Reactionless Drive that conforms to Newton's 3rd laws.

[Aquatek]

Hello all.

Ok, well as this is my first post, i will start with my name, which is Brad.

As always, I know there will be very strong opposition to any such device that seems to break the laws of physics. But no laws are being broken here, as there is an equal and opposite reaction to the action. The conservation of momentum also still applies--so on we go. I will confirm that this is not a theoretical experiment. This is an actual working device.

Anyway, over the past 6 years, I have been developing a reactionless drive. The name !reactionless drive! would assume that there is no reaction to the action, and we all know that that would not produce any thrust at all. But what else could you call a fully enclosed system that creates thrust without any form of exhaust that exits the enclosed system?.

My first working model was completed in 2017, and showed a thrust value of just 242 grams, for a thruster that weighed 14.6 Kg's, and an electrical input of 1.42Kw. 5 weeks ago, I finished the 4th thruster. Oh,BTW, I call it KERT (Kinetic Energy Reduction Thruster) This one produces a net thrust of 2.32Kg's for a power input of 1.12Kw, and a total thruster weight of 24.2Kg's. Having a thrust value this high eliminates measurement errors commonly found with most such devices where the thrust value is in the mN's, such as NASA's EM drive. Tests have been carried out on suspended cables and by placing the thruster on a trolley with free wheeling wheels, where the trolley/thruster will propel it self along the ground in a straight line or CW and CCW circle. The pull force was measured during the suspended cable test, where a pull force of 2.32Kg's was achieved. The pull force test on the trolley showed a slight decrease in value, at just 2.11Kg's. I have put that down to friction losses through the wheels and bearings in the wheels.

So far, i have had 2 engineers and 1 science teacher look at and test the device. The 2 engineers said that it was pretty cool, but i am not sure they actually knew what they were looking at, and how it seems to break known laws of physics. The science teacher was a different story though. He is the head science teacher a the science college near my area. He was there for 6 hours the fist day, carrying out all sorts of tests. He ended up leaving saying something was going on that we could not see. He then returned the next day-unannounced, and carry out more tests for another 4 hours. At the end of that time, he just said--I don't know how it is doing what it is doing. He said-an enclosed box should not produce any thrust at all, let alone enough to make it travel along the ground on a trolley, which also is dragging the power cable along with it.

So i guess i would like your input on what to do next with this thruster?. I can't afford to patent it, as that is like 32K over here in Australia. But i would like something for all my years of hard work.

Thanks.  Brad

[swansont]

49 minutes ago, Aquatek said:

So i guess i would like your input on what to do next with this thruster?

Providing more evidence than just your say-so would be job 1.

 

49 minutes ago, Aquatek said:

I know there will be very strong opposition to any such device that seems to break the laws of physics. But no laws are being broken here, as there is an equal and opposite reaction to the action. The conservation of momentum also still applies--so on we go. I will confirm that this is not a theoretical experiment. This is an actual working device.

If it’s reactionless, then it violates conservation of momentum. You are misusing the terminology. And have not described the device.

[exchemist]

38 minutes ago, Aquatek said:

Hello all.

Ok, well as this is my first post, i will start with my name, which is Brad.

As always, I know there will be very strong opposition to any such device that seems to break the laws of physics. But no laws are being broken here, as there is an equal and opposite reaction to the action. The conservation of momentum also still applies--so on we go. I will confirm that this is not a theoretical experiment. This is an actual working device.

Anyway, over the past 6 years, I have been developing a reactionless drive. The name !reactionless drive! would assume that there is no reaction to the action, and we all know that that would not produce any thrust at all. But what else could you call a fully enclosed system that creates thrust without any form of exhaust that exits the enclosed system?.

My first working model was completed in 2017, and showed a thrust value of just 242 grams, for a thruster that weighed 14.6 Kg's, and an electrical input of 1.42Kw. 5 weeks ago, I finished the 4th thruster. Oh,BTW, I call it KERT (Kinetic Energy Reduction Thruster) This one produces a net thrust of 2.32Kg's for a power input of 1.12Kw, and a total thruster weight of 24.2Kg's. Having a thrust value this high eliminates measurement errors commonly found with most such devices where the thrust value is in the mN's, such as NASA's EM drive. Tests have been carried out on suspended cables and by placing the thruster on a trolley with free wheeling wheels, where the trolley/thruster will propel it self along the ground in a straight line or CW and CCW circle. The pull force was measured during the suspended cable test, where a pull force of 2.32Kg's was achieved. The pull force test on the trolley showed a slight decrease in value, at just 2.11Kg's. I have put that down to friction losses through the wheels and bearings in the wheels.

