Flying saucer. Picture, project of a spacecraft

[MasterOgon]

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

That said,  the little research I've had time to do displays a static device (for instance on a table) levitating some small object.

I do not understand it. Can you explain differently?

 

2 hours ago, DrP said:

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?  

A weak draft will certainly not lift a metal saucer. This should be a powerful shock wave.

[Ghideon]

47 minutes ago, MasterOgon said:

I do not understand it. Can you explain differently?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_levitation
The levitation is performed by a machine on a table, the machine lifts some small object by using sound. Levitation is not performed by a device built in to the object that is levitating.

I’ll have to do some assumptions to be able to continue the discussion.

(Why am I trying to explain your theory, isn’t that your task?)
Anyway, first I cleaned up the garbled math section you posted:

Quote

According to the law of conservation of momentum, m Δv = F Δt where m is the weight of the sink with spring on the inercoid, Δv - their acquired speed, 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, Δt is the time it takes for the weight to accelerate on the spring in one direction. If the magnitude of the impulse m Δv is equal in absolute value for the forward and reverse direction of acceleration of the weight, then F is greater in absolute value than Δt is smaller. When accelerating a weight in one direction with a large Δt, the force F is less than the friction force at rest, while accelerating the weight in the other direction, the force F is greater than the friction force rest and friction force of movement and the model is set in motion.

I interpret that as "friction force at rest" is the same as static friction as described here: http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class05/static.html :

Quote

In general, μs ≥ μk. It is harder to move a stationary object than it is to keep a moving object in motion. 

Some further information on static vs kinetic friction is available on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction :

Quote

Dry friction is a force that opposes the relative lateral motion of two solid surfaces in contact. Dry friction is subdivided into static friction("stiction") between non-moving surfaces, and kinetic friction between moving surfaces. With the exception of atomic or molecular friction, dry friction generally arises from the interaction of surface features, known as asperities

So far the analysis covers movement on solid materials. I understand how the movement works and some of the physics involved. I even made a rudimentary test by placing an office chair on a soft floor. I could move across the floor by slowly by bending forward and then quickly jerk back. (Yes, it looked ridiculous. No, I did not try to levitate)

Back to the saucer: The saucer idea you describe seems to apply the concept of static friction to vertical motion through air, so a central question for your mechanism of propulsion seems to be: Does air have static friction? I assume your answer is “yes” since you are building saucers that relies on static friction of air.
My answer is: I do not know if air have static friction, a quick study I did revealed static friction and kinetic friction only applies to solid materials.

Is my analysis correct? If so, can you provide calculations or some written English sources as evidence that your speculative ideas are working?

I suggest you read through the posts and the open questions in the thread and provide a consistent and detailed answer backed up by real evidence.

 

 

Edited November 30, 2018 by Ghideon
clarification

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, MasterOgon said:

I do not understand it. Can you explain differently?

you'd be better off with this.

21 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

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.

1

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gravity#Gyroscopic_devices

Quote

Gyroscopes produce a force when twisted that operates "out of plane" and can appear to lift themselves against gravity. 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2018 by dimreepr

[MasterOgon]

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Is my analysis correct? If so, can you provide calculations or some written English sources as evidence that your speculative ideas are working?

I suggest you read through the posts and the open questions in the thread and provide a consistent and detailed answer backed up by real evidence.

Thank you for these questions. Since I am very far from the exact sciences, for me it is a very difficult task. But I will think about it. I think you can find the answer, because the boat is still floating. And the counter question. Is there any difference between static friction and dynamic? After all, the atoms of solids are also not very static. For example diffusion. And vice versa - is a shock wave gas that destroys a stone?

 

[dimreepr]

23 minutes ago, MasterOgon said:

Is there any difference between static friction and dynamic?

no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction

[MasterOgon]

49 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

no.

In any case, the ship sails.

Perhaps static friction from all sides and dynamic with only one. If the object overcomes the static trenet that is rendered to it from all sides, will it become dynamic?

