Circumventing Newton's third law through Euler Inertial Forces

[swansont]

3 hours ago, John2020 said:

The topology of the threads of the translation screw is a helix that means the action-reaction pair is forced to follow the helix trajectory that implies the action-reaction pair is perpendicular to the acquired momentum of mass m_T. 

Ridiculous. If I have a block that’s angled pushing on another angled block (so there’s contacts along the whole block, and there’s friction), which is the analog to this, the force is not vertical.

With the screw, including friction there may also be a vertical component, too

[John2020]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Ridiculous. If I have a block that’s angled pushing on another angled block (so there’s contacts along the whole block, and there’s friction), which is the analog to this, the force is not vertical.

I don't see the analogy with what I present in Fig.1-Upper. Make a drawing.

[swansont]

7 minutes ago, John2020 said:

As i said I am addressing an ideal situation as exactly is presented in Fig.1-Upper. In my first post I mentioned the system is internally powered. We don't have to address motors and power in this analysis (it is not the purpose of this paper). As you see in Fig.1-Upper there is a couple F_A and F_A' (perpendicular to the screw) that applies upon the screw provided by the motor in the housing. I brought this subject for discussion to see if it may work in principle. Again, the rotational energy of the screw is assumed to be entirely converted to mass m_T kinetic energy. It is a theoretical study of an ideal system. That is all we need to know as starting point to address this ideal system.

So, for me it remains the following statements:to be addressed:

1.Inertial frame: There is no Euler force

2.Rotating frame: There is Euler force

 

Since it must be possible to analyze this from an inertial frame, there is no Euler force. 

Switching the analysis doesn’t magically change the answer. (plus the fact that Newton’s laws don’t apply in the non-inertial frame, so you can’t do a valid analysis to see if it’s reactionless)

[John2020]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

Since it must be possible to analyze this from an inertial frame, there is no Euler force. 

Switching the analysis doesn’t magically change the answer. (plus the fact that Newton’s laws don’t apply in the non-inertial frame, so you can’t do a valid analysis to see if it’s reactionless)

3.Inertial frame:The rotating frame is an intrinsic part of the inertial frame that means the whole is considered as a single Inertial frame

4.Rotating frame: Euler force is the cause behind the acceleration of mass m_T without causing a reaction upon the rest of the inertial frame

The (3) and (4) answer to your question. The system is one and is an Inertial frame, however it has an enclosed rotating frame that helps to transfer a mass without causing a reaction upon the rest of the system (Inertial frame). There is no magic, it is straightforward.

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, John2020 said:

3.Inertial frame:The rotating frame is an intrinsic part of the inertial frame that means the whole is considered as a single Inertial frame

This is nonsense. You need to go learn some basic physics. A rotating object is not a rotating frame. The frame is the (set of) coordinate system(s). If your coordinate system is fixed, it is inertial. If your coordinate system is rotating, it’s not.

2 minutes ago, John2020 said:

4.Rotating frame: Euler force is the cause behind the acceleration of mass m_T without causing a reaction upon the rest of the inertial frame

Nothing you have shown (that I’ve seen) has been from a rotating frame. If it was, e.g. from the frame of the screw, then the chassis and m_T would be rotating. You have not shown this. 

2 minutes ago, John2020 said:

The (3) and (4) answer to your question. The system is one and is an Inertial frame, however it has an enclosed rotating frame that helps to transfer a mass without causing a reaction upon the rest of the system (Inertial frame). There is no magic, it is straightforward.

“an enclosed rotating frame” is nonsense. You need to learn some more physics. By all indications, you don’t understand what a frame of reference is.

[John2020]

20 minutes ago, swansont said:

“an enclosed rotating frame” is nonsense. You need to learn some more physics. By all indications, you don’t understand what a frame of reference is.

Did I use the word "reference"? No. I can call the rotating object as rotating frame, what is the problem? 

Did I use coordinates to describe my system? No. So please don't put words I didn't use in my mouth.

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

Nothing you have shown (that I’ve seen) has been from a rotating frame. If it was, e.g. from the frame of the screw, then the chassis and m_T would be rotating. You have not shown this. 

Again, you do not take attention to what is shared so far. Fig.1-Upper presents an ideal situation where the rotational energy of the screw is converted entirely (without losses and no other conversions) to mass m_T kinetic energy (displacement) that implies, the chassis in this ideal situation will not rotate.

[pzkpfw]

If the screw is pushing the mass right, why doesn't the mass push the screw left?

Edited October 11, 2020 by pzkpfw

[Ghideon]

2 hours ago, John2020 said:

As i said I am addressing an ideal situation as exactly is presented in Fig.1-Upper. In my first post I mentioned the system is internally powered. We don't have to address motors and power in this analysis (it is not the purpose of this paper). As you see in Fig.1-Upper there is a couple F_A and F_A' (perpendicular to the screw) that applies upon the screw provided by the motor in the housing. I brought this subject for discussion to see if it may work in principle. Again, the rotational energy of the screw is assumed to be entirely converted to mass m_T kinetic energy. It is a theoretical study of an ideal system. That is all we need to know as starting point to address this ideal system.

