Circumventing Newton's third law through Euler Inertial Forces

[swansont]

Just now, John2020 said:

I am addressing now Fig.1-Upper (or what I am trying to share through this thread and through my paper) . There is nothing impeding the acceleration of the nut that implies there is no internal reaction. How can that be? Because, the only way to trigger an internal reaction in the system is to permit mass transfer in the opposite direction that means the rest of the system, which is impossible. Why is that? Because the rest of the system is hold by the housings that hold the ends of the screw. Consequently, the rest of the system cannot be displaced (as happened with the nut).

You can’t conclude there is nothing impeding the acceleration without doing a proper physics analysis.

Why can’t the system recoil? That would require an external force you haven’t disclosed, and changes the solution to the problem.

Ghideon’s rifle example is very on-point

[John2020]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

You can’t conclude there is nothing impeding the acceleration without doing a proper physics analysis.

Why can’t the system recoil? That would require an external force you haven’t disclosed, and changes the solution to the problem.

Ghideon’s rifle example is very on-point

No mass is being displaced in the opposite direction implies no recoil. Check Fig.1-Upper by yourself.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, John2020 said:

No mass is being displaced in the opposite direction implies no recoil. Check Fig.1-Upper by yourself.

But mass will be displaced. Asserting that it won’t isn’t a substitute for an actual physics analysis.

That’s how this works - you have to back things up with physics. Bald assertions mean nothing.

[John2020]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

But mass will be displaced. Asserting that it won’t isn’t a substitute for an actual physics analysis.

That’s how this works - you have to back things up with physics. Bald assertions mean nothing.

I repeat the justification I shared above: "the only way to trigger an internal reaction in the system is to permit mass transfer in the opposite direction that means the rest of the system, which is impossible. Why is that? Because the rest of the system is hold by the housings that hold the ends of the screw. Consequently, the rest of the system cannot be displaced (as happened with the nut) in the opposite direction.". 

The above has as result, since the CoM is being accelerated in one direction, the rest of the system will follow at the same direction.

Edited October 15, 2020 by John2020

[swansont]

Just now, John2020 said:

I repeat the justification I shared above: "the only way to trigger an internal reaction in the system is to permit mass transfer in the opposite direction that means the rest of the system, which is impossible. Why is that? Because the rest of the system is hold by the housings that hold the ends of the screw. Consequently, the rest of the system cannot be displaced (as happened with the nut)."

So the earth recoils, because you’ve bolted the system down. That doesn’t mean the is no mass transfer, it just means the displacement is small because of the mass disparity 

Much like if you walk eastward, you slow the rotation rate of the earth, but the change is imperceptible 

[John2020]

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

So the earth recoils, because you’ve bolted the system down.

Fig.1-Upper is supposed to be located somewhere in outer space in absence of gravitational fields.

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

That’s how this works - you have to back things up with physics. Bald assertions mean nothing.

The shortest mathematical proof (although not so nice, I would say) is found in my first post.

Take your time. We may continue tomorrow or in the weekend if time permits. It is almost 01.00 am and I have to wake up 05.30 am. Good night!

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

That doesn’t mean the is no mass transfer, it just means the displacement is small because of the mass disparity

You forgot that in order to have a mass displacement in Fig.1-Upper, the mass being displaced must have threads and translation screw length to cover, something that is not permitted in the opposite direction (while the nut is being displaced to the right) due to the topology of the construction. 

Good night!

Edited October 15, 2020 by John2020

[swansont]

6 minutes ago, John2020 said:

Fig.1-Upper is supposed to be located somewhere in outer space in absence of gravitational fields.

Then the whole thing moves. “bolted to the housing” just makes the system mass bigger. It doesn’t stop the recoil.

The recoil will be related to the ratio of the mass of the part you are translating, and the rest of the mass if the system. You can make that ratio small, but the recoil doesn’t disappear.

 

[John2020]

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

Then the whole thing moves. “bolted to the housing” just makes the system mass bigger. It doesn’t stop the recoil.