So far, i have had 2 engineers and 1 science teacher look at and test the device. The 2 engineers said that it was pretty cool, but i am not sure they actually knew what they were looking at, and how it seems to break known laws of physics. The science teacher was a different story though. He is the head science teacher a the science college near my area. He was there for 6 hours the fist day, carrying out all sorts of tests. He ended up leaving saying something was going on that we could not see. He then returned the next day-unannounced, and carry out more tests for another 4 hours. At the end of that time, he just said--I don't know how it is doing what it is doing. He said-an enclosed box should not produce any thrust at all, let alone enough to make it travel along the ground on a trolley, which also is dragging the power cable along with it.

So i guess i would like your input on what to do next with this thruster?. I can't afford to patent it, as that is like 32K over here in Australia. But i would like something for all my years of hard work.

Thanks.  Brad

You can produce thrust (i.e. a force) without exhaust if the force is generated via a field of some kind, rather than kinetically. But as you give no details of the operating principle it is impossible to comment any further on the science.  

If you want to commercialise this invention without patenting it, then the best thing to do may be not to discuss it publicly until you are ready to offer it commercially. On the other hand that may carry some risk (only you can judge how much) that someone else meanwhile patents the same thing independently and stops you commercialising it. Some inventors make a "defensive disclosure" to prevent that possibility.  (Once the invention is in the public domain, nobody can patent it.) 

 

[Aquatek]

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

Providing more evidence than just your say-so would be job 1.

 

If it’s reactionless, then it violates conservation of momentum. You are misusing the terminology. And have not described the device.

As stated, it is not reactionless for a period of time.

So let me explain a little how this is achieved. For simplistic terms, we will say that a rocket engine is that which ejects mass at velocity, regardless of what that mass is in the form of matter. So a matter stream is ejected from a nozzle in an enclosed box. As the matter stream contains the same amount of kinetic energy as the energy that propels the rocket forward (equal and opposite), the matter stream impacts the rear of the box, and out box go's no where--equal and opposite forces. So what i have done is reduce the matter streams kinetic energy after the jets nozzle but before it impacts the rear of the box. This results in a net force propelling the box forward.

So when the matter stream leaves the nozzle, the energy from that ejection is both equal to and opposite that of the action, which is the force pushing the box forward.

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, Aquatek said:

But no laws are being broken here, as there is an equal and opposite reaction to the action. The conservation of momentum also still applies--so on we go. I will confirm that this is not a theoretical experiment. This is an actual working device.

Anyway, over the past 6 years, I have been developing a reactionless drive. The name !reactionless drive! would assume that there is no reaction to the action, and we all know that that would not produce any thrust at all. But what else could you call a fully enclosed system that creates thrust without any form of exhaust that exits the enclosed system?.

As far as I can tell your description also applies to an electric car or an electric train.

1 hour ago, Aquatek said:

He said-an enclosed box should not produce any thrust at all, let alone enough to make it travel along the ground on a trolley, which also is dragging the power cable along with it.

If that is true then there is (1) an error in the measurement, (2) some external force not accounted for or, far less likely, (3) new physics on a very fundamental level. There needs to be a lot of evidence to consider the 3rd alternative.

9 minutes ago, Aquatek said:

So let me explain a little how this is achieved. For simplistic terms, we will say that a rocket engine is that which ejects mass at velocity, regardless of what that mass is in the form of matter. So a matter stream is ejected from a nozzle in an enclosed box. As the matter stream contains the same amount of kinetic energy as the energy that propels the rocket forward (equal and opposite), the matter stream impacts the rear of the box, and out box go's no where--equal and opposite forces. So what i have done is reduce the matter streams kinetic energy after the jets nozzle but before it impacts the rear of the box. This results in a net force propelling the box forward.

 

That explanation seem incompatible with the laws of physics; Newton's laws does not allow that to happen.   

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by Ghideon
x-post with Aquatek

[Aquatek]

1 minute ago, Ghideon said:

As far as I can tell your description also applies to an electric car or an electric train.

If that is true then there is (1) an error in the measurement, (2) some external force not accounted for or, far less likely, (3) new physics on a very fundamental level. There needs to be a lot of evidence to consider the 3rd alternative.

There is no new physics. The physics being used is well know. It was just a matter of combining two know effects to achieve what has been achieved.

Those two well known laws of physics are in simple terms-rocket science, where a rocket engine ejects mass at velocity to provide thrust. The matter stream ejected from the rocket engine has a given value of kinetic energy. So so far we abide by Newtons 3rd laws. The second know laws used are those of inelastic collisions, where kinetic energy is not conserved, but the laws of the conservation of momentum are.

[Ghideon]

7 minutes ago, Aquatek said:

There is no new physics.

