Inertial Drive

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, John2020 said:

I just make a parallelism regarding the cause of motion. According to Newton's laws of motion, a body or a system may move by means of external forces. According to my understanding regarding the experiments and what we have agreed so far my personal conclusion is that the system moves by means of internal forces as being an isolated system. That is all!

This is your point of view and it seems you don't like to confront the issues because you are focused of what I cannot manage, so you think let us take advantage of it and nail him down, right? I don't care. I am not a physicist and I do not claim physics is wrong. On the contrary, I put the material on YouTube and open a thread here in order to discuss it. Each one of us besides knowledge and expertise in our fields, we have some brain and can think in our feet by presenting logical arguments.

Again you refuse to address the simple case of you jumping in the air. Until you do so, there is no point whatsoever in moving on to more complicated systems that are more challenging to analyse. 

I suspect @swansont is on the money when he refers to the Gish gallop. You did the same thing on the previous thread. Whenever we got to a position in which you had no option but to understand what we were saying, you switched the subject by introducing a new aspect, to prevent us bottoming it out properly.  I don't know whether you do this deliberately, as a form of trolling to wind us all up here for your amusement, or whether it is a psychologically motivated thing you do without being aware of it, because you can't bear to face the fact that your ideas are wrong. You've been at this for around a decade now so I would not be surprised if it is the latter. If you want, you can go your grave believing your have proved Newton wrong, but guess what will be your epitaph.  

So can we please sort out what happens when you jump in the air, then we can apply that to the vibrating ring and then we can see what is making it move on the table? In that order. Otherwise, I'll assume you are not interested in analysing your experiments properly.   

[DanMP]

21 hours ago, John2020 said:

The body of a person can never propel itself e.g. if being suspended by a thread or in absence of gravity or by not touching a surface (in order to take advantage the reaction force from the surface).

But in the case of your ring there is a surface, the table, and the vibrating ring may take advantage of the reaction force from it.

See here a nice example of how bouncing can propel you if there is a medium that reacts.

[John2020]

On 5/25/2021 at 7:42 PM, exchemist said:

So can we please sort out what happens when you jump in the air, then we can apply that to the vibrating ring and then we can see what is making it move on the table? In that order. Otherwise, I'll assume you are not interested in analysing your experiments properly.   

@exchemistI think I have already addressed how the jump in the air works. OK, let's go one more time step by step:

(1) A person contacts its body towards the floor
(2) The contraction results in the change of its center of gravity 
(3) The change (accelerating) of its center of gravity creates a force upon the floor
(4) Then the person starts to expands back its body
(5) While expanding his body, the center of gravity (accelerating) moves upwards
(6) The impulse time (expansion point - contraction point) multiplied by the Force (Action) exerted upon the floor, results in the impulse (divided by the impulse time gives the reaction force from the floor) exerted upon person's body.
(7) If this impulse divided by the impulse time is larger than the force of gravity (m*g) then the person will jump off the ground   

 

On 5/25/2021 at 7:21 PM, swansont said:

I asked “Why do you think a coil of wire exerting a magnetic force on the ferrite ring is an internal force in the ring?”

 

@swansontBecause the windings of the coil (ferrite ring + coil windings = system) is part of the system windings + ring that travel together as a whole. If the winding wasn't wound around the ferrite ring then the magnetic force would be external to the ring.

 

 

Edited May 29, 2021 by John2020

[swansont]

1 hour ago, John2020 said:

I think I have already addressed how the jump in the air works. OK, let's go one more time step by step:

(1) A person contacts its body towards the floor
(2) The contraction results in the change of its center of gravity 
(3) The change (accelerating) of its center of gravity creates a force upon the floor

An changing force on the floor. i.e. there was already a force 

Quote

(4) Then the person starts to expands back its body
(5) While expanding his body, the center of gravity (accelerating) moves upwards
(6) The impulse time (expansion point - contraction point) multiplied by the Force (Action) exerted upon the floor, results in the impulse (divided by the impulse time gives the reaction force from the floor) exerted upon person's body.
(7) If this impulse divided by the impulse time is larger than the force of gravity (m*g) then the person will jump off the ground   

Ring undergoing magnetostriction changes the center of gravity. Lather, rinse, repeat.

And to head off one possible response: you can jump in a direction other than straight up, because you can exert a transverse force on the floor. This general argument applies to any body that can deform.

[John2020]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Ring undergoing magnetostriction changes the center of gravity. Lather, rinse, repeat.

And to head off one possible response: you can jump in a direction other than straight up, because you can exert a transverse force on the floor. This general argument applies to any body that can deform.

