Possibility for Mass Transport System could take us up a gear.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

!

Moderator Note

This is not an adequate rebuttal to D H's comment.

 

The implication here is that Laithewaite showed that electrons are in orbits. If you're going to do this, you need to do more than drop a name — provide a link so that we can check up on his claims and debunk the crackpottery, or find out that you're misinterpreting him, or whatever other possibilities there are.

 

Speculations is not a forum to spout off on anything you wish. The rules demand you provide evidence to support your thesis, and in this case it means responding to legitimate criticism in a substantive manner.

 

 

 

 

(You're going to quote Velikovsky as a defense? Seriously? This reminds of the "bumblebees can't fly" canard.)

 

 

I need to clarify things a little here .

 

Proff Laithwaite was concentrating on the Gyroscope as being a source of Lift . away from the effect of gravity .

 

He made no claim or any theory as far as I was aware with "electrons" .

I was making claim about oscillating masses as if at the end of a giant tuning fork, later just two counter oscillating masses

 

See link below.

 

Link http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_07_2013/post-33514-0-66386800-1372945180.jpg

 

At the time I was advocating one could rectify a sinusoidal waveform of force in the way an ac electrical voltage can be rectified by a bridge rectifier and get all oscillations being in one positive direction . as illustrated below . I was of a mind that a very large tuning fork where the main mass was at the ends of the prongs, would accomplish this.

 

 

As it happens he did not agree with me that I did not have the right to suggest an electrical analogue to a mechanical issue. However he believed there WAS something there that he was pursuing, and said he would help as there was no one else at the time (late 1970s-1980s

However he was pushing the Gyroscope, I was pushing the oscillating Masses ( as above ).

http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_07_2013/post-33514-0-66386800-1372945180.jpg

In later years I believed this same principle could be applied to electron pairs or counter spins.

Both of these issues have been described on other threads on this Science forum

Reply to your post : ....

 

Oh I see... the mass orbits around itself (its center of mass), not the Earth? I totally misunderstood the point.

 

Yes, this would not work.

 

An object in orbit around the Earth is in free-fall. In a circular orbit it has escape velocity. Its momentum carries it away from the Earth while gravity pulls it down into a new direction, in balance. Your device would also be in free-fall but without being carried away anywhere by its own momentum, it falls just like any other object.

 

A satellite still falls, but it falls in a circle, because the direction of gravity is moving around it in a circle, relatively, as it moves around the Earth. Your integral slices are momentarily moving at escape velocity relative to the Earth, but by moving in a tight circle they are constantly returning to the same locations, essentially keeping the direction of gravity the same. Unlike an orbiting satellite, your device falls in one direction.

 

My proposal in this thread was and is based around TWO counter oscillating masses

 

Link http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_07_2013/post-33514-0-66386800-1372945180.jpg

 

During the last few posts I have introduced Prof Laithwaits claim that a Gyroscope could be used to reduce the effect of Gravity.

 

My original worry with the gyroscope was that it was a closed system and everything was cancelling out around each revolution. In recent years I have reasoned that ANY mass moving at 17,700 mph will levitate to orbit as it stands ( namely where it is ,when its cranked up to speed. )

 

See link http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_07_2013/post-33514-0-63185500-1373095418.jpg

 

 

 

Prof Laithwaits Video http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=centifugal%20force%20and%20professor%20laithwaite&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DJRPC7a_AcQo&ei=U1nYUd-0G5Ka0AXO44HQDA&usg=AFQjCNEWuR_c3FmbkkzzWmBw6b1_SKjYmw

 

Royal Institute Lecture http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=OpCEJxO6V9g

 

 

Further Link http://www.iseti.us/WhitePapers/MARS2005/MarsSociety-2005-(DoestheLaithwaiteGyroscopicWeightLosshavePropulsionPotential-2005-09-11).pdf

Edited July 6, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

 

 

I need to clarify things a little here .

 

Proff Laithwaite was concentrating on the Gyroscope as being a source of Lift . away from the effect of gravity .

 

He made no claim or any theory as far as I was aware with "electrons" .