Ok! Thanks for clarifying. 

 

7 minutes ago, Aquatek said:

The physics being used is well know. It was just a matter of combining two know effects to achieve what has been achieved.

Those two well known laws of physics are in simple terms-rocket science, where a rocket engine ejects mass at velocity to provide thrust. The matter stream ejected from the rocket engine has a given value of kinetic energy. So so far we abide by Newtons 3rd laws. The second know laws used are those of inelastic collisions, where kinetic energy is not conserved, but the laws of the conservation of momentum are.

Can you write the basic equations of motion for the system? If I understan it correctly there is a device (trolley + thruster) that accelerates (acceleration a>0) without external force (Force F=0). If the device has mass m that means that equation F=ma does not hold. Please clarify if I've misinterpreted the setup. A picture may help, no need to expose the internals of the device, just a box showing it in isolation and what force (if any) that ar involved.

Edited December 4, 2021 by Ghideon

[Aquatek]

11 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Ok! Thanks for clarifying. 

 

Can you write the basic equations of motion for the system? If I understan it correctly there is a device (trolley + thruster) that accelerates (acceleration a>0) without external force (Force F=0). If the device has mass m that means that equation F=ma does not hold. Please clarify if I've misinterpreted the setup. A picture may help, no need to expose the internals of the device, just a box showing it in isolation and what force (if any) that ar involved.

I cannot write those equations, as calculating forces from fluid dynamics is above my pay grade. I am nothing but a mere mechanic who is a back yard tinkerer.

But I will give you a simplified example. If we throw a ball of say peanut butter at a wall, that ball of peanut butter will have a kinetic energy value of say 100 J. When it hits the wall, that 100 J of energy is dissipated, some into the wall, some through deformation, some through heat, and some through sound and vibration. This is the result of inelastic collision- the kinetic energy is dissipated. Now, if we have two balls of peanut butter of the same weight, traveling at the same speed, but at right angles to each other, and those two ball collide before they hit the wall, then the total kinetic energy after the collision will be less than the original total kinetic energy. We also get a change in direction, which will be at a 45* angle to that of both the balls original direction. We also get a reduction in speed of what is now 1 mass. So although the conservation of momentum remains, the now combined mass now hits the wall with less kinetic energy.

There is no need for any external forces, as all the produced and dissipated forces can happen within the box.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Aquatek said:

As stated, it is not reactionless for a period of time.

I don’t see where you stated that.

1 hour ago, Aquatek said:

So let me explain a little how this is achieved. For simplistic terms, we will say that a rocket engine is that which ejects mass at velocity, regardless of what that mass is in the form of matter. So a matter stream is ejected from a nozzle in an enclosed box.

This will change the mass distribution; the box would move but the center of mass would not.

 

1 hour ago, Aquatek said:

As the matter stream contains the same amount of kinetic energy as the energy that propels the rocket forward (equal and opposite), the matter stream impacts the rear of the box, and out box go's no where--equal and opposite forces. So what i have done is reduce the matter streams kinetic energy after the jets nozzle but before it impacts the rear of the box.

How do you reduce the KE before it hits the rear of the box

1 hour ago, Aquatek said:

This results in a net force propelling the box forward.

So when the matter stream leaves the nozzle, the energy from that ejection is both equal to and opposite that of the action, which is the force pushing the box forward.

Does it continue forward after the stream is turned off? 

[TheVat]

Does this trolley travel forward on rails composed of ferrous metal?

And does the propulsion system in any way involve magnets?

 

 

[Ghideon]

43 minutes ago, Aquatek said:

I cannot write those equations, as calculating forces from fluid dynamics is above my pay grade.

No problem, we can do a simple analysis without those details! Here is a simple illustration. The white box contains the thruster and it's power source*. For further simplification the box is put into space far from any gravitational forces; no external force acts on the box. We can then neglect friction, gravitation, strain due to cables etc. According to Newton the box motion is described by the equation F=ma where F is an external force acting on the box, m is the mass and a is acceleration. If I understand your claim correctly the thruster inside the box will, in this scenario, accelerate the box? According to Newton if the external force is F=0 it follows that a=0 and the center of mass of the box will not move, no matter how the internals of the box and the internal forces are organised. 

This simplified picture assumes that the box is ideally sealed; there is no exhaust**, radiation or any other interaction.

 

43 minutes ago, Aquatek said:

There is no need for any external forces, as all the produced and dissipated forces can happen within the box.

The description implies new physics beyond what is currently known.

