Dear colleagues,
My name is George Sen. I am a non-standard technologies fan.
IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?
This seems to me a great technology revolution! As if these guys are extremely gifted engineers! Please look at the two links below:
https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/20 ... _01-12.pdf
https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/20 ... s01-08.pdf
The first link contains the text, and the second link contains the related Figs.1-6. The two links form one united whole.
Besides there is an YouTube clip which describes the same technology. The video quality of the clip is not very good however.
The clip can be found at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pLeawOh3Ho.
Alternatively, you can run a search in Google for the phrase "HOW BARON MUNCHAUSEN CAN LIFT HIMSELF INTO THE AIR BY PULLING HIMSELF UP BY HIS OWN HAIR" (with capital letters).
You can contact the inventors at randdgroup34@gmail.com.
What do you think about the experiment described in the links above? As if everything seems to be perfect? As if this is really a reactionless propulsion system and/or a perpetual motion machine?
Besides these guys suggest another technology revolution. Their second technology breakthrough increases drastically the distance travelled by a standard electric car on a single charge. And what do you think about this electric technology?
Eagerly looking forward to your answer.
Best regards
George Sen
IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?
Moderator: scott
re: IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHI
Interesting analysis George ,
I have read only the first two links , the 12 pages of description and the figures .
For what its worth I would like to give you my conclusions on friction which I have arrived at through my experiments .
These experiments were done for my own curiosity to answer questions that bear on friction as related to movement of masses in a rotary "wheel" environment and probably would require a lot of refinement to convince a critical expert .
However I'm personally confident of my conclusions so I will just state them as I see them and hope that it is of some use .
(1) Friction is a release of energy when two material masses interact . This release can take the form of heat , light , sound , etc (basically any mechanism that can carry energy - even formation of magnetic field or making or breaking chemical bonds etc)
(2) The reason it occurs basically is because of the momentum changes of the masses concerned occuring on cantact between the masses.
(3) If between two masses interacting , the change in the momentum vector is not in an identical direction , then friction (release of energy) will occur . This is because when two forces cancel each other to any degree there is a loss of energy which is friction .
(4) Why a rough surface has a higher friction coefficient than a smooth surface ;-
Basically under magnification in a rough surface it is easily seen that the asperities ( the little mountains and valleys ) are much larger than in a smooth suface and the two surfaces contacting each other (say sliding past each other) have to change their relative momenta (momentums :)) to a geater degree as they ride up and down their respective roller coaster surface per unit time .
Each minute opposite movement of the momentum of the two masses alternatively cancel and reinforce each other and the result is energy release from the forces which are forcing the two surfaces past each other .
In the case of something like two velcro surfaces being sheared past each other , a lot of the friction will occur because of the energy release that is required to deform and 'break' the the little hook attachments that are formed and broken during the shear .
Or in the case of lubrication with an oil the shearing force is only impeded by the force presnt between the oil molecules etc .
(5) Because frictional release of energy is directly related to the forces involved in the contact of the materials , one can expect that in space in a gravitational free environment machines which have moving parts will have lower friction issues than the same machines in a gravitational field because of the extra force of gravity involved .
In weightless condition the friction at the surface contacts should only be the forces involved with the inertial mass of each of the relative interacting masses without the constant additional downward force of gravity .
However , it is impossible to have zero friction between two masses under any circumstances where a force is applied to them unless that force is in an identical direction and quantity to both masses instantaneously .
--
As I see it in your scenario in your links , I would expect the friction involved in fig 4 to be considerable and unavoidable .
Reactionless drives and perpetual motion machines have quite a few common problems .
I wish you all the best with yours , I like the approach , but I would advise you to be wary of ALL unsupported physical assumptions in a system like this before any commitment to business plans .
Money is likely to flow away like water out of a paper bag if it is not tested to be waterproof first !
I have read only the first two links , the 12 pages of description and the figures .
For what its worth I would like to give you my conclusions on friction which I have arrived at through my experiments .
These experiments were done for my own curiosity to answer questions that bear on friction as related to movement of masses in a rotary "wheel" environment and probably would require a lot of refinement to convince a critical expert .