This is from the Russian Wikipedia:
Physical model

The principle of action of inercoids lies in the fact that their purposeful movement is caused by the difference in friction force in the support in the case of direct and reverse half of work. With dry friction, resistance to slow motion exceeds fast resistance (with one half-cycle, when a small force is applied, the friction force at rest is not overcome and the device remains in place; with the reverse semi-cycle, the friction force is overcome, the device moves). In liquids, on the contrary, resistance to fast motion prevails over resistance to slow motion. The explanation of the effect in liquids is fundamentally different (since there is no static friction force in liquids and gases) and is based on viscous forces of friction.

Thus, the stated possibility of moving without interaction with the external environment is denied - interaction with the environment occurs through friction (this is proved by experiments with inercoids on torsion weights, when directional motion does not occur [2]; not happening).

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%86%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B4%D1%8B

[Ghideon]

 

3 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

Since I am very far from the exact sciences, for me it is a very difficult task.

Agreed, an exact analysis of this is difficult but my opinion is that even a simplified analysis would be valuable. Maybe you should start by analysing and attempting to understand the analogies and concepts you actually rely on? 

I asked you to read through the posts and provide a consistent and detailed answer backed up by real evidence. Since that failed I have read through posts myself and summarised:
You have stated various explanations for how the saucer would be able to lift.

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

The wing makes a fast ascending impulse, as a result of which a shock wave is formed above it, and the flying saucer begins to be drawn into the region of reduced pressure formed behind it.

and

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

the flying saucer uses the principle of movement of birds, fish and other species of creat

and

On 2018-11-29 at 5:35 AM, MasterOgon said:

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.

and

On 2018-11-29 at 5:42 PM, 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.

and

14 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

Based on the rule that the friction of calm is stronger than the friction of movement,

and

14 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

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.

All explanations seems different and they depend on different concepts, some of them possibly contradicting each other. For instance I don't think a bird relies on friction, it is more about complex movements, power and changing the shape of the wings.

After my analysis above we seem to agree that you rely on friction and the fact that static and kinetic friction is different. Then I asked you about air and static friction and I got no valid explanation. And then you post this: (emphasis by me)

2 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

The explanation of the effect in liquids is fundamentally different (since there is no static friction force in liquids and gases) and is based on viscous forces of friction.

You seem to have had the answer all the time, but you didn't think that this is a critical piece of information? Have you proposed a propulsion method for air, water and space (solar wind) based on a concept that does not exist in air, water and space? Maybe you need to check if the basic assumptions your ideas relies upon are correct? One possibility is to ask questions, for instance on this forum, regarding the things you need to learn before attempting to revolutionise space travel.

I think I have taken this analysis as far as I can for now. Can you please provide some kind of source as evidence that your speculative ideas are working? 

 

 

[MasterOgon]

OK. Friction is a very complex concept, as I understand it. It can be atomic, molecular, and so on. In this case, how to understand the friction of solid metal about soft? The metal has a certain viscosity, and if it is cut with a sharper object, then spiral-like chips are formed, resembling a whirlwind in a liquid or gas. I will begin the explanation first, because there is confusion.

 

[MasterOgon]

OK. Friction is a very complex concept, as I understand it. It can be atomic, molecular, and so on. In this case, how to understand the friction of solid metal about soft? The metal has a certain viscosity, and if it is cut with a sharper object, then spiral-like chips are formed, resembling a whirlwind in a liquid or gas. I will begin the explanation first, because there is confusion.

The principle of motion of a flying saucer can be described as repulsion, in which one body gives acceleration to another, and receiving opposition from the force of inertia of another body, accelerates itself. I have not found any explanation of what repulsion is. Perhaps this is a jet propulsion.
Consider the engine as a system of two interconnected bodies that repel and attract each other. At the same time, their common center of mass remains in place. If during their repulsion a force acts on one of the bodies to resist its movement, then the other body, according to the law of conservation of energy, moves further. And the common center of mass of two bodies shifts. Thus, the system comes into motion. Thus, it is repelled by the force resisting the movement of one of the bodies.

In order to obtain this resistance force in the air, we make one of the bodies in the shape of a sphere so that it is streamlined, and the second is given a plate shape so that it experiences maximum air resistance during movement.