*) Assuming the thruster requires electricity the box contains a large enough battery fo a short test. We do not need to go into any engineering issues for that at this time.
**) An exhaust implies it works as a rocket

Edited December 4, 2021 by Ghideon

[swansont]

41 minutes ago, Aquatek said:

We also get a change in direction, which will be at a 45* angle to that of both the balls original direction. We also get a reduction in speed of what is now 1 mass. So although the conservation of momentum remains, the now combined mass now hits the wall with less kinetic energy.

The KE doesn’t matter; at 45 degrees the momentum is smaller. KE doesn’t directly correlate with the force

[Aquatek]

6 hours ago, swansont said:

The KE doesn’t matter; at 45 degrees the momentum is smaller. KE doesn’t directly correlate with the force

I would disagree with that statement, as it is the KE value that determines the amount of work that can be done, or force that can be applied by that moving mass.

For example, we shoot a ball out of a cannon, and the ball weighs 1kg, and is now traveling at a speed of 10m/s. This ball now has a kinetic energy value of 50 joules while it is sailing through the air. If this ball hits a box that weighs say 10Kg, which is sitting on the ground, the box will move x amount as the kinetic energy of the ball is imparted on the box.  This time we shoot the same ball out of the cannon, and it is traveling at the same speed (10m/s). But half way through it's journey we slow the balls speed down by half. The ball now has a KE value of just 12.5 joules. So when the ball hits that same box, with it's greatly reduced KE, when it impacts the box, it does so with 1/4 the impact energy, and so the box moves only 1/4 the distance it did in the first test.

So a thought experiment--we put this whole setup in a box which is on free wheeling wheels. The cannon is fixed to the box, and we shoot this ball out of the cannon. For a brief second the box will jump forward as the ball is shot out of the cannon (equal and opposite forces). But when the ball hits the back wall of the box, the box will move backward to it's original position, assuming an ideal system without friction. We do the same thing again, but this time, at the mid point of the balls journey to the back wall, we reduce the speed of the ball by half. which reduces it's KE value by a factor of 4. What do you suppose the outcome would be then ?.

[swansont]

22 minutes ago, Aquatek said:

I would disagree with that statement, as it is the KE value that determines the amount of work that can be done, or force that can be applied by that moving mass.

Work is not force. Force is directly related to momentum, not KE

22 minutes ago, Aquatek said:

For example, we shoot a ball out of a cannon, and the ball weighs 1kg, and is now traveling at a speed of 10m/s. This ball now has a kinetic energy value of 50 joules while it is sailing through the air. If this ball hits a box that weighs say 10Kg, which is sitting on the ground, the box will move x amount as the kinetic energy of the ball is imparted on the box.  This time we shoot the same ball out of the cannon, and it is traveling at the same speed (10m/s). But half way through it's journey we slow the balls speed down by half. The ball now has a KE value of just 12.5 joules. So when the ball hits that same box, with it's greatly reduced KE, when it impacts the box, it does so with 1/4 the impact energy, and so the box moves only 1/4 the distance it did in the first test.

The relevant quantity is momentum. KE is generally not conserved these kinds of collisions. If you magically cut the speed in half, you reduce the momentum by half. That directly correlated to the recoil after impact. 

Describing a box moving a certain distance after impact assumes other factors - the box will keep moving absent other forces being present - and you are not actually analyzing the collision. You’re just waving your hands.

The example you gave earlier had no reduction in momentum, so there’s no inherent change in the dynamics.

 

22 minutes ago, Aquatek said:

So a thought experiment--we put this whole setup in a box which is on free wheeling wheels. The cannon is fixed to the box, and we shoot this ball out of the cannon. For a brief second the box will jump forward as the ball is shot out of the cannon (equal and opposite forces). But when the ball hits the back wall of the box, the box will move backward to it's original position, assuming an ideal system without friction.

No, that’s not what would happen. The box would only move back if the ball moved back to its original position. The CoM never moves.

22 minutes ago, Aquatek said:

We do the same thing again, but this time, at the mid point of the balls journey to the back wall, we reduce the speed of the ball by half. which reduces it's KE value by a factor of 4. What do you suppose the outcome would be then ?.

How do you slow it down? Where does the momentum go? What you’ve described is magic, not physics.

[Aquatek]

13 hours ago, swansont said:

Work is not force. Force is directly related to momentum, not KE

The relevant quantity is momentum. KE is generally not conserved these kinds of collisions. If you magically cut the speed in half, you reduce the momentum by half. That directly correlated to the recoil after impact. 

Describing a box moving a certain distance after impact assumes other factors - the box will keep moving absent other forces being present - and you are not actually analyzing the collision. You’re just waving your hands.

The example you gave earlier had no reduction in momentum, so there’s no inherent change in the dynamics.

 

No, that’s not what would happen. The box would only move back if the ball moved back to its original position. The CoM never moves.