I was making claim about oscillating masses as if at the end of a giant tuning fork, later just two counter oscillating masses

 

 

Thank you for finally clarifying. The problem is that you posted it as a rebuttal to the observation that electrons do not orbit, which was what you proposed as a model.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

Thank you for finally clarifying. The problem is that you posted it as a rebuttal to the observation that electrons do not orbit, which was what you proposed as a model.

o.k.

 

 

Further ref to Eric Laithwaite and his demise http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=centifugal%20force%20and%20professor%20laithwaite&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Frense.com%2Fgeneral42%2Fgenius.htm&ei=U1nYUd-0G5Ka0AXO44HQDA&usg=AFQjCNHL8jXyRJ6dsRp6vghoU_3gyDpkMA .

 

 

 

 

.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[md65536]

Well it's clear to me that the device proposed in this thread wouldn't work, as has been explained, and it's clear that the effect demonstrated by Laithwaite in the video:

ie. lifting a 40lb weight with one hand, is not a "reactionless drive" force and couldn't be used to levitate a mass without pushing down on something... but I still don't get what's happening.

 

He uses some force to "steer" the mass, pushing it in a circle around him. What I think is happening is that he's forcing a precession of the gyro around himself, centered on himself. This induces a coupling force upward on the mass, and downward through his center. So while the mass looks and feels weightless, its entire weight is transferred downward through his center. If he were standing on a scale, there would be slight changes in weight as he changes the momentum of the mass, but while he's lifting it up at a steady rate the scale should read his weight + 40 lbs.

 

The reason that it feels light as feather is that the usual moment or torque on his arms from holding the weight at some length from his body is not there. I suspect that though it appears even lighter than 40 lbs, it is likely as heavy as lifting the weight straight up from above, and only feels light because it would take much more effort to lift 40 lbs as he does, if it weren't spinning, due to torque.

 

Is this correct?

Edited July 6, 2013 by md65536

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

IF YOU FEEL A HINT OF ANYTHING BEING THERE in Prof Laithwaite and his work

 

These links although having to be read are worth the effort

 

Link 1 http://www.iseti.us/WhitePapers/MARS2005/MarsSociety-2005-(DoestheLaithwaiteGyroscopicWeightLosshavePropulsionPotential-2005-09-11).pdf

 

Link 2 http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=centifugal%20force%20and%20professor%20laithwaite&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Frense.com%2Fgeneral42%2Fgenius.htm&ei=U1nYUd-0G5Ka0AXO44HQDA&usg=AFQjCNHL8jXyRJ6dsRp6vghoU_3gyDpkMA

 

 

Although these were slipped in previously , they may have been neglected as they are longish read as reports. But worth it.

 

.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[arc]

Well it's clear to me that the device proposed in this thread wouldn't work, as has been explained, and it's clear that the effect demonstrated by Laithwaite in the video:

ie. lifting a 40lb weight with one hand, is not a "reactionless drive" force and couldn't be used to levitate a mass without pushing down on something... but I still don't get what's happening.

 

He uses some force to "steer" the mass, pushing it in a circle around him. What I think is happening is that he's forcing a precession of the gyro around himself, centered on himself. This induces a coupling force upward on the mass, and downward through his center. So while the mass looks and feels weightless, its entire weight is transferred downward through his center. If he were standing on a scale, there would be slight changes in weight as he changes the momentum of the mass, but while he's lifting it up at a steady rate the scale should read his weight + 40 lbs.

 

The reason that it feels light as feather is that the usual moment or torque on his arms from holding the weight at some length from his body is not there. I suspect that though it appears even lighter than 40 lbs, it is likely as heavy as lifting the weight straight up from above, and only feels light because it would take much more effort to lift 40 lbs as he does, if it weren't spinning, due to torque.

 

Is this correct?

 

This is going to occupy my thoughts for quite some time to come. Off hand though, I believe the scale will only show a small varying increase and decrease of the demonstrators weight, occasionally even countering the demonstrators own weight as he pulls down against the gyroscopic effect as he steers it into the circle. Why? I think the trick is, by which I mean the apparent negating of the effects of gravity on the flywheels mass or it being transferred to the demonstrator is dependent on two criteria. One is it is rotated on an axis, that being moved around the demonstrator. The second would be it is moving at right angle to the force of gravity.