There is no recoil because there is no mass transfer in the opposite direction through the translation screw mechanism. Only the nut is being transferred.  Mass transfer is allowed only over the translation screw. Consequently, the device can be classified as a reactionless drive.

Edited October 15, 2020 by John2020

[pzkpfw]

45 minutes ago, John2020 said:

There is no recoil because there is no mass transfer in the opposite direction through the translation screw mechanism. Only the nut is being transferred.  Mass transfer is allowed only over the translation screw. Consequently, the device can be classified as a reactionless drive.

Nine pages in and you have not yet made clear why you think transferring the nut is not a mass transfer that will cause a reaction.

Just the mythical "helix motion".

Again, put a paint dot on the thread somewhere. Give the rod a bunch of complete turns. Where is the dot?

[John2020]

4 hours ago, pzkpfw said:

Where is the dot?

The dot stays where it is that means it does not move.

4 hours ago, pzkpfw said:

transferring the nut is not a mass transfer that will cause a reaction.

What you last quoted is the answer to your question.

[John2020]

1 hour ago, John2020 said:

The dot stays where it is that means it does not move.

Correction: A paint dot on the thread of the rod will stay where it is after a complete turn. On the other hand, a paint dot on the thread of the nut is displaced to the right along with the nut 

Edited October 16, 2020 by John2020

[pzkpfw]

1 hour ago, John2020 said:

...

What you last quoted is the answer to your question.

Your disgusting edit of my text is a claim, not an answer.

6 minutes ago, John2020 said:

Correction: A paint dot on the thread of the rod will stay where it is after a complete turn. On the other hand, a paint dot on the thread of the nut is displaced to the right along with the nut 

Right, so the thread on the threaded rod is not moving to the right, only the nut - with rotation restricted - is moving to the right.

So what's the helical movement?

[John2020]

10 minutes ago, pzkpfw said:

So what's the helical movement?

I think you don't follow this discussion. The contacts of the thread of the nut ascribe a helix trajectory while nut's CoM is being displaced linearly.

See you later

[Ghideon]

6 hours ago, John2020 said:

I repeat the justification

You have done so many times while providing not physical or mathematical evidence to support your assumptions. You ae repeating the one and same thing over and over while other members have provided may different ways of explaining. 

Question: What makes your unsupported justification special over all the counter-arguments that are backed by scientific evidence? Please provide some real answer instead of hand waving or repeating. Your repeated justification are not good enough given the evidence against it. 

 

7 hours ago, John2020 said:

I would suggest to take our attention only to Fig.1-Upper, otherwise many misunderstandings and confusing statements arise and makes this discussion difficult to follow.

Whenever we visit Fig.1 we get repetition of the same justifications. That is called soapboxing and not a very interesting discussion. Answer the following question for fig 1 and vertical case (from answers provided so far):

To simplify case with the vertical bolt further and maybe allow for drawing a picture with forces, would it be ok to have rolling (or sliding) balls in a helical configuration instead of continuous threads? Would such a design still posses the claimed properties of the reactionless drive? No need to define an exact amount of points, we just need to agree (or disagree) that the helical configuration of contact points is the important thing to circumvent newton rather than a continuous helix-shaped thread. I imagine a few rolls or similar inserted evenly spaced in the nut threads. 

 

edit:

4 minutes ago, John2020 said:

The contacts of the thread of the nut ascribe a helix trajectory while nut's CoM is being displaced linearly.

It is the above we may analyse further by having a limited set of contact points such as balls or rolls instead of the continuous thread. Given of course that such a configuration is assumed (by you) to have the same properties regarding reactionless drive / circumventing Newton third.

Edited October 16, 2020 by Ghideon
x.post, added clarification and reason

[John2020]

23 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

You have done so many times while providing not physical or mathematical evidence

See my first post.

23 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Question: What makes your unsupported justification special over all the counter-arguments that are backed by scientific evidence? Please provide some real answer instead of hand waving or repeating. Your repeated justification are not good enough given the evidence against it. 

