Reactionless conversion of angular to linear momentum(?)

[greendoor]

Happy 2009 everyone! Sorry I haven't drawn this idea yet - I can't imagine I will explain it very well - but I will try.

The purpose of this thought experiment is to create an apparant action without reaction (aka Space Drive). If this can be done, I believe the corollary (gravity wheel) has to be possible, because if we can turn energy into a unidirectional force (without expending mass, as in a rocket or hovercraft), then we should be able to turn the unidirectional force of gravity back into energy (without accumulating mass as in a hydraulic dam). So far, I don't believe conservative physics allows for either possibility yet - so a breakthough in either has to be signifcant.

For the purpose of this thought experiment, imagine some large cartwheels connected via a long axle that pivots in the middle (like hands of a clock at 12 and 6). The cartwheels will be our heavy masses intended for rotation about the axle pivot.

To neutralise the spin, picture this whole experiment in mirror image. We have two axles, each pivoted in the middle, and each with heavy cartwheels on each end. One rotates clockwise, the other anticlockwise.

Lets imagine the whole setup is on a platform, and the platform is sitting on a virtually frictionless ice lake.

AFAIK - conservative science would say that there is nothing we could do on that platform that could induce that platform to move forward in any direction, other than ejecting some form of mass.

So to recap - we are looking down on a smooth icelake - there is a large platform, and on this platform we see two long axles with 4 heavy wheels - one for each end of each axle. We have some human operators who can push these axle wheel around - which could be replaced with motors of any sort. The actual energy input isn't being discussed here - it is the direction of reaction forces that we are looking at.

We can induce spin in the platform if we choose to rotate one of the axles - because there is an equal and opposite reaction to the angular acceleration.

The purpose of having two axles is that we don't want the platform to spin - so we accelerate both axles equally, but in counter directions, so the angular acceleration is cancelled out.

We could even imagine some gears between the two axles, to ensure that they always counter rotate at the same speed.

No matter how fast we rotate these two axles - the platform does not move. Even if we suddenly brake these axles - any reaction forces are always equal and opposite, so the platform never moves.

OK so far?

[greendoor]

Now the special difference ...

Imagine that these axles are not restrained to be 180 degrees apart. They are free to rotate around the pivot, and therefore could be any number of degrees apart, just like the hands of a clock.

But ... they are constrainted with two strong, identical springs so that they prefer to be 180 degrees apart. However, with enough force, these axles can bend or 'wind up' and store some torque for later release.

OK - now imagine that we set these two special axles rotation - equal and opposite - and build up a lot of angular momentum. The platform still goes nowhere ...

[greendoor]

Now this is the critical part of the whole process ... the Maxwell Demon part if you will ...

With the two axles rotating at speed, we suddenly intervene by violently braking the outside wheels. Imagine some pegs being inserted at the right time - or simply two humans grabbing the wheels and wrestling them to a stop.

The unrestrained inner wheels have no option but to continue on their axial paths. In the process - the axle has to bend, and stores up torque in the springs.

The end result of these two inner wheel counter rotating is a force in a straight line between them - with no appararent reaction force (the reaction force is winding up the springs for later release).

As far as I can see ... the platform will have to move in the direction of this force, because I can't see any reaction force to stop it moving ...

[greendoor]

Of course - this is a very temporary situation. The axles will bend, and the inner wheels velocity will drop to zero. If we did nothing - the axles would then proceed to straighten out again, accelerating the innerwheel back in the opposite direction, and cancelling out any forward motion of the platform. So ...

Once the springs have stored all the energy they can store - we peg them to stop them releasing. Then ... we rotate the axles around so that when we finally release them, the resultant reaction force will be again in the direction we want the platform to move. So instead of a cancellation effect, we get a double whammy force in the one direction.

Can anyone see a flaw in this basic idea? As far as I can see - we could build a jerky but workable 'space drive' with a mechanism built on this principle ...

[greendoor]

Maybe i'm on the wrong track thinking of allowing the axles/springs to wind up axially ....

Maybe the axles/springs should be allowed to extend radially instead ...

That way - at the point where the outer wheels are locked, the inner wheels would be free to fly outwards (linear), instead of following an angular path.

[ruggerodk]

Dear Greendoor,

I've working on an idea with similar aspect, but without the spring.

Bringing your 'spring' into the construction could have some interesting features, though I don't know the energy related outcome of it...if any.