When these 2 bodies repel each other in the air, the plate gets more resistance and moves a shorter distance, and the ball gets less resistance and moves a greater distance. And the whole system moves. If the bodies are pulled back at the same speed, then we get a car with an umbrella, and the system returns to its original position.
But if the bodies are attracted with greater speed, then as a result of acceleration, their mass and kinetic energy becomes larger, the plate gets more air resistance. But at the same time, the plate transfers its energy to the air, and the air around the plate begins to move in the direction in which it pushed it. The movement of air by inertia continues even after the plate has ceased to push it. A wind is formed which pushes the plate like a sail. At this time, the plate is slowly attracted to the ball, creating a force directed against the wind. The energy of the plate, and the force that it creates in this case is less than that which it gave to the air by the previous action. As a result, the air flow drives the entire system. Thus, the original two-body system is repelled by the wind, exerting pressure on it from one side.

Similarly, this system works in space, starting from the solar wind, if the plate is a sail. Since the solar wind creates the sun, there is no need to create it. Due to the fact that the speed of the light wave is greater than the speed of the system, the light waves constantly put pressure on it from one side and it can keep pushing away from them until it reaches the speed of light. Perhaps, having pushed off from the light one last time, and not having received resistance to moving forward, it will exceed the speed of light as much as it can push off.

All other earlier processes - waves, turbulence, friction, this is a consequence of the repulsion process.

 

[Ghideon]

2 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

Perhaps, having pushed off from the light one last time, and not having received resistance to moving forward, it will exceed the speed of light as much as it can push off.

Nothing wrong with ambitious goals! But given the current status of your propulsion concept I have to say that it is too early to discuss faster than light* travel. 

Regarding the explanations I'll answer later when I've had time to read and analyse the details.

 

 

*) The fact that it evidence support that it is physically impossible to travel faster than the speed of light is also a complicating factor but that is off topic for this thread

Edited December 1, 2018 by Ghideon
clarification "exceed" / "travel"

[Ghideon]

Thanks for the description. Unfortunately it look like a description of how you believe the saucer will be able to lift. I might have been unclear, I wanted a description how the things are supposed to actually work according to physics. The explanations also seems to move from concept to concept. A few posts ago we seemed to agree that static vs kinetic friction was a key concept. In your last post this changed; the propulsion seems to rely upon acceleration of air:

16 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

The principle of motion of a flying saucer can be described as repulsion, in which one body gives acceleration to another, and receiving opposition from the force of inertia of another body, accelerates itself

That seems to introduce contradictions when reading these two explanations: (bold by me)

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

The wing makes a fast ascending impulse, as a result of which a shock wave is formed above it, and the flying saucer begins to be drawn into the region of reduced pressure formed behind it. An annular vortex is formed under the wing, which follows it by inertia. Then the wing begins to make a reverse movement downward at low speed, and the flying saucer pushes off from the whirlwind, which catches up with it, carrying it upwards.

and

On 2018-11-30 at 4:55 AM, MasterOgon said:

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.

From your current explanation(s) I read that drag (air resistance) is a key factor. The saucer is wide and flat to be able to affect a lot of air? But if I'm understand correctly the drag equation* depends on velocity squared so a fast ascending impulse will push the saucer harder downwards than the following slow backwards movement will push the saucer upwards. I might misinterpret this since my skills regarding fluid dynamics, avionics etc are limited but given your explanations it now looks like the saucer, when performing as intended, will create negative lift? Unless your next post clarifies the situation I suggest a fresh start from square one; an analysis of what basic requirements that need to be fulfilled to make the saucer fly, and then check if laws of physics allow the requirements to be fulfilled for the propulsion concept you suggest. I have a few ideas about simple models but it might be better if you ask questions in a separate thread. If you continue to make claims without references or evidence this thread will likely be closed.

 

*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation, https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/drageq.html

[MasterOgon]

5 hours ago, Ghideon said:

rom your current explanation(s) I read that drag (air resistance) is a key factor. The saucer is wide and flat to be able to affect a lot of air? But if I'm understand correctly the drag equation* depends on velocity squared so a fast ascending impulse will push the saucer harder downwards than the following slow backwards movement will push the saucer upwards.

