Producing lift/propulsion from centrifigual force?

[FunkyAce07]

Ok now this would be completely useless and inefficient in our atmosphere. Would it work if produce lift to have two arms rotating around a rod both going opposite directions to reduce effects of torsion. When spinning they would lengten on the top side and shorten on the bottom side. This would cause an inbalance where centrifigual force would pull upwards moreso than downwards..... in a vacumm could this produce more efficient propulsion than a rocket. An of course you cannot simply use props because there is no air to push against.... if this worked would it also seem to defy laws of physics?? What would be the opposite and equal reaction that creates this propulsion?

[imatfaal]

Can't really follow your description - but on the whole things that defy the laws of physics tend not to be realisable

 

!

Moderator Note

I deleted the second copy of this question. Please try to keep to the idea of one question one thread.

[MigL]

Introductory classical Mechanics says there is no such thing as centrifugal force. The force is actually in the other direction and is called centripetal.

[FunkyAce07]

. .
. W . ^ Upward lift

. | .

. O .
. .
'
Ok now bear with me, the "." represents the outer ring that the weight runs along. The "|" represents the piston that allows the weight to move further and closer to the center rotation point "O" which is offset lower on the ring. When the weight hits the top the piston is extended, increasing the speed and momentum of the weight, but not changing the RPM's. At the lower side of the ring the piston is compressed to decrease the speed and lower the momentum of the weight.
Add on a few others in a line to counter the torque of each others to keep it from just spinning...


Also, assume that the ring is perfectly round and that the rotating shaft sits offset from the center.

Edited January 1, 2014 by FunkyAce07

[EdEarl]

Build one, put it on an air table, or run it in vacuum. It will not work as you expect, unless I misunderstand your intent. An offset rotating weight will cause vibration.

Edited January 1, 2014 by EdEarl

[studiot]

You cannot build a mechanism that lifts its own weight against gravity without pushing or pulling against something else.

 

Your mechanism appears to be a bit like a Scotsman whirling a hammer in the Highland Games.

 

There is always a reaction force to consider at the centre of the whirling.

[elizsia]

A Zero Point Field has the ability to create a vaccume. The Zero Point Field itself would need to be a cone that spins and its center of gravity at its tip. Like how a tornado works. You could propell anything it space using a vaccume if you could create your own torando effect around the object... Think about how tornados work...

[EdEarl]

A Zero Point Field has the ability to create a vaccume. The Zero Point Field itself would need to be a cone that spins and its center of gravity at its tip. Like how a tornado works. You could propell anything it space using a vaccume if you could create your own torando effect around the object... Think about how tornados work...

AFAIK no tornado as ever put anything into space. Most things moved by a tornado fly into the air a few hundred feet; although, some smaller things are propelled thousands of feet. Considering that a small tornado expends more power than required to launch a vehicle into space, it seems they are not a good model for propulsion.

[arc]

FunkyAce07, this video is from a guy who claims to have solved this challenge. Think of it as the Wankel engine version of your idea. It is a smooth video but it will never work like he says. These machines can fly . . . . . . . . . . . .but only into pieces Its by some guy named Rick R Dobson Jr, he claims it is 15 times more powerful than the most powerful jet engine. . . . . . .YEAH RIGHT

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNP5odWvJRk

Edited January 2, 2014 by arc

[imatfaal]

. .

. W . ^ Upward lift

. | .

. O .

. .

'

Ok now bear with me, the "." represents the outer ring that the weight runs along. The "|" represents the piston that allows the weight to move further and closer to the center rotation point "O" which is offset lower on the ring. When the weight hits the top the piston is extended, increasing the speed and momentum of the weight, but not changing the RPM's. At the lower side of the ring the piston is compressed to decrease the speed and lower the momentum of the weight.

Add on a few others in a line to counter the torque of each others to keep it from just spinning...

 

 

Also, assume that the ring is perfectly round and that the rotating shaft sits offset from the center.

 

You are not taking into account angular momentum. This is a conserved quantity in the absence of an external torque.

 

Angular momentum is

 

[latex]L = r \times mv[/latex]

 

Where L is the angular momentum, v is the velocity, r is the perpendicular displacement from the centre of rotation (these are vectors) and m is the mass. L will not change unless there is an external torque - ie extra twist from the outside - and thus if you lengthen your piston r will increase and v will decrease to keep L the same. And if you want both r and v to increase (and thus L to increase) you will need to do work

[J.C.MacSwell]

Ok now this would be completely useless and inefficient in our atmosphere. Would it work if produce lift to have two arms rotating around a rod both going opposite directions to reduce effects of torsion. When spinning they would lengten on the top side and shorten on the bottom side. This would cause an inbalance where centrifigual force would pull upwards moreso than downwards..... in a vacumm could this produce more efficient propulsion than a rocket. An of course you cannot simply use props because there is no air to push against.... if this worked would it also seem to defy laws of physics?? What would be the opposite and equal reaction that creates this propulsion?

If it worked it certainly would defy the laws of physics. This should be your indication that it will not work.

 

The only way to use the laws of mechanics to "prove" the laws of mechanics wrong is by using bad assumptions or bad math.