 

I'm just using the engine as an illustration to have a point of reference where the initial action/reaction pair of forces occur, to allow for the ideal system to be analysed just as the rotation is about to start. As @swansont points out there are obvious issues with the description you use in you list of arguments. I'm trying to drive the discussion forward by first having a look at the initial situation where there is yet no rotation. All attempts at explaining the big picture have failed, I try a detailed approach at this time, finding that exact moment where you think Newtons F=ma stops working. 

 

[John2020]

53 minutes ago, pzkpfw said:

If the screw is pushing the mass right, why doesn't the mass push the screw left?

The screw threads have an helix topology where the so called action-reaction pair follow this helix trajectory (being perpendicular to the momentum of mass m_T) and apply to mass m_T (action force) and the screw (reaction force) resulting in mass m_T advancing simultaneously in a linear way as seen from an external observer. In this regards, although the mass appears to be pushed (like cause by a real force), it is actually following an helix trajectory (when you remove the linear guides and hold the mass m_T) that is translated to a fictitious linear momentum (not a real force). It implies, from the moment this momentum is fictitious (not coming from a real force), there will be no reaction force upon the rest of the system through the rotation axis of the translation screw.

28 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

'm just using the engine as an illustration to have a point of reference where the initial action/reaction pair of forces occur, to allow for the ideal system to be analysed just as the rotation is about to start. As @swansont points out there are obvious issues with the description you use in you list of arguments. I'm trying to drive the discussion forward by first having a look at the initial situation where there is yet no rotation.

Keep it simple. All the required information that we need to know in order to describe the working principle is present in Fig.1-Upper. It does not help to make this more complicated with motors, coupling parts etc. The couple (F_A and F_A') is also drawn in Fig.1-Upper, no need to mention motors about this.

Regarding those @swansont mentioned about inertial and rotating frame of references, he would be right if I would have described the working principle using coordinates. I don't.

I make again the following question (no need to address them with frame of references, just focus on the effects):

a) Do we have a reactionless accelerating mass transfer or not?

b) Is the rotating translation screw along with the drive nut (mass m_T) an intrinsic part of the system or not?

28 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

All attempts at explaining the big picture have failed, I try a detailed approach at this time, finding that exact moment where you think Newtons F=ma stops working. 

The big picture is given by answering the above two straightforward questions.

Edited October 11, 2020 by John2020

[pzkpfw]

Yeah, so, magic.

This would be very very simple to test. Try it!

[swansont]

3 hours ago, John2020 said:

The screw threads have an helix topology where the so called action-reaction pair follow this helix trajectory (being perpendicular to the momentum of mass m_T) and apply to mass m_T (action force) and the screw (reaction force) resulting in mass m_T advancing simultaneously in a linear way as seen from an external observer. In this regards, although the mass appears to be pushed (like cause by a real force), it is actually following an helix trajectory (when you remove the linear guides and hold the mass m_T) that is translated to a fictitious linear momentum (not a real force). It implies, from the moment this momentum is fictitious (not coming from a real force), there will be no reaction force upon the rest of the system through the rotation axis of the translation screw.

It’s true that it would rotate if not for the guide bars, but then, it has the guide bars for just that reason 

 

4 hours ago, John2020 said:

Did I use the word "reference"? No. I can call the rotating object as rotating frame, what is the problem? 

Because “frame” in this context is short for “frame of reference”

It’s the only possible context for discussing inertial vs non-inertial frames. It’s the only context where you could invoke the Euler force, which can only show up in a rotating frame of reference.

Simply having a rotating object in a problem does not make it a rotating frame. 

4 hours ago, John2020 said:

Did I use coordinates to describe my system? No. So please don't put words I didn't use in my mouth.

I said coordinate system 

That you don’t realize you are using one is part of the problem. 

4 hours ago, John2020 said:

Again, you do not take attention to what is shared so far. Fig.1-Upper presents an ideal situation where the rotational energy of the screw is converted entirely (without losses and no other conversions) to mass m_T kinetic energy (displacement) that implies, the chassis in this ideal situation will not rotate.

This isn’t relevant to the point I made.

If you are using a rotating frame, things (that are stationary in an inertial frame) will appear to rotate. IOW, if your frame is one in which the threaded rod appears stationary, everything else will appear to be rotating.

You stated at the outset that you aren’t a physicist. It’s obvious. You have overestimated how much you understand (this isn’t uncommon)

3 hours ago, John2020 said:

 

I make again the following question (no need to address them with frame of references, just focus on the effects):

a) Do we have a reactionless accelerating mass transfer or not?