 

That's right. The movement of the saucer up creates a force that presses it. But there is one important point that you do not take into account in time. This is the inertia of the air flow. I can’t back it up with a link, because there is none. This can be proved only experimentally. And the experiment with the ship shows it clearly.
Moving upward, the saucer creates in the air areas of low and high pressure, which it is pressed. What are you talking about. But then, trying to restore balance, the air begins to move from the zone of high pressure to the zone of low. It is this process that makes the wind, which pushes the saucer, while it makes the movement down. And the wind continues by inertia after the saucer has ceased to create a pressing force, and began to create the opposite. It should be borne in mind that the kinetic energy of the mass, which drives the saucer more when moving to the top and less when moving down. At the same time, the force of the wind is opposite, because it comes after the movement that caused it.
Imagine a car that drives on the highway, and after it all the garbage flies in the vortex that it creates. If the car stops abruptly, the moor will hit the car from behind. If he starts moving backwards, he will have to resist the wind he created.
You can take an umbrella and stick it up. When you stop moving, you will feel the wind that you created with this movement.

 

And about friction. It is different when moving back and forth due to the fact that at different speeds air flows around the body in different ways. When an impulse is at the top, a zone of calm forms under the plate, and it breaks through the air like a bullet. And when moving down the air flows around it smoothly like a parachute.

[Ghideon]

Ok, yet again an explanation is provided describing how you believe or wish the saucer to be able to fly.

10 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

I can’t back it up with a link, because there is none.

Is there any possibility that there are no links because physics does not work the way the design requires? 

Lets do summary of what I think we have at this point:
-Bird analogy: failed because a bird wing changes form. A bird folds the wings on upstroke to reduce drag on downstroke
-Car analogy: failed because the car moved across a solid, fixed surface.
-Static vs kinetic friction: failed because the reference posted states that air does not behave like that.
Draft: failed because saucer design is based on a quick upstrokes and a slower downstrokes which according to draft formula makes it impossible for the saucer to lift.
Umbrella pushed upwards analogy: fail, because you push your feet against solid ground.

It might be that the saucer actually is intended to rely on a combination of the concepts. But that does not make some of the invalid concepts disappear. The saucer still has to overcome the fact that draft that was supposed to help, but now seems to reduce the possibility of propulsion. Let’s analyse the draft for a while. I have asked for some model or at least some attempt at a proper analysis but so far I haven’t seen any (the failed analogies and videos does not count). It seems like I have to provide some kind of model myself* instead. This will be a very quick and crude attempt, since it is actually your task to create a model. Disclaimer: I do not work with these kind of things daily so the probability for errors is large.

First try to simplify the setup as much as possible to create a problem that can be statically analysed. The dynamics of the airflow, turbulence etc can wait. To create a static situation, we try to separate the forces acting during upstrokes from forces acting during downstrokes. The saucer is not flexible, it moves up and down without bending significantly. Only draft is analysed. See attached calculations below. Here is a short explanation:

According to draft we have a lifting force from the air on the saucer downstroke and a force down from air on the upstroke. Indexes used:
AD=air during upstroke
AU=air during downstroke
SU=saucer during upstroke
SD=saucer during downstroke

That gives two formulas for the momentum P: (1) and (2). Combining (1) and (2) gives the total momentum (5) after one cycle of up- and downstroke.

In (3) we use draft formula** to calculate a relation between the forces. Since the saucer design requires that upstroke and downstroke times differ by a factor not yet revealed by you we use psi (4) for this unknown quantity. (3) and (4) gives (6). Note that I assumed Cd (coefficient), Rho(density), and A(area) to have same value on upstroke and downstroke and therefore can be discarded. 

(4),(5) and (6) combined give an expression for momentum (7).

Simplify (7) and use a massless saucer, m=0. The resulting equation only has a solution for Psi=1. This is not compatible with the design relying on Psi>1.

