same as the acoustic levitation.

[DrP]

5 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

Based on the rule that the friction of calm is stronger than the friction of movement, the following is obtained. The saucer's rapid movement up is the friction of movement, and the slow movement back is the friction of relative calm. Heading up the saucer punches the air like a bullet, and heading back, it holds like a parachute.

A whirlwind created by fast motion is like a flywheel. It continues to rotate and creates wind directed at the bottom of the saucer, pushing it.
Slow backward movement, too, creates a whirlwind with opposite force, but it is much weaker.
If we consider this process as a wave, then a standing wave is formed around the saucer. By creating waves in opposite directions, the saucer does the same as the acoustic levitation.

But those back drafts are no where near enough to lift anything, let alone a huge metal saucer. So how is it like acoustic lift if it doesn't generate any lift at all?  

 

[Ghideon]

6 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

acoustic levitation

Thanks, interesting concept that I have not studied at all yet!

That said,  the little research I've had time to do displays a static device (for instance on a table) levitating some small object. How is that applicable in your saucer? Please add references for your various claims, it is time consuming to do the research needed to be able to comment on the general analogies and concepts you use.