How do you slow it down? Where does the momentum go? What you’ve described is magic, not physics.

(Work is not force. Force is directly related to momentum, not KE)  Quote: Perhaps the most important property of kinetic energy is its ability to do work. Work is defined as force acting on an object in the direction of motion. Work and energy are so closely related as to be interchangeable. So if we reduce the KE of a moving mass, then we reduce the work that is done, or we reduce the force over time acting upon a mass. The mass being in this case the sealed box.

(How do you slow it down? Where does the momentum go? What you’ve described is magic, not physics.) The fact is, physics allows this to work, and no magic is involved.

So as i said in my first post-Quote: But no laws are being broken here, as there is an equal and opposite reaction to the action. The conservation of momentum also still applies. The name !reactionless drive! would assume that there is no reaction to the action, and we all know that that would not produce any thrust at all. But what else could you call a fully enclosed system that creates thrust without any form of exhaust that exits the enclosed system?.

So the physics behind the working principle is as follows. The action in the device is the mass being ejected from a nozzle. The reaction is imparted on the sealed housing, which is equal to, and opposite of the action. The ejected mass now has a KE value equal to that of the sealed housing. The problem is, when that ejected mass hits the back wall of the sealed housing, all masses reset back to there original starting point, and no motion takes place( assuming ideal conditions). So to make this thruster work, the ejected mass must have it's KE value reduced before the ejected mass hits the back wall of the thruster. This results in a reduction of the work the ejected mass can do on the rear wall of the thruster, which results in a net forward motion.

The laws of physics clearly states this can happen. What we have here( as has been the case many times before in history) is not the laws of physics saying it can't happen, but more so man unable to work out how to make it happen. It is much like the story of the Wright brothers, and there first heavier than air flight. The laws of physics was always there that supported heavier than air flight, but man did not know how to make it work. Through years of research, trial and error, two brothers finally worked it out, and the rest is history. We all know the law that clearly states this can work, and that law is- Energy can neither be created nor destroyed , but can be transformed from one state to another in a closed system. This law tells us that the KE value in the moving mass can be transformed into another form of energy. Those other forms of energy can be heat energy, sound energy, vibrational energy, and deformation energy. We also know that this transformation can happen through inelastic collisions, which is also a well know science, in which case the conservation of momentum remains but the total KE value decreases.

If we look at the diagram below, you can get an idea as to what I am saying. The end result is less force over time is being applied to the rear wall of the thruster due to the decrease in KE in the matter stream than that which is being applied to the front wall of the thruster. So you see, the laws of physics says this is possible, and it is only mans inability to work out how to make it happen-until now that is.

[joigus]

5 minutes ago, Aquatek said:

Force is directly related to momentum, not KE

Force is related to momentum, and KE is a function of momentum: essentially (momentum)²/mass.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Aquatek said:

(Work is not force. Force is directly related to momentum, not KE)  Quote: Perhaps the most important property of kinetic energy is its ability to do work. Work is defined as force acting on an object in the direction of motion. Work and energy are so closely related as to be interchangeable. So if we reduce the KE of a moving mass, then we reduce the work that is done, or we reduce the force over time acting upon a mass. The mass being in this case the sealed box.

(How do you slow it down? Where does the momentum go? What you’ve described is magic, not physics.) The fact is, physics allows this to work, and no magic is involved.

So as i said in my first post-Quote: But no laws are being broken here, as there is an equal and opposite reaction to the action. The conservation of momentum also still applies. The name !reactionless drive! would assume that there is no reaction to the action, and we all know that that would not produce any thrust at all. But what else could you call a fully enclosed system that creates thrust without any form of exhaust that exits the enclosed system?.

So the physics behind the working principle is as follows. The action in the device is the mass being ejected from a nozzle. The reaction is imparted on the sealed housing, which is equal to, and opposite of the action. The ejected mass now has a KE value equal to that of the sealed housing. The problem is, when that ejected mass hits the back wall of the sealed housing, all masses reset back to there original starting point, and no motion takes place( assuming ideal conditions). So to make this thruster work, the ejected mass must have it's KE value reduced before the ejected mass hits the back wall of the thruster. This results in a reduction of the work the ejected mass can do on the rear wall of the thruster, which results in a net forward motion.

The laws of physics clearly states this can happen. What we have here( as has been the case many times before in history) is not the laws of physics saying it can't happen, but more so man unable to work out how to make it happen. It is much like the story of the Wright brothers, and there first heavier than air flight. The laws of physics was always there that supported heavier than air flight, but man did not know how to make it work. Through years of research, trial and error, two brothers finally worked it out, and the rest is history. We all know the law that clearly states this can work, and that law is- Energy can neither be created nor destroyed , but can be transformed from one state to another in a closed system. This law tells us that the KE value in the moving mass can be transformed into another form of energy. Those other forms of energy can be heat energy, sound energy, vibrational energy, and deformation energy. We also know that this transformation can happen through inelastic collisions, which is also a well know science, in which case the conservation of momentum remains but the total KE value decreases.