No. You’ve been told this multiple times.

3 hours ago, John2020 said:

b) Is the rotating translation screw along with the drive nut (mass m_T) an intrinsic part of the system or not?

This doesn’t matter. The system is whatever you define it to be. It might impact the details of analysis, but it ultimately won’t change the answer.

[John2020]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

No. You’ve been told this multiple times

From the moment there is no real (as in Fig.1-Lower) force (no real force along the axis of rotation of the translation screw) and the mass advances as being in a helix trajectory, we have no reaction upon the rest of the system. 

I don't understand why you cannot see this.

 

4 hours ago, swansont said:

This doesn’t matter. The system is whatever you define it to be. It might impact the details of analysis, but it ultimately won’t change the answer.

We place the device in an inertial frame of reference and an observer sitting inside the skeleton  of the device but not on the rotating part. 

Please could you justify the following:

a) What is the cause of mass m_T acceleration?

b) Where would you draw the whatever force that would appear being the cause of mass m_T acceleration?

5 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s true that it would rotate if not for the guide bars, but then, it has the guide bars for just that reason 

It has the guide bars because otherwise the mass m_T would never advance to the right. Friction is always at play in this construction but we assume no dissipation of energy due to friction as also the rotational energy of the screw is converted entirely to mass m_T displacement (kinetic energy, fictional in our case).

[pzkpfw]

57 minutes ago, John2020 said:

From the moment there is no real (as in Fig.1-Lower) force (no real force along the axis of rotation of the translation screw) and the mass advances as being in a helix trajectory, we have no reaction upon the rest of the system. 

I don't understand why you cannot see this.

 

 

 

Nothing in your device is moving in a "helix trajectory". Consider putting a dab of paint on the thread. Give the threaded rod several (many!) complete rotations - where is that dab of paint now?

Either way, the thread is pushing on the nut - that's what's making it move! So the nut is pushing back on the thread. No free lunch.

 

It's just like the mass glued to the belt in your previous thread. Any time you think you've found a loophole in the conservation laws, it just means you've designed a system too complex for you to analyse.

 

[John2020]

5 minutes ago, pzkpfw said:

Either way, the thread is pushing on the nut - that's what's making it move! So the nut is pushing back on the thread. No free lunch.

Correct but not along the axis of rotation of the translation screw. Simply think no rotation for a moment and try to push the nut from the left. No motion will occur because of the threads. It implies while the threaded is rotating, mass m_T advances as being in a helix trajectory (to imagine this remove the guide bars and hold the nut with your hand) and not because of a real force along the axis of rotation as swansont also claims.

I have to go to work now see you later.

[swansont]

6 hours ago, John2020 said:

From the moment there is no real (as in Fig.1-Lower) force (no real force along the axis of rotation of the translation screw) and the mass advances as being in a helix trajectory, we have no reaction upon the rest of the system. 

I don't understand why you cannot see this.

Because it has no basis in physics.

6 hours ago, John2020 said:

We place the device in an inertial frame of reference and an observer sitting inside the skeleton  of the device but not on the rotating part. 

Please could you justify the following:

a) What is the cause of mass m_T acceleration?

The screw threads exert a force on it

6 hours ago, John2020 said:

b) Where would you draw the whatever force that would appear being the cause of mass m_T acceleration?

along the axis of the threaded rod

6 hours ago, John2020 said:

It has the guide bars because otherwise the mass m_T would never advance to the right. Friction is always at play in this construction but we assume no dissipation of energy due to friction as also the rotational energy of the screw is converted entirely to mass m_T displacement (kinetic energy, fictional in our case).

Fictional KE? No such concept would be taught if you were to take a physics class.

 

[John2020]

Later in the evening, I will present a drawing with the contact forces, friction and the force that creates the torque. 

Well, swansont is partially correct because the normal forces (contact) have an angle regarding the axis of rotation. It appears when the lead is larger, then more efficient will be the transfer of mass in real conditions, but here the system is ideal.

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Fictional KE? No such concept would be taught if you were to take a physics class

Sorry, my mistake. I wanted to write "fictitious"

See you later.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, John2020 said:

Later in the evening, I will present a drawing with the contact forces, friction and the force that creates the torque. 

Well, swansont is partially correct because the normal forces (contact) have an angle regarding the axis of rotation. It appears when the lead is larger, then more efficient will be the transfer of mass in real conditions, but here the system is ideal.

You are not a physicist. Perhaps you should consider that you are not in a position to declare what/who is right about matters of physics.

16 minutes ago, John2020 said:

Sorry, my mistake. I wanted to write "fictitious"

See you later.

There is no such thing as fictitious KE. I wasn’t correcting you grammar, I was correcting your physics. 

[Ghideon]

19 hours ago, John2020 said:

Keep it simple.

