Since I am fairly certain the lever and dissimilar balls may have been how Bessler goy his energy I was about to do the next step, build, but a penciling showed that even though you may have a free generator Bessler powered in your basement when you get past a kilowatt the beast has to physically grow and I was not happy with the prospects. About that time it was back in the hospital for another major cancer surgery and my daughter got married and I changed states of residence several times I lost most of my belongings. A blessing in disguise. I played with momentum in my mind's eye and over time came up with the 3 mass elastic collision as an interesting way of imbalancing vectors. By now, in my mind, it was axiomatic that the bottom line is asymmetry and how to exploit it. Most of the world is symmetric and wasting your time moving things about is Rube Goldbergish.
Elegance is simplicity.
Firmly believe that. Am happy with 3 ball collision to give thrust in whatever frame of reference it is mounted in.
This is key.
An example:
In order to eliminate friction and air drag lest I confuse some readers with my thesis we will conduct this in space.
You and your suit have the mass of 100 kilos on Earth and relative to the mountain of an asteroid you are about to pass by you are moving 1000 feet per second, As you pass you fire an anchor into the asteroid your anchor is attached to a line that requires a force of 1 kilo to unwind. Just under 2200 foot pounds of work is thereby performed. This of course slows you down by 1 kilo/ second of force. You can recover your original velocity by catching the impulse from a 1 kilo mass moving 32.2 feet per second or equivalent to 16 foot kilos of acceleration.
The spread is 35.2 foot pounds recovery vs 2200 or over unity by 62 and a half.
So if instead of a man in a spacesuit we have an alternator with the surface of the rotor moving 1000 feet per second we can power it using a couple of percent of the output. This is a 21st century machine that can produce whatever power you need.
Why you need an inertial thruster
Moderator: scott
Why you need an inertial thruster
Not knowing is not the problem. It is the knowing of what just isn't so.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
re: Why you need an inertial thruster
does it only work in space?
because if we're building things in space it's easy to make a gravity motor
we have one on earth called the tides
you can tap tides as they go in and out
all anyone had to do was place an earth and a moon thus and so-
-and give them a push
(but this isn't eternal
eventually the moon stops causing tides
goes geosynchronistic)
but it was funds while it lasted
because if we're building things in space it's easy to make a gravity motor
we have one on earth called the tides
you can tap tides as they go in and out
all anyone had to do was place an earth and a moon thus and so-
-and give them a push
(but this isn't eternal
eventually the moon stops causing tides
goes geosynchronistic)
but it was funds while it lasted
re: Why you need an inertial thruster
Didn't you read the booklet? Why would it work only in space?
How about mounted in your vehicle where the engine currently is. Zero fuel cost have any appeal? Or open the window and turn on the heat. Get fresh air and still be warm.
No coal need be burned for generating electricity. Nukes are passé.
Free and enormously smaller than a gravity wheel.
How about mounted in your vehicle where the engine currently is. Zero fuel cost have any appeal? Or open the window and turn on the heat. Get fresh air and still be warm.
No coal need be burned for generating electricity. Nukes are passé.
Free and enormously smaller than a gravity wheel.
Not knowing is not the problem. It is the knowing of what just isn't so.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
re: Why you need an inertial thruster
sounds like the government would require a permit
a trigger lock, a loyalty oath, a blood sacrifice
a six month training course, EPA report
and a value added tax just to think about it in the presence of a duly appointed and authorized bureaucrat
(but...yeah... it'd be worth it, i guess)
a trigger lock, a loyalty oath, a blood sacrifice
a six month training course, EPA report
and a value added tax just to think about it in the presence of a duly appointed and authorized bureaucrat
(but...yeah... it'd be worth it, i guess)
re: Why you need an inertial thruster
Once it is common knowledge game over for the greed heads.
Not knowing is not the problem. It is the knowing of what just isn't so.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
re: Why you need an inertial thruster
so shit/wot?
i missed the booklet?
(it wasn't a government pamphlet, was it? i think they quit forwarding those, since i went underground)
hehe
hey--i haven't read all your stuff, yet
but i will, eventually
i advise building the working model first, before disseminating a booklet
that's why i, personally, haven't gone on the book tour yet:
mine's probably gonna cost---dozens and dozens of dollars to build!
i'd have to find a hundredaire i could trust
but those rich guys are all such bastards
i missed the booklet?
(it wasn't a government pamphlet, was it? i think they quit forwarding those, since i went underground)
hehe
hey--i haven't read all your stuff, yet
but i will, eventually
i advise building the working model first, before disseminating a booklet
that's why i, personally, haven't gone on the book tour yet:
mine's probably gonna cost---dozens and dozens of dollars to build!
i'd have to find a hundredaire i could trust
but those rich guys are all such bastards
re: Why you need an inertial thruster
Didn't think you would have to model a 3 ball collision. Visit your local pool table.
