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

[joigus]

As @exchemist said, inelastic collisions do not absolve you from complying with conservation of momentum. You need this momentum to come from an external source --wires, fields--, or be gained in exchange of exhaust momentum, as exchemist also pointed out at the very beginning of this thread. For whatever it's worth, I don't find anything of interest in the exposition seen so far.

[studiot]

14 hours ago, Aquatek said:

I see. So mocking some one is scientific ?. The design of the device has not change throughout the thread. It has remained the same. Others in this thread have presented there own theories on the design, or how it may be designed.

 

No one is mocking you or your device.

The description/specification has changed as this thread has progress.
For instance it started off trailing electric cables, but was the promoted to a self contained battery.
Initially no mention of recycling the matter ejected from the rocket, this was introduced later in response to a question.

 

For your information , my example, although lurid, was made to conform to the information originally supplied about the workings of the device.

Not the claims about thrust and local experts being baffled and so forth.

Just this description below.

On 12/4/2021 at 3:06 PM, Aquatek said:

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.

 

Chucking turkeys out of the window indeed constitutes a matter stream.

As you say, ejecting this stream indeed results in a reaction force against the end wall.

Again as you say, destroying a % of the streaming birds in flight reduces the mass of the stream and therefore the energy and momentum of the stream which eventually strikes the wall opposite.

So the reaction force from the wall opposite (which is rigidly connnected to the start wall) is lower than the reaction force on the start wall.

(I tried to make distinguishing easier by using West and East walls.)

So it is a perfectly good model to analyse.

 

I have no idea how you actual device works, other than it is different from mine.

But I would observe that there are many ways to achieve or prevent motion by redistributing mass within a body, where the necessary reaction is 'hidden'.

Often the hidden reaction force is the friction with the supports or ground it stands on.

Wheels will spin instead of providing drive in the absence of friction.

Nature has a more clever way in the locomotion of a caterpiller, as small children love emulating.
Here there is a combination of friction and an increase in distributed normal reaction but moving that reaction from one place to another.

I try to teach cyclists to reduce the reactions produced by bumps in the road by simply moving their body weight first backwards whilst teh front wheel goes over and the fowards whilst the back wheel goes over.

 

But the fact remains you have made some factually inaccurate statements about the mechanics of the situation.

The most glaring is claiming the operation to be a result of a kinetic energy balance.
It is obvious that since you have the ability to supply as much or as little KE from sources external to your 'system' via your electricity supply or via some chemical process, that this is not the reason.

Reaction forces come from change of momentum and can be linked numerically to the rate of change of momentum of something.
So others here were quite correct to pursue this avenue of enquiry.

[swansont]

You can have a box with a mass inside and if you shift the mass, the box will move. The center of mass will remain fixed, so momentum is conserved.  The box will never move more than its length, though, because the CoM is located inside. Which is why I asked about details of these thrust measurements, and which I've noticed have not been answered.