Ok. Simplest thing then is to postpone discussion of those aspects of device until @swansont's objections are resolved.

 

19 hours ago, John2020 said:

a) Do we have a reactionless accelerating mass transfer or not?

 No. 

 

(I'll get back later with a follow up on general relativity issue raised in an earlier post.)

[John2020]

13 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

20 hours ago, John2020 said:

Keep it simple.

Ok. Simplest thing then is to postpone discussion of those aspects of device until @swansont's objections are resolved.

Understood. Within the next couple of hours I will share a drawing regarding the objections (mass pushes the thread etc,) of swansont.

[Ghideon]

On 10/11/2020 at 9:04 AM, Ghideon said:

 When your device of mass m is operating and placed in free fall the path your device follows is not predicted by general relativity. I'll explain more later

We have a reactionless drive with total mass m
The reactionless drive is placed near* a body of mass m in empty space, far from any other source of gravitation. 
We observe the system, consisting of the body and the drive, from a stationary frame of reference. Initially at time t=0 there is no movement. 
The reactionless drive is active and operating according to John2020's claims. The acceleration "a" of the drive is adjusted to match the gravitation so that the drive does not fall down and collides with the body. 
 

What is your prediction @John2020 of what will happen? Is your prediction matching General Relativity?

 

*) Distance is not important, assume a distance = r if that helps. 

Edited October 12, 2020 by Ghideon

[John2020]

3 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

What is your prediction @John2020 of what will happen? Is your prediction matching General Relativity?

I don't know what General Relativity predicts (I am less or almost not aware about it. Special Relativity is less complicated regarding the math (the math level I am aware of is at the level you see in my paper)), however according to my work it will behave as follow:

a) Until one switches ON the reactionless drive, the gravitational pull will exert an attraction force to the drive that means it will start to accelerate towards the body

b) When is finally switched ON, it will stop accelerating but since the acceleration of the drive is opposite, it will continue to move towards the body but now with a constant speed

An alternative scenario: In case we introduce at the same moment the body and the reactionless drive switched ON then, it will eventually not move. In other words it will stay floating in outer space motionless.

I am almost finished with the drawing that address swansont objections.

[swansont]

On 10/11/2020 at 2:27 PM, John2020 said:

I don't see the analogy with what I present in Fig.1-Upper. Make a drawing.

 

There is friction at the contact, so the blue part will not slide.

The net force on the blue block is in the +x direction, equal to F. (analyzing the forces on the blocks would make for a question one might solve in an introductory physics class)

This is at least qualitatively what is happening with a screw and a bolt, if we focus on a small part of the thread, in cross-section.

[John2020]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

There is friction at the contact, so the blue part will not slide.

The net force on the blue block is in the +x direction, equal to F. (analyzing the forces on the blocks would make for a question one might solve in an introductory physics class)

This is at least qualitatively what is happening with a screw and a bolt, if we focus on a small part of the thread, in cross-section.

I am almost finished with the drawing that shows all forces (friction, normal and torque forces) in detail (I hope). What I don't understand on yours drawing is from where F came from. I haven't such in my drawing (pushing the nut from the left, only in Fig.1-Lower there is such situation).

[Ghideon]

7 minutes ago, John2020 said:

I don't know what General Relativity predicts

That is obvious.

12 minutes ago, John2020 said:

 according to my work it will behave as follow:

a) Until one switches ON the reactionless drive, the gravitational pull will exert an attraction force to the drive that means it will start to accelerate towards the body

b) When is finally switched ON, it will stop accelerating but since the acceleration of the drive is opposite, it will continue to move towards the body but now with a constant speed

An alternative scenario: In case we introduce at the same moment the body and the reactionless drive switched ON then, it will eventually not move. In other words it will stay floating in outer space motionless.

 Then your work is wrong or General Relativity is wrong. Which one do you choose? 

 

 

 

[John2020]

1 minute ago, Ghideon said:

 Then your work is wrong or General Relativity is wrong. Which one do you choose? 

This is not an argument. You have to explain yourself. Could you tell us what General Relativity predicts?

@swansont

Note: The device is found in outer space (no gravitational fields are present)

Here are my observations:

a) The normal forces Fnut and Fscrew correspond to the Action-Reaction pair.

b) The Action-Reaction pair is obviously not along the axis of rotation.

c) Increasing the Lead length, will result in larger angle between the axis of rotation and the Action-Reaction pair 

On the other hand, we see on the right a contactless Magnetic leadscrew where the nut and screw do not contact each other.

I am going again back to what I shared previously: In an ideal machine (it fits better the Magnetic leadscrew in this description) there are no losses due to friction since there are no contact forces. However, the action reaction pair does not disappear. My initial assumption was that in the ideal case, the action reaction pair appears perpendicular and tangential to the screw and nut. What is your view?