However I'm personally confident of my conclusions so I will just state them as I see them and hope that it is of some use .
(1) Friction is a release of energy when two material masses interact . This release can take the form of heat , light , sound , etc (basically any mechanism that can carry energy - even formation of magnetic field or making or breaking chemical bonds etc)
(2) The reason it occurs basically is because of the momentum changes of the masses concerned occuring on cantact between the masses.
(3) If between two masses interacting , the change in the momentum vector is not in an identical direction , then friction (release of energy) will occur . This is because when two forces cancel each other to any degree there is a loss of energy which is friction .
(4) Why a rough surface has a higher friction coefficient than a smooth surface ;-
Basically under magnification in a rough surface it is easily seen that the asperities ( the little mountains and valleys ) are much larger than in a smooth suface and the two surfaces contacting each other (say sliding past each other) have to change their relative momenta (momentums :)) to a geater degree as they ride up and down their respective roller coaster surface per unit time .
Each minute opposite movement of the momentum of the two masses alternatively cancel and reinforce each other and the result is energy release from the forces which are forcing the two surfaces past each other .
In the case of something like two velcro surfaces being sheared past each other , a lot of the friction will occur because of the energy release that is required to deform and 'break' the the little hook attachments that are formed and broken during the shear .
Or in the case of lubrication with an oil the shearing force is only impeded by the force presnt between the oil molecules etc .
(5) Because frictional release of energy is directly related to the forces involved in the contact of the materials , one can expect that in space in a gravitational free environment machines which have moving parts will have lower friction issues than the same machines in a gravitational field because of the extra force of gravity involved .
In weightless condition the friction at the surface contacts should only be the forces involved with the inertial mass of each of the relative interacting masses without the constant additional downward force of gravity .
However , it is impossible to have zero friction between two masses under any circumstances where a force is applied to them unless that force is in an identical direction and quantity to both masses instantaneously .
--
As I see it in your scenario in your links , I would expect the friction involved in fig 4 to be considerable and unavoidable .
Reactionless drives and perpetual motion machines have quite a few common problems .
I wish you all the best with yours , I like the approach , but I would advise you to be wary of ALL unsupported physical assumptions in a system like this before any commitment to business plans .
Money is likely to flow away like water out of a paper bag if it is not tested to be waterproof first !
Have had the solution to Bessler's Wheel approximately monthly for over 30 years ! But next month is "The One" !
re: IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHI
Thanks a lot for your reply. I am starting to think over my answers.
Best regards,
George
Best regards,
George
re: IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHI
Hi Art,
Thank for you letter of Jul 29, 2018 7:09 am. Your considerations are very professional and profound. You are obviously an expert. But I have a few small objections and I would like to let you know about them.
(1) Modern technologies allow production of special surfaces and/or lubricants which are able to decrease standard friction many times.
(2) If you replace sliding friction with rolling friction, then friction will be immediately reduced hundreds and thousands of times. (Rolling friction is in inverse proportion to the radius of the rolls/wheels. If you increase the wheel's radius n times, then friction will be decreased n times respectively.)
(3) The blue ball and the zig-zag channel could be made of permanent magnets thus forming a practically frictionless (no-touch) slide. (There are hundreds of similar devices in YouTube and in Internet, in general.)
(4) Yes, you are absolutely right that it is impossible to have zero friction under any circumstances. But it is AN AXIOM of theoretical and applied mechanics that if friction is assumed negligible, then this means that friction is so small (small enough, but not equal to zero!) that it does not practically influence the proper operation of a certain real mechanism/mechanical system/mechanical process. Any expert in the field of theoretical and applied mechanics is familiar with the above mentioned AXIOM and will never argue about its validity.
(5) The same for the inertia forces. The smaller the blue ball's mass, the smaller the inertia forces. The blue ball's mass could be made so small (small enough, but not equal to zero!) that it would not practically influence the proper operation of the system. (Please look at previous item 4 and simply replace "friction" with "inertia forces".