See paper References section. Moreover, there are daily experiences (e.g. a sudden accelerating rotation of a stranded ball around one's body, starting a motor while being suspended by a strand etc) we actually ignore involving fictitious forces (Centrifugal, Coriolis and Euler) and reactionless behaviors.

 

30 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

It is the above we may analyse further by having a limited set of contact points such as balls or rolls instead of the continuous thread. Given of course that such a configuration is assumed (by you) to have the same properties regarding reactionless drive / circumventing Newton third.

Yes. Without helical trajectory of the threads, Fig.1-Upper becomes the Fig.1-Lower (the reason I place it there was to demonstrate clearly what is the difference between collinear (action-reaction) and induced inertial forces (reactionless)).

See you later in the evening.

[joigus]

9 hours ago, Ghideon said:

I'm going to hijack some of your observations and use them in the muck more naive approach I'm currently using.

Yes, feel free to, @Ghideon. I was including what I think are the relevant eqs. for completeness and conceptual clarification. I was trying to do a top-down derivation. The final equations are much simpler.

[joigus]

15 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Same as a rotating bullet exiting a rifled* barrel of a gun. Rotating, not doing any helical movement.

Good analogy.

[Phi for All]

8 hours ago, John2020 said:

What you last quoted is the answer to your question.

!

Moderator Note

The full quote is "Nine pages in and you have not yet made clear why you think transferring the nut is not a mass transfer that will cause a reaction." Do NOT use the editing software to make it look like someone said something they didn't. We'll boot you for that if it happens again.

 

[John2020]

@Phi for All

I was referring to my text that pzkpfw used as reference (quoted) to raise his question. I apologize if it was meant otherwise (my English are not perfect).

Edited October 16, 2020 by John2020

[swansont]

13 hours ago, John2020 said:

There is no recoil because there is no mass transfer in the opposite direction through the translation screw mechanism. Only the nut is being transferred.  Mass transfer is allowed only over the translation screw. Consequently, the device can be classified as a reactionless drive.

Saying it does not make it so. This isn’t magic.

What physics principles lead you to this conclusion? You need to back up your argument.

Why does a gun recoil?

[John2020]

26 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why does a gun recoil?

Obviously, this is the wrong analogy. I will explain later.

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, John2020 said:

Obviously, this is the wrong analogy. I will explain later.

Obviously it is the same physical principles that apply.
 

(I’ll address your other replies later)

[John2020]

12 hours ago, pzkpfw said:

Your disgusting edit of my text is a claim, not an answer.

Hi @pzkpfw,

When I read the above text, I didn't understand of what is all about and I just ignored it. Then when I saw the message from the moderator, I realized the misunderstanding. 

I was referring to my text you quoted with the question you raised. I am not such kind of person you thought I am and I never have such kind of behavior as also it is not in my character. Therefore, I would like to apologize for this misunderstanding.

I would suggest to everyone, including myself to keep their cool. It is just a remote discussion after all and nothing should be taken personally.

I am a little busy at the moment with some home tasks therefore, I cannot find some time to respond to the questions about the gun and its related physics. 

Edited October 16, 2020 by John2020

[Ghideon]

 

11 hours ago, John2020 said:

See paper References section.

Checked first reference*, found no support for your claims. They seem to refer to Newtons 1:st law as something that works as expected.  I'll have to postpone digging trough the rest of them. Maybe you could point more specifically to where the first reference states that Newton's laws need to be rewritten? 

 

11 hours ago, John2020 said:

Moreover, there are daily experiences (e.g. a sudden accelerating rotation of a stranded ball around one's body, starting a motor while being suspended by a strand etc) we actually ignore involving fictitious forces (Centrifugal, Coriolis and Euler) and reactionless behaviors.

Just curious; does all of these daily experiences require you alternative versions / interpretations of Newton's laws? We do not need to get into any details, maybe a yes/no answer will do for now. I'm just curious if your novel idea is claimed to be applicable to a wider range of designs, objects and situations that the fig1 device. If so we may use that later in the analysis.