If we look at the diagram below, you can get an idea as to what I am saying. The end result is less force over time is being applied to the rear wall of the thruster due to the decrease in KE in the matter stream than that which is being applied to the front wall of the thruster. So you see, the laws of physics says this is possible, and it is only mans inability to work out how to make it happen-until now that is.

I think something is wrong with this diagram, or rather the accompanying labels.

There is no way for the KE converter to avoid exerting a force on the enclosure, if it reduces the force on the back wall to 25% of the value at the jet nozzle. The force is equal to the the rate of change in momentum. If the KE converter reduces the force to 25% , it must absorb 75% of the  momentum. This must generate a rightward force on the enclosure that is the missing 75%. You can't avoid that because of conservation of momentum, so far as I can see.

If the KE converter imparts no force on the enclosure then you are telling us you could mount it on castors and it would not move, in spite of being directly in the path of the exhaust stream. That can't be right. Or is that really what you claim? 

You don't tell us how this KE converter works, but my guess is it diverts some of the exhaust out of the enclosure in some way. If you have measured a net thrust from the assembly, my guess would be that the diverted exhaust stream has retained a bit of rightward momentum and it is that which is producing the net thrust leftward thrust. If, on the other hand, there is truly no gas escaping from the enclosure at all, then the thing will blow up after a short while, due to build up of exhaust pressure in the enclosure. Unless I suppose the exhaust is steam and you condense it in the converter, in which case you can buy yourself some time before it fills up with water, before it blows up or stops functioning. 

Which is it?

 

Edited December 5, 2021 by exchemist

[Aquatek]

Quote: Unless I suppose the exhaust is steam and you condense it in the converter, in which case you can buy yourself some time before it fills up with water,

 

Ah, a phase change of the matter stream 👌, where kinetic energy is lost due to that phase change. In your example, would there be any reason that the thruster could not be shut down for a short period of time while the water is dumped ?, as the space ship would continue on at the speed it was going at the time of thruster switch off. Of course, out in space, heat is easily dissipated through radiation processes. This makes it very easy to cool the steam, and the water is then recycled. Once this process is complete, you start the engine back up for another cycle. Thing is, this time you are already moving, so you just continue to accelerate until the next shut down cycle.

Quote:You don't tell us how this KE converter works. If i did that, then it would no longer be my invention, but all those that are reading this thread. But i am happy to discuss how physics says this can happen, through the transformation of energy within a closed system.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Aquatek said:

(Work is not force. Force is directly related to momentum, not KE)  Quote: Perhaps the most important property of kinetic energy is its ability to do work. Work is defined as force acting on an object in the direction of motion. Work and energy are so closely related as to be interchangeable. So if we reduce the KE of a moving mass, then we reduce the work that is done, or we reduce the force over time acting upon a mass. The mass being in this case the sealed box.

(How do you slow it down? Where does the momentum go? What you’ve described is magic, not physics.) The fact is, physics allows this to work, and no magic is involved.

So as i said in my first post-Quote: But no laws are being broken here, as there is an equal and opposite reaction to the action. The conservation of momentum also still applies. The name !reactionless drive! would assume that there is no reaction to the action, and we all know that that would not produce any thrust at all. But what else could you call a fully enclosed system that creates thrust without any form of exhaust that exits the enclosed system?.

If it’s enclosed it does not create thrust. All you’ve done is claim that it does.

 

2 hours ago, Aquatek said:

So the physics behind the working principle is as follows. The action in the device is the mass being ejected from a nozzle. The reaction is imparted on the sealed housing, which is equal to, and opposite of the action. The ejected mass now has a KE value equal to that of the sealed housing. The problem is, when that ejected mass hits the back wall of the sealed housing, all masses reset back to there original starting point, and no motion takes place( assuming ideal conditions). So to make this thruster work, the ejected mass must have it's KE value reduced before the ejected mass hits the back wall of the thruster. This results in a reduction of the work the ejected mass can do on the rear wall of the thruster, which results in a net forward motion.

Work and momentum continue to be different things.