 

When the flywheel is spun up to speed it has as stated enough energy to travel 70 m (200 ft.) into the air. The demonstrator is able to redirect a portion of this very large amount of energy by changing the angle of the spinning mass into a continuous curve around an axis. He is making it climb by redirecting its momentum into a spiral curve. It climbs because it is resisting the redirection of the curve. It is moving according in the path of least resistance according to the laws of conservation of energy.

 

Two predictions: This will only work in horizontal directions and only around an axis. I also believe it requires continuous control and adjustment. That it looks simple understates the very small adjustments needed for the observe movement. And no Ophiolite, I do not have any maths for it.

Edited July 7, 2013 by arc

[D H]

This thread was bad enough before this latest bout of gyroscopic lifter nonsense. What's next? A magic pixie dust space drive?

 

Mike, there is no way to go 7.9 kilometers per second at 100 meters above sea level. None. The fastest jet ever made, the X-43, attained a velocity of about 2.95 km/s, but it did this at an altitude of over 13 km. Bringing this 2.93 km/s up to 7.9 km isn't just a 2.67 times harder problem. It's at least 2.67² times harder, just based on energy considerations. In fact, it's much harder than that. Drag is a huge problem. It grows quadratically with speed. Heating is an even bigger problem. Bringing this from 13 km altitude down to 100 meters is an even bigger problem. Air density increases exponentially as altitude decreases. If you somehow could get a vehicle moving at 7.9 km/s at sea level it wouldn't last long. Maintaining that speed would require a huge expenditure in energy to compensate for the huge drag. That won't be the main problem. The main problem is that the aerodynamic heating will melt a hole through the vehicle in no time flat. You'll have a 7.9 km/second wind cutting through the vehicle, at a temperature that is much hotter than the surface of the Sun.

 

So what about lifting the vehicle above the atmosphere before applying the springs / gyroscopes / pixie dust? There's a good reason spacecraft pitch down shortly after launch. Going straight up first and then gaining the necessary horizontal velocity after getting out of the atmosphere is an incredibly inefficient approach to getting into orbit. Let's ignore that. We'll go straight up, say to 174 km, and then use springs to obtain orbital velocity, which is 7.8 km/second at 174 km altitude. We have humans onboard, so the acceleration is going to have to be something tolerable to humans. Suppose the peak acceleration is 6g. Note that unless they're extremely fit, some of the passengers will die with this high of an acceleration. This means the uncompressed spring needs to be over 1000 km long. The strength of materials numbers are absolutely astounding. The springs will need to be made of unobtainium. Make the peak acceleration more tolerable than 6g and the spring needs to be even longer. At one g, it needs to be over 6000 km long.

 

If you've ever played with springs you know that they have this nasty tendency to buckle. A spring that is supposed to expand to a length of 1000 km will almost certainly buckle. Ignoring the impossibility of the spring, the tendency to buckle is going to make the whole apparatus come crashing down instead of attaining orbital velocity.

 

Suppose this unobtainium spring somehow does resist buckling and the pair of vehicles are placed into orbit. Let's look at the next idea, using radio waves to magically boost the vehicle to some higher orbit. While photons do have momentum, they are an incredibly bad choice as far as space propulsion is concerned. Suppose we somehow were able to transmit at 1.21 gigawatts, 100% of which hits the vehicle. If the vehicle absorbs this incoming light, that's the equivalent of a paltry 4 newtons of thrust. For a vehicle as large as the one you depicted, Mike, 4 newtons isn't going to accomplish much. To make matters worse, you only have a few minutes while the vehicle is in line of sight of your 1.21 gigawatt transmitter. To make matters worse yet, the thrust direction is wrong. The best thing to do is to thrust along the velocity vector. This transmission scheme has the thrust along the radial vector. Radial thrust doesn't raise a vehicle to a higher orbit. It just makes the orbit more elliptical.