 

11 hours ago, John2020 said:

Yes. Without helical trajectory of the threads, Fig.1-Upper becomes the Fig.1-Lower (the reason I place it there was to demonstrate clearly what is the difference between collinear (action-reaction) and induced inertial forces (reactionless)).

Thanks! Hopefully I can post some image later. 

 

 

*) Source  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07596-x Self propelled objects such as flying insects is one thing mentioned as an example. Not reactionless drives. I guess the article was misinterpreted.

[John2020]

22 hours ago, Ghideon said:

The centre of mass of the nut follows straight line while rotating. Same as a rotating bullet exiting a rifled* barrel of a gun. Rotating, not doing any helical movement.

The problem with the gun is not the rotation but the use of propellant that implies a real linear force is exerted upon the exhaust of the bullet outwards (action force over the ejected gas) that results in a reaction force pushing the bullet forward. Here clearly applies Newton's third law. However, another action-reaction event is taking place while the projectile and the ejected gas are still  in the barrel chamber. In this case, the momentum of the gases is transferred towards the gun, resulting in its recoil. In a few words, we have a case where the momentum conservation follows Newton's 3rd law.

Now let's come to the construction of Fig.1-Upper. In the ideal case (as I address it in my paper), we have 100% conversion of angular momentum to displacement, in which displacement is developed while the contacts of the threads ascribe a helix motion by keeping the nut's CoM along the axis of rotation. Then, while the threads of the screw rotate clockwise then due to the conservation of angular momentum, the contacts of the nut's threads evolve counterclockwise following a helix trajectory.

Consequently, the mechanism of motion is attributed just to the conservation of angular momentum and not additionally due to a linear momentum because the appearing linear momentum is not real (it does not come from a rectilinear force but through a conversion mechanism that keeps the helix trajectory of nut's thread contacts).

It would be a nut real linear momentum if the translation mechanism was a flywheel of a crankshaft. In a crankshaft we may have conversion from linear to rotational and vice versa. When we replace the mechanism in Fig.1-Upper with a crankshaft and we attach on the linear motion part the nut, this will result in real linear momentum (the contacts of the threads of the nut will follow a rectilinear and not a helix trajectory) to the right that will result in a recoil upon the rest of the system.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crankshaft (replace the cylinder of the piston with the nut and the translation screw with the flywheel.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

Checked first reference*, found no support for your claims. They seem to refer to Newtons 1:st law as something that works as expected.  I'll have to postpone digging trough the rest of them. Maybe you could point more specifically to where the first reference states that Newton's laws need to be rewritten?

https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys2777 (Ref. Nr.9). Check  this one. I am not an expert in all these disciplines, however from the search I did I chose those that are related to the subject. As you said may be there is a reference that does not fit to the subject. Well, I did my best, however as you see there is research on this subject and didn't popup just out of my head.

 

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

Just curious; does all of these daily experiences require you alternative versions / interpretations of Newton's laws? We do not need to get into any details, maybe a yes/no answer will do for now. I'm just curious if your novel idea is claimed to be applicable to a wider range of designs, objects and situations that the fig1 device. If so we may use that later in the analysis.

No, because Newton's laws apply everywhere as long as the interactions are rectilinear. When inertial forces come additionally into play then, there could be situations where a reaction force (based on Newton's 3rd law) will not manifest because the inertial forces are by nature, reactionless.

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

I'm just curious if your novel idea is claimed to be applicable to a wider range of designs, objects and situations that the fig1 device. If so we may use that later in the analysis.

No, as far as I am aware of except in one patent I found recently on the web that uses a linear actuator to control the movement and velocity of an object in outer space:

https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2017070106A1/en

Moreover, I have a document in PDF that speaks about this invention and its earth-like application where this idea came from. I have to search where I put it. See you later.  

Edited October 16, 2020 by John2020