 

2 hours ago, Aquatek said:

The laws of physics clearly states this can happen. What we have here( as has been the case many times before in history) is not the laws of physics saying it can't happen, but more so man unable to work out how to make it happen. It is much like the story of the Wright brothers, and there first heavier than air flight. The laws of physics was always there that supported heavier than air flight, but man did not know how to make it work. Through years of research, trial and error, two brothers finally worked it out, and the rest is history. We all know the law that clearly states this can work, and that law is- Energy can neither be created nor destroyed , but can be transformed from one state to another in a closed system. This law tells us that the KE value in the moving mass can be transformed into another form of energy. Those other forms of energy can be heat energy, sound energy, vibrational energy, and deformation energy. We also know that this transformation can happen through inelastic collisions, which is also a well know science, in which case the conservation of momentum remains but the total KE value decreases.

Energy is not a vector. Force is. They are not the same thing.

2 hours ago, Aquatek said:

If we look at the diagram below, you can get an idea as to what I am saying. The end result is less force over time is being applied to the rear wall of the thruster due to the decrease in KE in the matter stream than that which is being applied to the front wall of the thruster. So you see, the laws of physics says this is possible, and it is only mans inability to work out how to make it happen-until now that is.

Instead of answering my question, all you’ve done is made a box in a diagram. 

What happens to the momentum? I am not asking about the kinetic energy. 

Also, please answer the other questions that you’ve skipped.

[exchemist]

49 minutes ago, Aquatek said:

Quote: Unless I suppose the exhaust is steam and you condense it in the converter, in which case you can buy yourself some time before it fills up with water,

 

Ah, a phase change of the matter stream 👌, where kinetic energy is lost due to that phase change. In your example, would there be any reason that the thruster could not be shut down for a short period of time while the water is dumped ?, as the space ship would continue on at the speed it was going at the time of thruster switch off. Of course, out in space, heat is easily dissipated through radiation processes. This makes it very easy to cool the steam, and the water is then recycled. Once this process is complete, you start the engine back up for another cycle. Thing is, this time you are already moving, so you just continue to accelerate until the next shut down cycle.

Quote:You don't tell us how this KE converter works. If i did that, then it would no longer be my invention, but all those that are reading this thread. But i am happy to discuss how physics says this can happen, through the transformation of energy within a closed system.

No, kinetic energy would not be lost due to the phase change. The phase change would release Latent Heat, that's all, though the volume reduction would allow a sealed system to run a bit longer before blowing up or splitting from the accumulated water inside. 

I do not see why you can't confirm:

(1) whether or not the exhaust intercepted by the KE converter leaves the box, and

(2) whether, if you put the KE converter on castors, you would expect it to move or not.

Neither of those things involves disclosing anything material regarding your invention.

If you can answer these questions then I think we will be making progress in analysing the system correctly. 

Because as it stands, it looks nuts. 

I agree with @swansont that the key to the analysis is momentum rather than energy, which is why I am asking these two questions. 

 

Edited December 5, 2021 by exchemist

[studiot]

6 hours ago, Aquatek said:

 

4 hours ago, Aquatek said:

Quote:You don't tell us how this KE converter works. If i did that, then it would no longer be my invention, but all those that are reading this thread. But i am happy to discuss how physics says this can happen, through the transformation of energy within a closed system.

 

I am not interested in how this 'KE converter' is alleged to work, although I can think of a number of possibilities.

I am, however interested in a discussion which involves the correct statement and used of the terminology and laws of both Mechanics and Thermodynamics.

Let us start wiht the use of the term 'closed system'

Your system is not closed .

Energy of one sort or another can pass the system boundary to and from its environment.

Closure of a system simply debars the exchange of matter (ie mass) between the system and its environment.

If the system were isolated then energy would also be debarred.

 

Having corrected your terminology we come to your statement of the law of conservation of energy. (Top right in your diagram)

Before considering this I would appreciate a little more information about your system boundary.
From your earlier description I am given to understand that the black rectangular boundary in your diagram represents something like a shoe box or packing crate that will spontaneously move sideways when you press the go button.
This behaviour would occur where it is currently located in your back yard, garage or whatever.
But would also occur if you picked up the box, drove 1,000 miles into the desert with it and set it on the ground before pressing the go button.
Is this a correct description ?

[Aquatek]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

 

 

I am not interested in how this 'KE converter' is alleged to work, although I can think of a number of possibilities.

I am, however interested in a discussion which involves the correct statement and used of the terminology and laws of both Mechanics and Thermodynamics.

Let us start wiht the use of the term 'closed system'

Your system is not closed .

Energy of one sort or another can pass the system boundary to and from its environment.

Closure of a system simply debars the exchange of matter (ie mass) between the system and its environment.

If the system were isolated then energy would also be debarred.