 

Summary so far: Going at orbital velocity at 100 m above sea level won't work. Using springs to obtain orbital velocity won't work. Using radio waves (or photons in general) to boost a vehicle to a higher orbit won't work.

 

What about this latest nonsense of using gyroscopes? That's pure psychoceramics. I don't know what it is that leads some engineers toward crackpottery. It's an interesting but sad phenomenon.

[md65536]

Summary so far: Going at orbital velocity at 100 m above sea level won't work. Using springs to obtain orbital velocity won't work. Using radio waves (or photons in general) to boost a vehicle to a higher orbit won't work.

I think you're missing the point of the thread (as I had as well), because you've listed many practical problems, but they're irrelevant because the scientific principle behind the device is incorrect. All the practical problems offer distractions, because focusing on solving them ignores the main problem that it just won't work.

 

The only part that travels at high speed can be made very aerodynamic and placed in a vacuum. The whole craft (and its passengers) don't need to travel fast at all---only the propulsion part needs to, like a helicopter. The practical problems can be solved and you'd still end up with a device that doesn't work.

 

The proposed principle is to use escape velocity of a spinning oscillating mass, without letting that mass orbit the Earth. The problem is that any object that is on an escape trajectory is technically in an orbit of the escaped mass. You can't use escape velocity to escape Earth's gravity if you're not in an orbit.

When the flywheel is spun up to speed it has as stated enough energy to travel 70 m (200 ft.) into the air. The demonstrator is able to redirect a portion of this very large amount of energy by changing the angle of the spinning mass into a continuous curve around an axis. He is making it climb by redirecting its momentum into a spiral curve. It climbs because it is resisting the redirection of the curve. It is moving according in the path of least resistance according to the laws of conservation of energy.

Yes, but the problem is Newton's third law: For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction. For example if you use the kinetic energy stored in the spinning wheel to launch it upward, there will be an upward force propelling the mass up, and there will be an equal downward force pressing against the ground. Say the mass breaks apart; for part of it to launch upward the other part would have to launch downward. Suppose you quickly grip the edge of the wheel and momentum carries it upward; you'll feel a downward force on the grips.

 

The effect in the video puzzles me too... but I don't think that you can "store" reactive force and/or redirect it in the same direction as the active force. That would allow "reactionless drives". Laithwaite made a mistake here. He later figured it out and agreed that this does obey Newton's laws, and his explanations were incorrect. Still, the behavior of gyroscopes, even if well understood by some, is still puzzling and unintuitive.

 

What you *can* do is use a "force couple" to have the equal and opposite forces parallel but not in line with each other. See http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh/gyroscopes/boylifts.html

Edited July 7, 2013 by md65536

[D H]

I think you're missing the point of the thread (as I had as well), because you've listed many practical problems, but they're irrelevant because the scientific principle behind the device is incorrect.

 

What device? The one Mike first started mentioning in post #16? I ignored that for three reasons:

• He didn't mention it until post #16. As far as I'm concerned, Mike is hijacking his own thread.
• His explanations are rather vague. I am waiting to address this when he has something beyond cartoons.
• The best I can tell, it's that crackpot gyroscopic lifter nonsense. It's nonsense.

Because of point number one, post #16 and most of the posts that follow should be moved into a separate thread.

[md65536]

 

What device? The one Mike first started mentioning in post #16? I ignored that for three reasons:

• He didn't mention it until post #16. As far as I'm concerned, Mike is hijacking his own thread.
• His explanations are rather vague. I am waiting to address this when he has something beyond cartoons.
• The best I can tell, it's that crackpot gyroscopic lifter nonsense. It's nonsense.

Because of point number one, post #16 and most of the posts that follow should be moved into a separate thread.

Yes it's vague and it's a puzzle to figure out what is proposed, but I think the answer is in post #2: "However the Mass Transport System, at this stage would be in a condition of Stationary Orbit ."

 

The principle: (revised to try to explain better)...

It is speculated that escape velocity provides upward force, instead of simple momentum which carries an object away from the Earth in the direction it's already going. It is assumed that a stationary object with oscillating mass has an upward force, according to the principle of escape velocity. It is used in the device with linearly oscillating mass, but the principle is also explained using a rotating mass and this is used to explain the supposed non-Newtonian effects that for awhile Laithwaite incorrectly thought occurred with gyroscopes.