If we analyse (7) with saucer having mass m>0 we will find that solutions requires imaginary values of Psi (Psi squared <0). A value of Psi > 1 as required by your design works only for negative mass. A saucer with negative mass does not exist, and if it did I think it would fly without your propulsion. So if my simplified model of your build is reasonably valid it shows that the propulsion is physically impossible under the circumstances given.

That leaves the description of inertia you have provided. The saucer makes a quick upwards move. That makes some amount of air flow upwards. The following slow downwards move of the saucer wing allows the saucer to ride the upwards moving air for a short while. The expected result is that the saucer moves up.

How does your explanation allow momentum to be conserved? Compare with a normal helicopter. This is a very imprecise description but hopefully close enough to highlight an issue with the saucer: The rotor pushes huge amounts of air downwards at high velocity. As a result the helicopter move up.

Now it’s my time to make a crude analogy: If I get your idea correctly a helicopter could reverse the engine resulting in a fast upwards airflow. Then the helicopter could quickly stop the engine and follow the air upwards. Then start the engine again for a short time again and so on. See the problem? Can you provide a model that describes how the saucer is following an upwards wind while respecting the laws of physics? Remember that the description also must handle the fact that drag affects the saucer as I attempted to show above.

 

*) I know, probably against the rules but I'll let mods decide. In this case it is not to support the speculative theory but to point at problems not obvious from the brief analogies given up to this point.

**) https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/drageq.html

Edited December 2, 2018 by Ghideon
grammar, Indexes reversed, explained Cd, Rho, A. Reference to drag formula

[MasterOgon]

 

Let's look at this process. It creates a strong wavelength forward and a weak back. Waves move by inertia and become relatively a constant force counteraction. Where does the difference between weak and strong waves go?

Thank you for the proposed formula. It will take me a long time to figure it out.

 

[Ghideon]

 

1 hour ago, MasterOgon said:

Where does the difference between weak and strong waves go?

I'd expect you to explain that in the context of your saucer propulsion method. But I'd say that the important question is where the saucer goes while creating the "waves".
What mass does the saucer have in your assumptions? Is the mass negligible*? You seem to forget that gravity does not take a pause while the saucer performs the up- and downstroke. The saucer must overcome gravity and generate an upwards draft of air. I have already pointed out that a car traveling on a horizontal road is not a valid analogy. Umbrella analogy fails because the person holding the umbrella pushes against the ground.

In my previous post I tried to use a simple scientific/engineering approach. Basically:
-Research the topic, in this case the explanations of saucer propulsion. Not easy when you jump between various kinds explanations... 
-Locate reasonably reliable sources describing the physic involved in the concepts required by the saucer propulsion.
-Create a simplified view of the propulsion method to be able to apply basic math. (I do not have the time or motivation to create a computer simulation or do a more advanced study on this right now)
-Use the mathematic model to make predictions about the outcome of a saucer attempting to fly.
-Compare predictions with the experimental results. In this case the mainstream science seems to suggest that the saucer cannot fly and videos from experiments confirms this prediction.  In a real case, some kind of review of the model is necessary, there is no guarantee at all that my quick attempt produced a valid model.

Maybe you could try something similar? It does not need to be fancy at all. Can you provide, or at least show some attempts at trying to provide, a model that describes how the saucer is following a self-generated upwards wind (or "wave" as seems to be what you call it now) while respecting the laws of physics? If you continue to fail to provide, or fail to at least try to provide, a consistent answer including valid references and/or evidence I'm afraid the thread will be closed soon.

 

*) if so you could fill the saucer with helium to create a balloon that is lighter than air, but in that case the propulsion you suggest is rather pointless.

Edited December 2, 2018 by Ghideon
spelling

[MasterOgon]

I don’t know how to find it in English, but I think that by looking at the picture you will understand the weight. This is a theorem on the change of momentum. From the school textbook.
It says that when the car moves in front, the ship moves back. But after stopping the car, the ship starts moving forward due to water resistance.

http://varipend.narod.ru/new_forum/image/butenin/zsi_boat_avto.png

I don’t know how to find it in English, but I think that by looking at the picture you will understand the weight. This is a theorem on the change of momentum. From the school textbook.
It says that when the car moves in front, the ship moves back. But after stopping the car, the ship starts moving forward due to water resistance.
Compared to my theory, this is even the opposite result. And I am not going to disprove it. Especially since the amount of movement in contrast to your calculation is already changing ..