Somehow I was expecting such a response after explaining how a person may jump off the ground. It is how things are seen by an external observer, however according to my view, something does not fit the bill. 

Fig. Magnetostriction

As you may see the above .gif animation shows in a way how magnetostriction strain looks like. I am going to develop a couple of arguments but one at a time. Please could you explain:

Since the ring is driven by a 5KHz sinus signal and the field changes direction from left to right and vice versa (oscillating) then, after a complete cycle of period T = 1/5KHz wouldn't the contraction/expansion result in a zero net change in the center of gravity?

 

Edited May 29, 2021 by John2020

[Ghideon]

@John2020 I am still waiting for your inout regarding the more fundamental principles that Newton is based on; physics has continued ot evolve after Newton was active. If you believe space to be inhomogeneous or anisotropic at small scales please provide evidence. 

Regarding internal forces, an electric car has an engine where there are internal electromagnetic forces. Can an electrical car accelerate along the ground? Yes it can. 

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, John2020 said:

Since the ring is driven by a 5KHz sinus signal and the field changes direction from left to right and vice versa (oscillating) then, after a complete cycle of period T = 1/5KHz wouldn't the contraction/expansion result in a zero net change in the center of gravity?

Yes. If a person jumps into the air and returns, (at a lower frequency, of course), doesn’t that result in a zero net change in center of gravity? Also yes. 

IOW, your observation is irrelevant to the issue. There is motion. The person (and ring) can jump in the air. Looking at the average or cyclic nature misses the issue.

[John2020]

11 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I am still waiting for your inout regarding the more fundamental principles that Newton is based on; physics has continued ot evolve after Newton was active. If you believe space to be inhomogeneous or anisotropic at small scales please provide evidence. 

I have no evidence about that. If you are associating a probable proof about space anisotropy at small scales with Newton's 3rd law violation, besides I do not see the link between them, it is not required. The proof of Newton's 3rd law incompleteness can be demonstrated and mathematically proven in classical mechanics based on momentum conservation, again and always according to my view. But this is not the current issue in our discussion. We are looking to explain how those experiments comply with Newton's laws of motion.

 

22 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Regarding internal forces, an electric car has an engine where there are internal electromagnetic forces. Can an electrical car accelerate along the ground? Yes it can.

Yes, it can because it has wheels that touch the ground, The wheels act like an action "bridge" between the internal and the external forces. The ring does not have wheels to push the ground although it touches it. In other words, the ring does not expose any moving parts.

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes. If a person jumps into the air and returns, (at a lower frequency, of course), doesn’t that result in a zero net change in center of gravity? Also yes. 

IOW, your observation is irrelevant to the issue. There is motion. The person (and ring) can jump in the air. Looking at the average or cyclic nature misses the issue.

We are speaking about an oscillation period of 1/5000 Hz = 200 μsec. Due to ring's large inertia, the ring should never move in any direction in any of those three experiments.

[swansont]

16 minutes ago, John2020 said:

We are speaking about an oscillation period of 1/5000 Hz = 200 μsec. Due to ring's large inertia, the ring should never move in any direction in any of those three experiments.

This is based on no physics at all. 

[John2020]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

This is based on no physics at all. 

I suppose you follow this discussion. So, fast circular change of center of gravity (zero net change in center of gravity) associated with ring's large inertia (200 grams) should result in no motion. It means, besides the net change in center of gravity is zero (after a complete cycle which is relative short, approx. 200 μsec), the ring would be so slow in response that wouldn't even move a millimeter.

[exchemist]

5 hours ago, John2020 said:

@exchemistI think I have already addressed how the jump in the air works. OK, let's go one more time step by step:

(1) A person contacts its body towards the floor
(2) The contraction results in the change of its center of gravity 
(3) The change (accelerating) of its center of gravity creates a force upon the floor
(4) Then the person starts to expands back its body
(5) While expanding his body, the center of gravity (accelerating) moves upwards
(6) The impulse time (expansion point - contraction point) multiplied by the Force (Action) exerted upon the floor, results in the impulse (divided by the impulse time gives the reaction force from the floor) exerted upon person's body.
(7) If this impulse divided by the impulse time is larger than the force of gravity (m*g) then the person will jump off the ground   

 

 

 

 

Well, still a bit wrong, but you seem at least to be accepting that internal forces within the body (of the muscles acting on the bones of the skeleton) cause the centre of gravity of the body to move up and down, in reaction to contact with the floor. 

Do we agree on that? 