(6) Any good idea for a waterproof paper bag for a possible money flow is welcome. In general, we are open for any kind of collaboration of mutual benefit.
-------------------------
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George
Thank for you letter of Jul 29, 2018 7:09 am. Your considerations are very professional and profound. You are obviously an expert. But I have a few small objections and I would like to let you know about them.
(1) Modern technologies allow production of special surfaces and/or lubricants which are able to decrease standard friction many times.
(2) If you replace sliding friction with rolling friction, then friction will be immediately reduced hundreds and thousands of times. (Rolling friction is in inverse proportion to the radius of the rolls/wheels. If you increase the wheel's radius n times, then friction will be decreased n times respectively.)
(3) The blue ball and the zig-zag channel could be made of permanent magnets thus forming a practically frictionless (no-touch) slide. (There are hundreds of similar devices in YouTube and in Internet, in general.)
(4) Yes, you are absolutely right that it is impossible to have zero friction under any circumstances. But it is AN AXIOM of theoretical and applied mechanics that if friction is assumed negligible, then this means that friction is so small (small enough, but not equal to zero!) that it does not practically influence the proper operation of a certain real mechanism/mechanical system/mechanical process. Any expert in the field of theoretical and applied mechanics is familiar with the above mentioned AXIOM and will never argue about its validity.
(5) The same for the inertia forces. The smaller the blue ball's mass, the smaller the inertia forces. The blue ball's mass could be made so small (small enough, but not equal to zero!) that it would not practically influence the proper operation of the system. (Please look at previous item 4 and simply replace "friction" with "inertia forces".
(6) Any good idea for a waterproof paper bag for a possible money flow is welcome. In general, we are open for any kind of collaboration of mutual benefit.
-------------------------
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George
re: IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHI
Items (1) and (2) I agree.
Item (3) (4) and (5) :---
I interpreted the blue ball as a coupling mechanism with negligeable size and friction . But isn't the purpose of it just to couple to the T shaped component ?
I presume that the T shaped component will be connected to a weight or mass somewhere in the device ?
It is the inertia of the whole system part of which is connected to the T shape and the rest that resides in the "cage" and support that you have to worry about . It is this total inertial mass that will cause the friction as each part of it reacts against the other.
You need to change your frame of reference from calculating out what the outcome of the system is from the viewpoint of motion (V = velocity in your calculations ?) to what the outcome is when you do it from a momentum reference frame .
It should become clear then that momentum (energy that you put into the movement ) will not transfer from the T section to the track section as you envisage .
The mathematics of making the -F an absolute (+) value in your equations I'm afraid is not correct .
What you are effectively doing there is saying that the Newtonian Law 3 reaction is adding to the motion where in reality it subtracts from it .
To re-emphasise the key concept about WHY friction is so important in PM (and "reactionless" drive ) concepts is not because of the "drag" of the friction on the point of contact of the masses ( which can be minimised ) but because of what the
presence of friction indicates.
If you don't have friction between two masses then you dont have ANY interaction of those masses , ie they are totally independent .
There is absolutely no force existing between them ! .
The only exception to this "rule of thumb" that I can see is if the two masses' forces are vectorially in exactly additive direction. (Hint Hint)
(Magnetic bearings are not friction free , - they are just minimal friction bearings . Fluctuating electric and magnetic fields transfer force and therefore energy away from "mass contact" points just as efficienty as actual contact .
the amount of friction experienced is a function of the amount of force between the masses at the contact point and in HOW they are reacting)
Friction in reality is a double edged sword - the common view is that it is bad but in reality it is TOTALLY necessary and is really only half bad ! :)
You don't get any friction if there are no interacting forces between two masses , but also you don't get anything else either because they won't be interacting !
Thats the perversity of nature and Newtons Third Law !
Item (6) - :--
History of successful and unsuccessful ventures IMO indicates the best way to set up a business is
have a saleable product that fills a need at an affordable price that allows a reasonable profit .
Sounds so simple ! :) BUT you need that product and you don't have that product until you AT LEAST have
a working prototype .
So you have to become passionate about the prototype .