In this theorem, the process is not fully described. When the ship receives water resistance, some of this force goes to push it back. But at the same time he sets in motion a considerable mass of water. It forms a current which by inertia lasts for some time. This current carries the ship. There is nothing about the inertia of water or air in Wikipedia. Turbulence there is viewed as a process created constantly.
But here's a simple example - run your hand in the water and remove your hand. After your action is complete, the movement of the water will still remain.
Imagine, I need to derive a new theorem to describe this process.
 

This system can be viewed as the interaction of 3 solids - ship, car, and reservoir. Then the ship with the machine will push off from the reservoir, because the water has a large mass.

[MasterOgon]

Whether the  saucer can fly using this force is another question. If the force is greater than gravity, it can. So far, we are arguing about whether it is at all.

 

[Ghideon]

5 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

It says that when the car moves in front, the ship moves back. But after stopping the car, the ship starts moving forward due to water resistance.

I believe that is the expected result even without water resistance.

5 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

Compared to my theory, this is even the opposite result.

Then why post it? Doesn't that make your claims seem less valid?

The following is unclear; is the book describing a current and inertia of the water or is that your interpretation since the process is not fully described? This is a crucial question.

5 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

In this theorem, the process is not fully described. When the ship receives water resistance, some of this force goes to push it back. But at the same time he sets in motion a considerable mass of water. It forms a current which by inertia lasts for some time. This current carries the ship.

Anyway, thanks for the reference material from the book, looks interesting! Unfortunately, I can’t see how it applies to the propulsion of the saucer, I think we have analysed how this fails already but let’s try again, this time using the material you posted. Questions: Does the the text book describe what happens if the car is running back and forth along the ship deck? Will the ship slowly move in positive x-direction? Exactly what does the textbook say regarding the inertia or stream or movement of mass of water? Note that if you want to include the movement of water* then the mass and velocity (momentum) of water must be included in the formulas. I can't see that in the book so maybe have to add that, I'm not going to do that for you.

I assume the car starts to move forward resulting in the ship moving backward. Momentum is conserved, the car gains momentum in the x direction and ship gains momentum in the -x direction. Sum of momentum of ship and car is unchanged. Since car has less mass than the ship the car will move not only relative to the ship but also relative to some stationary reference point on land.

Now the car stops. The braking car reduces momentum by braking which applies a force to the ship in positive x direction. This force stops the ship.

Let's continue: If the car now reverses and moves back along the ship deck then the ship will move forward. When the car stops at the original position the ship will stop again since momentum is conserved. As far as I understand now two things can happen: 

1: Car and ship has gained no distance in x-direction relative to a fixed point on land. This happens when water resistance can be neglected or when the ship is symmetrical. This is similar to the situations you posted where the little car could not function in space. It could not propel itself.

2: Car and ship gains distance in x-direction. i think this may happen to an asymmetric ship but I do not know. On solid ground this is possible given there’s a difference between static and kinetic friction. The car then would move at different speed going back and forth. In liquid or gas your reference article from Russian Wikipedia stated that it is not possible. If the ship is allowed to change its form** then movement is indeed possible.

Now an obvious statement: the ship analogy fails because gravity can be neglected. To fix that imagine a wire is attached to the ship. To keep its position the ship has has to apply some force, for instance mg. If the ship fails to apply this force to the wire the ship will be moving left (neg. x direction). I believe this setup makes the analogy more correct since saucer is moving up, fighting gravity. How does this situation compare to your propulsion method?

5 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

But here's a simple example - run your hand in the water and remove your hand. After your action is complete, the movement of the water will still remain.
Imagine, I need to derive a new theorem to describe this process.

Ok, but please explain how that is relevant to the saucer moving through air. I have at several times pointed out how the analogies fails. This one fails since your feet are pushing against the ground unless you are in the water. I'm getting the feeling that the same failed arguments are repeated over and over, you need to come up with better explanations or some applicable model that can be examined. If new theorem is needed to support your ideas, then derive it and post it here. Or ask questions about water movement and momentum in a separate thread. 