I will be back with some drawings to demonstrate.

regards
ruggero ;-)

[ruggerodk]

DearGreedoor,

Here it is: A simple revolving one-arm Screw Mechanism.
The wheel rools on two surfaces(pads) on each side of the axle, 'screwing' the wheel inwards and outwards on it's own axle...somthing like a thread and bolt.

I'm working on a double-arm that saves the energy from arm (A) (at 06:00) in a spring, and revealing same energy right after at 07:00 to the opposing arm (B) (at 01:00).

Can this be useful..?

regards
ruggero ;-)

[AB Hammer]

It kind of reminds me of MT136

[ruggerodk]

Hi Alan - Happy NewYear to you.
How are your constructions going?
Looking forward to hear more abore about the things you are working on this year..;-)

Yea, it definately looks kinda 137'ish...and 136 could be a drawing of the principle for one screw rod going 360.
Looking closer on the MT 137: The T-bars at the end of the screw-rods have some similarities to the way Bessler draw the pendulums top T-bar, and perhaps works like a 'shifter'...which also made me think of a screw-rod going through the hollow axle, having a (sliding) pendulum at each ends that 'screw' the pendulum joint in and out on its own (thread) axle as the pendulum swings...???
The MT 137 also seem to have a centre cross-wormscrew...

Anyway, here are the spring-screw version.
Compression at 06:00 and realeasing at 07:00 to lift/push opposing weight outwards (at 01:00).

regards
ruggero ;-)

[Jonathan]

Greendoor, I had difficulty understanding; if the two axles are horizontal, then you wouldn't need so many wheels, because accelerating one wheel wouldn't make the platform rotate: if it did, the platform would try to rotate about the same horizontal axis, which would require it to break through the ice. So the reaction would be conveyed into the earth. Regardless, the axles wouldn't try to move like the hands of a clock, because suddenly stopping the outer wheels would produce a reaction to break the ice. That is, that action and reaction are turning moments about parallel axles, and have no effect on perpendicular axles.

[primemignonite]

Greendoor, in my opinion, this is really good thinking you've done, and does provide much food for experimental thought, as you said.

I am with Jonathan regarding the point of it being difficult to fully fathom matters, as you explain them in-print. Perhaps a drawing might be of utility?

ALSO, . . I read somewhere (possibly on the Forum, maybe compliments of Jim_Mich?) that Einstein's Equivalence Principle allows for (or predicts) a cessation-of (or pathway around - exception-to) Newtons Third Law of Motion?

I am sure that Jonathan has some knowledge of this, and if so, might factor it into your present thought brew, to the purpose of yet-further illumination.

James

[murilo]

Greendoor, hi!

This draw is interesting!

It uses gravity simultaneously in two ways:

- an arm will fall as a single pendule turn while...

- the other 180° arm will offer its ''charge'' to fall following radius at 90°, reducing the opposite resistance.

This second gravity action will be impossible if the turn velocity is fast enough to the centrifuge force.

The turn velocity should be less than 1m/sec., what is not easy to get in a ''free fall''.

If I was you, I would keep thinking in this way, BUT with multiple sets and with single springs, since this device is strongly smelling to a crazzy self regenerative flywheel. :)

Congratulations! I admire imagination!
Murilo

[ruggerodk]

Dear Murilo,

By 'draw', are you referring to the drawings on this page?

If so be the case, they (and the construction idea behind them) was made by me (ruggero) and not Greendoor.

if not, I appologise to have misunderstood your meaning of the word 'draw'...;-0

best regards
ruggero ;-)

[murilo]

Ruggero,
I'm getting old!

I'm very sorry, indeed!

Case is that these designs, or draws, made me excited!

I'm sorry and want to declare:
Hello, you guys!!!
My previous msg should be sent to Ruggero and my time to edict it has expired!
I'm sorry³!

Best regards, Ruggero and thanks for you patience and comprehesion!
Murilo SP 06/jan/09

[ruggerodk]

Dear Murilo,

You didn't have to be THAT sorry...but thanks a lot..;-)

I dont mind people to use my drawings for inspirational purpose - otherwise I wouldn't publish them - but as any good 'scientist' I personally do like to give proper credit to my inspirational sources, whatever minor detail I might use from this source.
Maybe it's just me having an oldfashion attitude...?

Anyway: I hope your exitement returnes some kind of innovation from your hand.

Which remind me to shout at Greendoor: Please give us some drawings of your idea...even a draft sketch would be nice ;-)

regards
ruggero ;-)