 

The idea is that speed is all that matters, and so such an object could behave as if in orbit with escape velocity, without actually needing to be in orbit: A "stationary orbit".

Edited July 7, 2013 by md65536

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

What device? The one Mike first started mentioning in post #16? I ignored that for three reasons:

• He didn't mention it until post #16. As far as I'm concerned, Mike is hijacking his own thread.
• His explanations are rather vague. I am waiting to address this when he has something beyond cartoons.
• The best I can tell, it's that crackpot gyroscopic lifter nonsense. It's nonsense.

Because of point number one, post #16 and most of the posts that follow should be moved into a separate thread.

 

The subject of both are related, ( circular motion) . The oscillating masses are partial arc, the rotating ring is complete arc (circle). They have similar considerations, however they equally have different issues. There common theme is :

 

Can you utilize circular/partial arc motion to generate orbital style

motion,even at near ground level.?

 

The numbers are nothing like the ones you describe DH .

 

Oscillating Mass 4 inches peak at 40 Khz Rotating Ring 20 meter Diameter @ 1,000,000 RPM

Edited July 7, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[md65536]

 

The subject of both are related, ( circular motion) . The oscillating masses are partial arc, the rotating ring is complete arc (circle). They have similar considerations, however they equally have different issues. There common theme is :

 

Can you utilize circular/partial arc motion to generate orbital style

motion,even at near ground level.?

No, because an object in orbit is still in freefall, it is just continuously falling in a different direction (all the directions of a circle). Your device, also in freefall, falls only in the directions inward around that partial arc. It falls to the ground.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

No, because an object in orbit is still in freefall, it is just continuously falling in a different direction (all the directions of a circle). Your device, also in freefall, falls only in the directions inward around that partial arc. It falls to the ground.

 

 

See diagram . Is this 4 " not in free fall escape velocity orbit ?

 

Edited July 7, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[D H]

The subject of both are related, ( circular motion) . The oscillating masses are partial arc, the rotating ring is complete arc (circle). They have similar considerations, however they equally have different issues.

 

What oscillating masses?

What do you mean by "partial arc"?

What rotating ring?

 

You are not defining your terms, and your cartoons do not communicate.

 

There common theme is :

 

Can you utilize circular/partial arc motion to generate orbital style

motion,even at near ground level.?

 

The only valid scientific response to this is "Huh?"

 

If you are talking about that gyroscopic lifter nonsense, that's exactly what it is: Nonsense.

 

 

The numbers are nothing like the ones you describe DH .

 

You talked about using springs. A spring that is more than a thousand kilometer long is exactly what would be needed to accelerate a vehicle to orbital speed without destroying the contents of that vehicle. You talked about using radio waves to somehow boost a vehicle to a higher orbit. The numbers here are even worse than those for a spring.

 

Do the math.

 

 

Oscillating Mass 4 inches peak at 40 Khz Rotating Ring 20 meter Diameter @ 1,000,000 RPM

 

That is not physically possible with real materials. Do the math and stop using unobtainium when you do the math.

[md65536]

 

 

See diagram . Is this 4 " not in free fall escape velocity orbit ?

 

Masstransfer 22.jpg

It would not stay at a fixed orbit radius, or if it did it would exert a downward force to do so.

 

Try this: Draw a diagram with an arc (make the arc prominent enough that it is clearly an arc, because it represents the effects of gravity, so if it's nearly a straight line it can hide it), and the device with the spring stretched to its max on that arc. Then draw force vectors representing the direction that the springs must pull the two masses, in order for them to remain on the desired orbit. Then draw equal and opposite force vectors representing the masses pulling back on the spring as their momentum is changed. Then look at the net force that the momentum of the masses pull the spring---is it zero (so device may remain stationary), or are the masses pulling the device out of its fixed position?

[swansont]

 

 

See diagram . Is this 4 " not in free fall escape velocity orbit ?

What does "free fall escape velocity orbit" even mean?