 

Having corrected your terminology we come to your statement of the law of conservation of energy. (Top right in your diagram)

Before considering this I would appreciate a little more information about your system boundary.
From your earlier description I am given to understand that the black rectangular boundary in your diagram represents something like a shoe box or packing crate that will spontaneously move sideways when you press the go button.
This behaviour would occur where it is currently located in your back yard, garage or whatever.
But would also occur if you picked up the box, drove 1,000 miles into the desert with it and set it on the ground before pressing the go button.
Is this a correct description ?

The system, as explained in my first post, is in a sealed box, where no exhaust is expelled from the box. Also explained is the fact that heat and vibrational energy can be dissipated into space through the walls of the drive. This alone means that there are energy conversions happening within the box. This also means in those terms-the system is not isolated from the outside environment.

Quote: From your earlier description I am given to understand that the black rectangular boundary in your diagram represents something like a shoe box or packing crate that will spontaneously move sideways when you press the go button.) That is correct, as explained in my first post.

Quote: This behaviour would occur where it is currently located in your back yard, garage or whatever.
But would also occur if you picked up the box, drove 1,000 miles into the desert.) Yes, as long as there was a source of electrical power available, the device will propel it self along the ground. The second model had an internal battery pack, and so had no need for an external source of energy. That was the model where I found out how well lithium batteries burn, and so put that one down to a failure.

[Ghideon]

3 minutes ago, Aquatek said:

Also explained is the fact that heat and vibrational energy can be dissipated into space through the walls of the drive.

If the walls have enough thickness or suitable material so that there is absolutely no interaction with the outside, is the drive still working? 

 

Also please have a look at my post regarding Newton above, feel free to ask questions if if is unclear.  

[Aquatek]

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

No, kinetic energy would not be lost due to the phase change. The phase change would release Latent Heat, that's all, though the volume reduction would allow a sealed system to run a bit longer before blowing up or splitting from the accumulated water inside. 

I do not see why you can't confirm:

(1) whether or not the exhaust intercepted by the KE converter leaves the box, and

(2) whether, if you put the KE converter on castors, you would expect it to move or not.

Neither of those things involves disclosing anything material regarding your invention.

If you can answer these questions then I think we will be making progress in analysing the system correctly. 

Because as it stands, it looks nuts. 

I agree with @swansont that the key to the analysis is momentum rather than energy, which is why I am asking these two questions. 

Quote: (2) whether, if you put the KE converter on castors, you would expect it to move or not.) No, the KE converter would not move, as the forces being applied to the KE converter are at right angles to the flow of the mass, and so the KE converter would be pushing against the top and bottom walls. 

Quote: (1) whether or not the exhaust intercepted by the KE converter leaves the box). No, nothing leaves the box except heat, sound, and vibrational energy.

Quote: (2) whether, if you put the KE converter on castors, you would expect it to move or not.). No, it would not move, as the forces are at right angles to the matter flow.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

If the walls have enough thickness or suitable material so that there is absolutely no interaction with the outside, is the drive still working? 

 

Also please have a look at my post regarding Newton above, feel free to ask questions if if is unclear.  

Quote: If the walls have enough thickness or suitable material so that there is absolutely no interaction with the outside, is the drive still working?). The device would eventually get to hot, and either catch fire, or discontinue to work, due to thermal overload.

Quote: Also please have a look at my post regarding Newton above, feel free to ask questions if if is unclear. According to Newton the box motion is described by the equation F=ma where F is an external force acting on the box.) No, i do not agree. The force being applied to the box, comes from within the box. In the case of an open system like a rocket, only the ejected matter leaves the system into the vacuum of space. But no forces are applied to the box from the vacuum of space. 

Edited December 5, 2021 by Aquatek

[exchemist]

21 minutes ago, Aquatek said:

Quote: (1) whether or not the exhaust intercepted by the KE converter leaves the box). No, nothing leaves the box except heat, sound, and vibrational energy.

Quote: (2) whether, if you put the KE converter on castors, you would expect it to move or not.). No, it would not move, as the forces are at right angles to the matter flow.

 

 

Thanks for the responses. From your answer to the first question I have the feeling the K E converter must be converting the exhaust stream via a phase change of some kind, to avoid the thing blowing up. But no matter, the important thing is you are saying there is nothing leaving the box, so we can rule out anything leaving it possessing residual momentum. 

 

Regarding the second question, you say this KE converter stands directly in the exhaust stream, reduces its momentum to a quarter of what it was, and yet does not experience any force from the gas it intercepts.  

That, I am afraid, is just not credible.  Even if, as I now suspect,  the converter carries out some kind of phase change (condenses gas to liquid, converts a stream of electrons to electric current, or even absorbs 3/4 of a beam of "exhaust" light) the momentum of the intercepted exhaust will exert a force on it: F = d(mv)/dt.   

Edited December 5, 2021 by exchemist