 

[John2020]

5 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Well, still a bit wrong, but you seem at least to be accepting that internal forces within the body (of the muscles acting on the bones of the skeleton) cause the centre of gravity of the body to move up and down, in reaction to contact with the floor. 

Do we agree on that? 

Yes, in the case of a body but that doesn't mean it has to apply everywhere therefore, I would recommend caution. I suppose, you read my posts above regarding the ring. Let us continue.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, John2020 said:

I suppose you follow this discussion. So, fast circular change of center of gravity (zero net change in center of gravity) associated with ring's large inertia (200 grams) should result in no motion.

Circular isn’t the issue. It’s primarily the vertical motion at issue, which isn’t why “jumping in the air” was brought up.

The ring jumps in the air, but the ring isn’t flat, nor is the table, so there are lateral forces. This can manifest as circular motion, too.

1 hour ago, John2020 said:

It means, besides the net change in center of gravity is zero (after a complete cycle which is relative short, approx. 200 μsec), the ring would be so slow in response that wouldn't even move a millimeter.

Complete cycle = irrelevant

No physics justification for “slow response” Repeating it doesn’t make it physics-based all of the sudden.

In fact, the higher frequency means the magnetostriction motion happens in a shorter time, which results in a larger force. (since F - dp/dt and dt gets smaller). Similar to how standing up slowly (low frequency) does not result in you leaving the ground while jumping does.

You would expect no motion at low frequency, and then it would start when the speed of the thickness change increased by enough.

[exchemist]

7 minutes ago, John2020 said:

Yes, in the case of a body but that doesn't mean it has to apply everywhere therefore, I would recommend caution. I suppose, you read my posts above regarding the ring. Let us continue.

A vibrating object is just the same as your body, just doing it faster.   

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, John2020 said:

Yes, in the case of a body but that doesn't mean it has to apply everywhere

Except it does. Rigid bodies and deformable bodies have different limitations. You are applying a limitation of rigid bodies to deformable ones, and that’s flat-out wrong

[John2020]

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

Circular isn’t the issue. It’s primarily the vertical motion at issue, which isn’t why “jumping in the air” was brought up.

The ring jumps in the air, but the ring isn’t flat, nor is the table, so there are lateral forces. This can manifest as circular motion, too.

Besides you use the vertical vibration to explain ring's motion that does not make sense, you ignore the fact that within a cycle, the net force is zero that means it should never accelerate. IF and only IF the vibration was developed in just one direction (half-cycle and I speak now for the horizontal plane) then, it would be possible to justify ring's motion in principle. I do not see why the vibration in the vertical plane is a pre-requisite for ring's motion. Note: The magnetic field is in parallel with table surface and the magnetic dipoles align in the horizontal plane. Consequently, ring's motion does not require the "jumping" effect in order to justify its motion.

Edited May 29, 2021 by John2020

[Ghideon]

5 minutes ago, John2020 said:

Besides you use the vertical vibration to explain ring's motion that does not make sense, you ignore the fact that within a cycle, the net force is zero that means it should never accelerate. IF and only IF the vibration was developed in just one direction (half-cycle and I speak now for the horizontal plane) then, it would be possible to justify ring's motion in principle. I do not see why the vibration in the vertical plane is a pre-requisite for ring's motion. Note: The magnetic field is in parallel with table surface and the magnetic dipoles align in the horizontal plane. Consequently, ring's motion does not require the "jumping" effect in order to justify its motion.

Are you confusing a mathematical analysis of an ideal setup with an experimental setup?

 

[John2020]

Just now, Ghideon said:

Are you confusing a mathematical analysis of an ideal setup with an experimental setup?

No, because gravity is not part of the solution and this is evident by the horizontal motion in all three videos. 

[swansont]

46 minutes ago, John2020 said:

Besides you use the vertical vibration to explain ring's motion that does not make sense, you ignore the fact that within a cycle, the net force is zero that means it should never accelerate.

And yet people can jump rope - an analogous cyclical system, so clearly you are wrong. You are arguing that if you go up and then back down you can never jump up, and this is clearly bollocks.

You hit the gas pedal on a car and later the brakes. Over time, the force totals to zero, so you never moved. A conclusion one could draw from your erroneous thinking, and also clearly bollocks.

46 minutes ago, John2020 said:

 

IF and only IF the vibration was developed in just one direction (half-cycle and I speak now for the horizontal plane) then, it would be possible to justify ring's motion in principle. I do not see why the vibration in the vertical plane is a pre-requisite for ring's motion.

That you don’t see it is the problem. Or one of the major ones.