*)  Note that a constant movement of water to the left of course results in a ship moving right. That can be achieved by using a propeller.

**)  I have experienced this fully submerged in a pool of water. By applying force to the water and moving body parts back and forth I can propel myself forward, it’s called swimming.

 

Edited December 3, 2018 by Ghideon
clarification

[MasterOgon]

Maybe I can contradict myself all the time, because I don't know physics well.

4 hours ago, Ghideon said:

In this theorem, the process is not fully described.

The book is nothing about the inertia of water. The movement of water that pushes the ship I discovered experimentally The fact that such a system can move in the water has been repeatedly proved experimentally. In the Russian Wikipedia says inertial propulsion drive comes into motion in the water due to viscous forces of friction. I don't need to prove this to everyone.https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%86%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B4%D1%8B

This means that such a system can be set in motion in the air due to the same viscous forces of friction. If will be sufficiently effective. But there is no detailed description of exactly how this happens.
In the article I gave my description of how this happens. I will try to understand this in more detail and find a more complex explanation.

[Ghideon]

This text

15 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

I don’t know how to find it in English, but I think that by looking at the picture you will understand the weight. This is a theorem on the change of momentum. From the school textbook.
It says that when the car moves in front, the ship moves back. But after stopping the car, the ship starts moving forward due to water resistance.

contradicts this one

5 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

The book is nothing about the inertia of water. The movement of water that pushes the ship I discovered experimentally

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)

Quote

 In liquids, on the contrary, resistance to fast movement prevails over resistance to slow movement. 

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.

6 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

Maybe I can contradict myself all the time, because I don't know physics well.

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.

6 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

In the article I gave my description of how this happens. I will try to understand this in more detail and find a more complex explanation.

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

 

[MasterOgon]

The mistake is that water resistance is considered as spring resistance. This is only partly correct. But in practice it means that the ship is not in the water, but in jelly, which returns to its original position after the impact of the force on it ceases.
In reality, the water in front of the ship is crowded out and takes up the space behind it. Water should be considered as a system of molecules that alternately impart momentum to each other over a certain time.

[Ghideon]

7 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

The mistake is that water resistance is considered as spring resistance.

Sorry, I don't understand*. Mistake by whom and where is the mistake made? 

7 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

But in practice it means that the ship is not in the water, but in jelly, which returns to its original position after the impact of the force on it ceases.

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

 

[MasterOgon]

On 03.12.2018 at 10:37 PM, Ghideon said:

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.

On such a device, even issued a patent.

http://puti.dp.ua/nepoznannoe/3585.html

But in practice it does not work.

If we consider the resistance of water as a force opposite to motion, then it turns out that when you mix tea and stop it abruptly, the resistance of water begins to push the spoon back with the same force. Do you often it happens?

 

[Ghideon]

3 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

On such a device, even issued a patent.

http://puti.dp.ua/nepoznannoe/3585.html

But in practice it does not work.

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.

 

3 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

If we consider the resistance of water as a force opposite to motion, then it turns out that when you mix tea and stop it abruptly, the resistance of water begins to push the spoon back with the same force. Do you often it happens?

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? 

Edited December 5, 2018 by Ghideon
grammar

[MasterOgon]

6 hours ago, Ghideon said:

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.

I meant that it does not work as indicated in the patent. And it works the opposite way. I also thought at first that she should quickly push the air down. But got the opposite effect.
If you compare with the pool, it looks like this. You give acceleration to air or water by an effort forward, due to the displacement of its center of mass. But at the same time do not move anywhere. Water pushes you back, and if you hold the center of mass in place with an effort, then you start moving. If in a swimming pool water flows in a circle because of its shape, then in open space it forms whirlwinds. And it turns out the same thing - you push her forward and she catches you from behind. The plate strongly pushes the top of the air by shifting its center of mass with acceleration, and then the air pushes it from the bottom, when it returns the center of mass back slowly.