 

Free fall is one thing, escape velocity another and orbit yet another. Objects do not orbit at their escape velocity. [math]v_{esc} = \sqrt{2} v_{orb}[/math]

(for a circle)

[md65536]

 

What does "free fall escape velocity orbit" even mean?

 

Free fall is one thing, escape velocity another and orbit yet another. Objects do not orbit at their escape velocity. [math]v_{esc} = \sqrt{2} v_{orb}[/math]

(for a circle)

It means the path of an object in free fall in an escape orbit.

 

My apologies, I have been speaking as if a circular orbit is at escape velocity, which I thought it was. I think Mike Smith Cosmos has been speaking of a circular orbit... however it doesn't really matter because whether oscillating at v_orb or v_esc or faster, the device will still fall to the ground.

Edited July 8, 2013 by md65536

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

What does "free fall escape velocity orbit" even mean?

 

Free fall is one thing, escape velocity another and orbit yet another. Objects do not orbit at their escape velocity. [math]v_{esc} = \sqrt{2} v_{orb}[/math]

(for a circle)

 

I agree with all three points. I should never have used them .

 

" Free Fall " has crept into the conversation. I presume from the model of orbit, that I personally do not like . Namely : - that one could fire a canon at orbital speed and it would continue to fall all the way round the globe. Although its true, I don't like it as a model, it excludes models of other important happenings to the issues I am discussing.

 

Similarly I do understand that Orbital velocity is pre escape velocity ., , namely remaining at one constant radius from the center of the earth.

 

As I understand it Escape velocity is an increase such that one can make orbital radius increase, if necessary to totally escape the earth or settle by velocity change at a higher orbit..

 

I have used these terms too loosely and will try to be more specific in future.

 

What oscillating masses?

What do you mean by "partial arc"?

What rotating ring?

 

You are not defining your terms, and your cartoons do not communicate.

 

 

The only valid scientific response to this is "Huh?"

 

If you are talking about that gyroscopic lifter nonsense, that's exactly what it is: Nonsense.

 

 

 

You talked about using springs. A spring that is more than a thousand kilometer long is exactly what would be needed to accelerate a vehicle to orbital speed without destroying the contents of that vehicle. You talked about using radio waves to somehow boost a vehicle to a higher orbit. The numbers here are even worse than those for a spring.

 

Do the math.

 

 

 

That is not physically possible with real materials. Do the math and stop using unobtainium when you do the math.

 

Oscillating masses are two very large masses ( proportionately large compared to the load -[say between 100-50 to 1 ] .

Joined by an energy transducer of an elastic nature say electrical oscillation to mechanical vibration. [ NOT a SPRING , purely a symbol of elasticity.] In reality the transducer material would need to use molecular bonding as the elastic medium such that at peek amplitude an end displacement of the transducer could attain 4 inches of elastic displacement.

 

Partial ARC. The two opposing masses and the joining transducer would make or rather take up a shape of a very small section of the desired orbit This shape is caused by the pull of gravity towards the center of the Earth, away from the instantaneous straight line which would be taken were not gravity present. This change for each integral part of the assembly IS the change in Mass Inertia and/or straight line momentum m x v into a direction towards the center of the earth , along the line of pull by gravity. (Centripetal Force) . As each integral part of the arc is on average moving at 17,700 mph , the shape taken up by the oscillating masses should be following a very small PARTIAL ARC of a complete orbit.

 

Rotating Ring This was the ring introduced at post 16 which relates to prof Laithewait , which I believe may follow a similar set of partial arcs in the location of the ring, yet from a different approach . The one being more like the two ens of an oscillating tuning fork, the other more like a gyroscope . There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems. One may prove functional the other not.

 

 

 

Oscillating Masses in Partial Arc

 

 

 

Rotating ring

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_07_2013/post-33514-0-63185500-1373095418.jpg

 

The comments about radio waves , were in no way connected with this Device, only in so much as to say AS AN EXAMPLE how energy put into a system like a radio antenna can produce radio waves heading out across space at high speed . Just an example not used as any explanation of the operation of these devices.

 

It would not stay at a fixed orbit radius, or if it did it would exert a downward force to do so.