 

46 minutes ago, John2020 said:

 

Note: The magnetic field is in parallel with table surface and the magnetic dipoles align in the horizontal plane. Consequently, ring's motion does not require the "jumping" effect in order to justify its motion.

A curious stance, since you’re arguing that there is no explanation (within accepted physics) for its motion. 

As I (and exchemist, I think) have stated, the fact that the ring and table aren’t flat give lateral forces. The ring also has the windings on part of it, so its deviation from flatness is more pronounced. This isn’t an issue when the motion is small, but as it gets more pronounced the normal force decreases for part of the cycle, reducing friction. So the vertical motion is very important.

 

43 minutes ago, John2020 said:

No, because gravity is not part of the solution and this is evident by the horizontal motion in all three videos. 

Well, no. Gravity certainly plays a part in the analysis. 

[Ghideon]

53 minutes ago, John2020 said:

No, because gravity is not part of the solution and this is evident by the horizontal motion in all three videos. 

Ok. So your setup will behave identically in zero g? Both mathematically and experimentally?

 

3 hours ago, John2020 said:

I do not see the link between them, it is not required.

A curious person or someone working scientifically would probably ask something like "What is the link? How does the it affect my idea and experiment?" 

[John2020]

49 minutes ago, swansont said:

And yet people can jump rope - an analogous cyclical system, so clearly you are wrong. You are arguing that if you go up and then back down you can never jump up, and this is clearly bollocks.

You hit the gas pedal on a car and later the brakes. Over time, the force totals to zero, so you never moved. A conclusion one could draw from your erroneous thinking, and also clearly bollocks.

As I said we should pay attention of what we are referred to. Again you are confusing system responses (as that with the car you mention) with the motion of the ring. For once more we have a cycle of 200 μsec and a mass of 200 grams. Thus, a complete cycle means, the magnetic dipole are aligned leftwards and then rightwards. The net force is then zero that means we shouldn't have acceleration. A partial cycle would justify ring's motion

 

49 minutes ago, swansont said:

A curious stance, since you’re arguing that there is no explanation (within accepted physics) for its motion. 

As I (and exchemist, I think) have stated, the fact that the ring and table aren’t flat give lateral forces. The ring also has the windings on part of it, so its deviation from flatness is more pronounced. This isn’t an issue when the motion is small, but as it gets more pronounced the normal force decreases for part of the cycle, reducing friction. So the vertical motion is very important.

 

49 minutes ago, swansont said:

Well, no. Gravity certainly plays a part in the analysis. 

Besides you insist of using Gravity to justify the ring's motion, gravity and the normal force (from the table) cannot be the cause of ring's motion, however the normal force plays only a role regarding the static friction that must be overcome in order to start moving. If you pay attention to all three videos the ring has a tendency to rotate which is a fact that a horizontal force is at play and certainly has nothing to do with the normal force.

If gravity plays a role then, why it is not part in the differential inhomogeneous equation that describes the rotating unbalance? Moreover, as you may see the particular solution has no reference to a gravitational constant. This is something you still avoid to answer by using excuses that is not the subject in this discussion, however it is physics and related to vibrations. My answer to the erroneous claims about gravity being a necessary ingredient for ring's motion is, please check the differential equation of the rotating unbalance.

33 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Ok. So your setup will behave identically in zero g? Both mathematically and experimentally?

Exactly as it is the case with the rotating unbalance. See the differential inhomogeneous equation and its particular solution. No g (like zero g)  is used, however the equation and the particular solution, describe and conclude the system vibrates.

33 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

A curious person or someone working scientifically would probably ask something like "What is the link? How does the it affect my idea and experiment?" 

What do you mean, I do not understand? 

33 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

A curious person or someone working scientifically would probably ask something like "What is the link? How does the it affect my idea and experiment?" 

If you mean what is the key of this supposed contradiction between the acknowledge motion and Newton's laws of motion then, the answer is that Newton's 3rd law is incomplete according to my point of view and I can prove it mathematically using a very simple classical mechanics setup.

Conclusively, below I have a sequence of statements that may justify ring's motion according to my view:

1) The magnetic field lines running through the ring are in parallel with the table
2) Due to (1) the magnetic dipoles align in the horizontal plane
3) Due to (1) and (2) the forces like gravity and normal force (from the table) in the vertical plane cannot be the cause of its motion (I speak about the cause and not the resulting trajectory (we will speak about this later))
4) Due to (2) a complete cycle (leftwards and then rightwards alignment) results in no ring's acceleration
5) Due to (4) a partial cycle e.g. π/2, might result in ring's initial acceleration. Important Note: How could that happen? IF we ever continue this discussion, I will explain it.
6) Due to (1) to (5), the acceleration can be attributed only to internal forces (the forced alignment of the magnetic dipoles in the horizontal plane) being responsible for the momentum transfer from the magnetic dipoles to the rest of the system (ring)
7) Due to (6), Newton's laws cannot justify ring's motion from the moment it is not attributed to external forces
8) The reason behind (7) is Newton's 3rd law. Motion by means of internal forces is forbidden because of Newton's 3rd law (as applies for internal forces) therefore, it must be incomplete.