Turn;s out for the average guy the pool table isn't enough. Will have a simple one together soon. Building a weedless trolling motor. Since there is nothing in the water, if you can float you can boat.
Turn;s out for the average guy the pool table isn't enough. Will have a simple one together soon. Building a weedless trolling motor. Since there is nothing in the water, if you can float you can boat.
Not knowing is not the problem. It is the knowing of what just isn't so.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
re: Why you need an inertial thruster
sorry
i've been working on the three ping pong balls in the other thread
i can only juggle so many balls at a time
(that's what SHE said)
i've been working on the three ping pong balls in the other thread
i can only juggle so many balls at a time
(that's what SHE said)
re: Why you need an inertial thruster
Kirk,
you may be able to increase the asymmetricity if you substitute the cue ball with a wedge shaped object. I'd reckon the vectors could then be split more than 90 deg apart, possibly more than 120 deg.
you may be able to increase the asymmetricity if you substitute the cue ball with a wedge shaped object. I'd reckon the vectors could then be split more than 90 deg apart, possibly more than 120 deg.
re: Why you need an inertial thruster
How do you reset the balls without cancelling the imballance? Also, it seems as if you want to drive a wheel with this thing, in that case, it has to be more than 100% efficient. I doubt if it is 30%, if at all.
Anyway, good luck.
Anyway, good luck.
re: Why you need an inertial thruster
the resetting of the balls was covered. Didn't you download the paper? The motion is covered step by step.
The efficiency is 50% less friction, less than perfect coefficient of restitution, spring loss - second order stuff.
The efficiency is 50% less friction, less than perfect coefficient of restitution, spring loss - second order stuff.
Last edited by Kirk on Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Not knowing is not the problem. It is the knowing of what just isn't so.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
Re: re: Why you need an inertial thruster
A wedge transfers the momentum in part to the wedge which is attached to what you are trying to accelerate, the balance is transferred when it stops. Net sum zero.honza wrote:Kirk,
you may be able to increase the asymmetricity if you substitute the cue ball with a wedge shaped object. I'd reckon the vectors could then be split more than 90 deg apart, possibly more than 120 deg.
Not knowing is not the problem. It is the knowing of what just isn't so.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
re: Why you need an inertial thruster
Kirk,
the only reason for a wedge shaped object (instead of a cue ball) would be to lock in the angle of impact against the secondary balls.
Using a cue ball I think you would achieve much the same if placing the secondary balls at starting position somewhat apart.
Of course in order to transfer close to 100% of the KE of the cue ball (or the wedge shaped object) at this angle of impact the weight of secondary balls would have to be increased (and their speed would decrease proportionally).
It would not be easy to achieve accurate angle of impact by a cue ball when secondary balls are spaced lets say 2/3 of cue ball OD apart.
Much easier to achieve it with a wedge shaped object on a guide track.
Provided the wedge shaped object weight and material is identical to the cue ball the energy & momentum equations and the results should be also identical.
At the vector splitting angle 140 deg (if achievable) the overall efficiency would rise quite a bit.
the only reason for a wedge shaped object (instead of a cue ball) would be to lock in the angle of impact against the secondary balls.
Using a cue ball I think you would achieve much the same if placing the secondary balls at starting position somewhat apart.
Of course in order to transfer close to 100% of the KE of the cue ball (or the wedge shaped object) at this angle of impact the weight of secondary balls would have to be increased (and their speed would decrease proportionally).
It would not be easy to achieve accurate angle of impact by a cue ball when secondary balls are spaced lets say 2/3 of cue ball OD apart.
Much easier to achieve it with a wedge shaped object on a guide track.
Provided the wedge shaped object weight and material is identical to the cue ball the energy & momentum equations and the results should be also identical.
At the vector splitting angle 140 deg (if achievable) the overall efficiency would rise quite a bit.
re: Why you need an inertial thruster
if the wedge shaped object is affixed to the vehicle your collision transfers force to the vehicle.
Not knowing is not the problem. It is the knowing of what just isn't so.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
re: Why you need an inertial thruster
The wedge shaped object is not fixed to the body.
It would move the same way as the cue ball would.
It would be accelerated the same way as the cue ball - during acceleration equal momentum (opposite direction) would be imparted to the wedge shape object and to the body.
The wedge shaped object would then collide with the two secondary balls stationed in their starting position (with a gap between them).
Both balls would be hit at the same time with the opposite site of the wedge.
If the wedge is 40 deg angle the balls would be shot 140 deg angle apart.
Does it already make sense?
It would move the same way as the cue ball would.
It would be accelerated the same way as the cue ball - during acceleration equal momentum (opposite direction) would be imparted to the wedge shape object and to the body.
The wedge shaped object would then collide with the two secondary balls stationed in their starting position (with a gap between them).
Both balls would be hit at the same time with the opposite site of the wedge.
If the wedge is 40 deg angle the balls would be shot 140 deg angle apart.
Does it already make sense?