 

Try this: Draw a diagram with an arc (make the arc prominent enough that it is clearly an arc, because it represents the effects of gravity, so if it's nearly a straight line it can hide it), and the device with the spring stretched to its max on that arc. Then draw force vectors representing the direction that the springs must pull the two masses, in order for them to remain on the desired orbit. Then draw equal and opposite force vectors representing the masses pulling back on the spring as their momentum is changed. Then look at the net force that the momentum of the masses pull the spring---is it zero (so device may remain stationary), or are the masses pulling the device out of its fixed position?

 

 

See Above Diagram Of partial Arc. Does this not show how the forces would act both around the ARC and Radially

 

ALSO BELOW ( Press mouse on picture to enlarge .....THEN.........Esc to return

. DIAGRAM SHOWS TWO opposing MASSES AT EITHER END - TRANSDUCER IN BETWEEN MASSES.

. Red and Green slices Represent instantaneous INTEGRAL slices ( illustrating Direction of Forces.

 

For Mental Modeling purposes ONLY this whole thing is like a GIANT SLINKY bent into a partial arc by the force of gravity ,acting on mass moving at RMS (Root Mean Squared ) average speed of 17,700mph. See further Purely Model ONLY below (NOT A REAL SPRING )

Edited July 9, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

ALSO BELOW ( Press mouse on picture to enlarge .....THEN.........Esc to return

. DIAGRAM SHOWS TWO opposing MASSES AT EITHER END - TRANSDUCER IN BETWEEN MASSES.

. Red and Green slices Represent instantaneous INTEGRAL slices ( illustrating Direction of Forces.

 

 

MASS TRANSFER 22.jpg

 

For Mental Modeling purposes ONLY this whole thing is like a GIANT SLINKY bent into a partial arc by the force of gravity ,acting on mass moving at RMS (Root Mean Squared ) average speed of 17,700mph. See further Purely Model ONLY below (NOT A REAL SPRING )

 

 

.

 

.

[D H]

Mike, you are starting with a false assumption, that velocity motion due to rotational motion has an effect on gravitation. It doesn't, at least not a realm where Newtonian mechanics is valid. The outer edge of your rotating ring in post #38 (20 meter diameter ring at 1 million RPM) has a velocity of 0.0035 c. That's barely relativistic. Newton's laws are pretty much valid even in this extreme case. Moreover, this rotating ring is physically impossible. That ring would have to be made of unobtainium. A 20 diameter ring made of any normal substance (and that includes carbon nanofibers) would tear itself apart well before reaching 1 million RPM.

 

Bottom line: we safely ensconced in a Newtonian world. This means the acceleration of the center of mass of some object is the net force acting on the object divided by the object's mass: a_cm=F_net/m. Rotational behavior doesn't come into play in this equation, at least not directly. Since gravitation force is independent of velocity, it doesn't come into play indirectly either.

[EdEarl]

I previously suggested using small models, which were said to be unrealistic. It is probably futile, but why not do a computer simulation. The diagrams previously given are inconclusive, and the idea of doing math has not settled the issue. Ad infinitum discussion is not helping. There are only two possibilities left that may settle this issue. Either build one or simulate it. Building cost appears to be either prohibitive or promiscuous for everyone; thus, simulation appears to be the only method to solve this argument.

I am not familiar with either MathCAD (purchase) or SMath Studio (free). I have not used either one, but I think they might be able to do this simulation. And, I suspect there is enough talent here to do it.

 

http://smath.info/wiki/MainPage.ashx

Edited July 9, 2013 by EdEarl

[md65536]

Here's what I mean... This shows the forces the device employs when the spring is fully stretched, when trying to use orbital mechanics to counteract the effects of gravity:

 

Assuming that the spring system is set up to pull the masses back along the same orbital path, then the force exerted back on the spring has a net downward direction. The effects of the force of gravity is already accounted for here in the curve of the orbital path. The spring has to pull the masses relatively *upward*, and the masses are then pulling back relatively *downward*. Surprise!, the effects of gravity remain.