Edited May 29, 2021 by John2020

[Ghideon]

Here is what Lagrange* has to say about your setup in zero g. Some quick mathematics:

[math]L=T-V [/math] where T and V are the kinetic and potential energy of the system

[math]V=0 \rightarrow L=T[/math]

[math]T=\frac{m v^{2} }{2} [/math]  where v=velocity

Or, in generalized coordinates [math] \frac{m\dot q^{2}}{2}  [/math]

Euler–Lagrange equations: [math] \frac{\partial L}{\partial  q_{j} }= \frac{d}{dt}  \frac{\partial L}{\partial  \dot q_{j} }  [/math]

In our specific case without gravity: [math]0= \frac{d}{dt} m \dot q   =m \ddot q[/math]

[math]\dot q=0 \rightarrow   \ddot q=0[/math]

 

In other words; in zero g the device will not accelerate.  

2 hours ago, John2020 said:

Conclusively, below I have a sequence of statements that may justify ring's motion according to my view:

Please present the mathematics and a comparison to my attempt at analysing the zero g case for your device. 

 

2 hours ago, John2020 said:

What do you mean, I do not understand? 

It means that a curious person may want to know how an idea is incorrect and what misunderstandings that caused wrong conclusions. And then reject the idea or try to improve it with the help of the acquired knowledge. 

Side note: When joining this forum I did not know much about Lagrange and Hamilton. I was curious and listened to expert members here and as a result I feel confident enough to try to apply the methods. I'm also confident that any errors will be corrected by expert members and more knowledge will be gained in the process. 

*) Trying to use standard symbols, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics

Edited May 29, 2021 by Ghideon
latex

[swansont]

1 hour ago, John2020 said:

As I said we should pay attention of what we are referred to. Again you are confusing system responses (as that with the car you mention) with the motion of the ring. For once more we have a cycle of 200 μsec and a mass of 200 grams. Thus, a complete cycle means, the magnetic dipole are aligned leftwards and then rightwards. The net force is then zero that means we shouldn't have acceleration. A partial cycle would justify ring's motion

I’m not confused about this. You do not understand physics. You should not be telling other people anything of this sort; you have no basis for that judgement.

“A complete cycle” is irrelevant, as I have explained and you have ignored several times. I’ve given examples.

 

1 hour ago, John2020 said:

Besides you insist of using Gravity to justify the ring's motion, gravity and the normal force (from the table) cannot be the cause of ring's motion, however the normal force plays only a role regarding the static friction that must be overcome in order to start moving.

The point that we’ve made that the table and ring are not flat means it’s not strictly a vertical force that they exert on each other. We call the normal forces because that’s a sufficient description if we were talking about a rigid object sliding on the surface, but this is a more complex system.

1 hour ago, John2020 said:

If you pay attention to all three videos the ring has a tendency to rotate which is a fact that a horizontal force is at play and certainly has nothing to do with the normal force.

You’re getting ahead of yourself. Since you won’t even acknowledge that there is an explanation for motion at all, getting into why there is rotation is quite worthless at this point. 

 

1 hour ago, John2020 said:

If gravity plays a role then, why it is not part in the differential inhomogeneous equation that describes the rotating unbalance? Moreover, as you may see the particular solution has no reference to a gravitational constant. This is something you still avoid to answer by using excuses that is not the subject in this discussion, however it is physics and related to vibrations. My answer to the erroneous claims about gravity being a necessary ingredient for ring's motion is, please check the differential equation of the rotating unbalance.

I have not addressed rotation at all. I’m not sure you understand why a person can jump in the air, so (again) what’s the point in discussing something that you have shown you can’t possibly understand at this point? You have to get rid of your misconceptions before this would be possible.

And, frankly, if all you’re going to do is repeat the same errors without addressing criticisms, that violates the rules on soapboxing.

 

[pzkpfw]

Should somebody let the authorities know that this toy company is breaking the laws of physics?

https://www.hexbug.com/nano

 

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, pzkpfw said:

Should somebody let the authorities know that this toy company is breaking the laws of physics?

Or they aren’t actually moving. It’s an illusion.