 

 

Now to be fair, the opposite happens when the spring is fully compressed. It pushes relatively downward on the masses and the masses provide an upward reactive force. However, when the spring is more compressed, the masses are closer together, the force vectors are closer to horizontal on the diagram, and the upward force on the spring when compressed is less than the downward force on the spring when stretched. You can fiddle with the masses and the length of the arc and all that to trick yourself into making the effects of gravity seem to disappear relative to the other forces, but you can't do that in nature. Gravity still contributes the same despite other forces or velocities etc.

 

 

This isn't the only way to explain why the device won't work, it's just one of many. My point is that if you provide some upward force to counteract gravity, yet disallow an equal and opposite reactive force pushing downward on something, then the device disobeys Newton's third law. Since you're not proposing a "reactionless drive" force here that could speculatively break that law, it won't work.

Edited July 9, 2013 by md65536

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Mike, you are starting with a false assumption, that velocity motion due to rotational motion has an effect on gravitation. It doesn't, at least not a realm where Newtonian mechanics is valid. The outer edge of your rotating ring in post #38 (20 meter diameter ring at 1 million RPM) has a velocity of 0.0035 c. That's barely relativistic. Newton's laws are pretty much valid even in this extreme case. Moreover, this rotating ring is physically impossible. That ring would have to be made of unobtainium. A 20 diameter ring made of any normal substance (and that includes carbon nanofibers) would tear itself apart well before reaching 1 million RPM.

 

Bottom line: we safely ensconced in a Newtonian world. This means the acceleration of the center of mass of some object is the net force acting on the object divided by the object's mass: a_cm=F_net/m. Rotational behavior doesn't come into play in this equation, at least not directly. Since gravitation force is independent of velocity, it doesn't come into play indirectly either.

 

Your Comment

 

 

a false assumption ..........that velocity motion due to rotational motion has an effect on gravitation.

 

 

 

.I am reasoning that when a mass has more velocity, than orbital velocity, The moment it crosses that orbital velocity the mass will attempt its INERTIAL straight line. Gravity will be pulling towards the center (centripetal ) , But its Value of Force will be unable to hold it in that particular orbit so the mass separates, or raises above the would be orbit. The value of Momentum (mv ) being increased by the increased v ( ie a value bigger than the orbital velocity necessary for the magnitude of gravity to push it into that particular orbit.

 

{Incidentally it is this pull against gravity that I see as centrifugal force , that nobody seems to like any more.}

 

I have tried to use the Idea which everybody seems to quote now, That you only have gravity as centripetal force pushing the mass to undertake a circular orbit.

 

Personally I see it ( in my head ) as this excess of inertia in a strait line Mass m or Momentum mv bringing in the v. With the level of inward force by gravity , it can only work at a specific orbit . More v will make larger momentum, gravity can not push it into orbit.

.

 

 

The outer edge of your rotating ring in post #38 (20 meter diameter ring at 1 million RPM) has a velocity of 0.0035 c. That's barely relativistic. Newton's laws are pretty much valid even in this extreme case. Moreover, this rotating ring is physically impossible. That ring would have to be made of unobtainium. A 20 diameter ring made of any normal substance (and that includes carbon nanofibers) would tear itself apart well before reaching 1 million RPM.

.

.I must admit that some of the tests I did , ( Gyroscope type tests ) smashed to bits when I turned the revs up. but I think at the moment we are discussing the oscillation of two masses in a variety of orbits.

 

I know a transducer and masses moving 4 inches peek at 40 khz would take some doing. I just thought ,that down in the audio range ( 25 hz -20 khz ) might be a little loud. ( like a rock concert to beat all others ).

 

I have done some experiments ! At low frequencies 20 -70 Hz . I have tried to meet this value of velocity 17,700 mph which when combined with whatever value of m , obtains orbital velocity .

 

[ as formula is mvsquared/r = mg ] m's cancel

Edited July 9, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[EdEarl]

As I understand, the spring connecting the two masses is considered to have such a small mass that its mass can be ignored. Is that true?

 

If so, then its purpose is to cause an oscillation of the two masses attached to either end, nothing more, is that true?

[D H]

 

Your Comment

 

And your comment is ...?