BUT if you get either one , the PMM or the "Reactionless Drive" , - the money should flow so fast
it really wont matter if the bags you put it in are waterproof or not ! :)
Item (3) (4) and (5) :---
I interpreted the blue ball as a coupling mechanism with negligeable size and friction . But isn't the purpose of it just to couple to the T shaped component ?
I presume that the T shaped component will be connected to a weight or mass somewhere in the device ?
It is the inertia of the whole system part of which is connected to the T shape and the rest that resides in the "cage" and support that you have to worry about . It is this total inertial mass that will cause the friction as each part of it reacts against the other.
You need to change your frame of reference from calculating out what the outcome of the system is from the viewpoint of motion (V = velocity in your calculations ?) to what the outcome is when you do it from a momentum reference frame .
It should become clear then that momentum (energy that you put into the movement ) will not transfer from the T section to the track section as you envisage .
The mathematics of making the -F an absolute (+) value in your equations I'm afraid is not correct .
What you are effectively doing there is saying that the Newtonian Law 3 reaction is adding to the motion where in reality it subtracts from it .
To re-emphasise the key concept about WHY friction is so important in PM (and "reactionless" drive ) concepts is not because of the "drag" of the friction on the point of contact of the masses ( which can be minimised ) but because of what the
presence of friction indicates.
If you don't have friction between two masses then you dont have ANY interaction of those masses , ie they are totally independent .
There is absolutely no force existing between them ! .
The only exception to this "rule of thumb" that I can see is if the two masses' forces are vectorially in exactly additive direction. (Hint Hint)
(Magnetic bearings are not friction free , - they are just minimal friction bearings . Fluctuating electric and magnetic fields transfer force and therefore energy away from "mass contact" points just as efficienty as actual contact .
the amount of friction experienced is a function of the amount of force between the masses at the contact point and in HOW they are reacting)
Friction in reality is a double edged sword - the common view is that it is bad but in reality it is TOTALLY necessary and is really only half bad ! :)
You don't get any friction if there are no interacting forces between two masses , but also you don't get anything else either because they won't be interacting !
Thats the perversity of nature and Newtons Third Law !
Item (6) - :--
History of successful and unsuccessful ventures IMO indicates the best way to set up a business is
have a saleable product that fills a need at an affordable price that allows a reasonable profit .
Sounds so simple ! :) BUT you need that product and you don't have that product until you AT LEAST have
a working prototype .
So you have to become passionate about the prototype .
BUT if you get either one , the PMM or the "Reactionless Drive" , - the money should flow so fast
it really wont matter if the bags you put it in are waterproof or not ! :)
Have had the solution to Bessler's Wheel approximately monthly for over 30 years ! But next month is "The One" !
re: IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHI
Hi Art,
Thanks a lot for your last letter. And here are my answers.
------------
(A) I am glad that you agree with items (1) and (2).
------------
(B) About items (3), (4) and (5).
It's clear that you are obviously a man of strong artistic intuition and it is a well-known fact that intuition is very often much more powerful than any logic and mathematics. But in this particular case it seems to me that your strong artistic intuition slightly misleads you. I do not doubt that you are well-educated in theoretical and applied mechanics but may be it's worth if you have a look again at the three Newton's law definitions and at some terms like mass, velocity, linear momentum, mechanical energy (potential and kinetic), mechanical work, mechanical power, force, force resolution (tangential force component and normal force component), etc.
I am writing all this because I actually do not understand what are talking about in your arguements related to items (3), (4) and (5). Everything is well explained in the hand-written text and the related figures (the two PDF links) and in my last letter.
But I do not insist on you to agree with me at any cost. You are free to have your personal opinion and to defend it. It is always good if there are several points of view related to the solution of a certain problem.
--------------
(C) About item (6).
Yes, I perfectly agree with what you have written about saleable product/affordable price/reasonable profit.
Yes, you are absolutely right that a working prototype has to be done. Unfortunately we are totally engaged with our next 6 inventions, mentioned in the hand-written text. And here an idea came to mind. It's evident that except a man of strong artistic intuition you are also a very skillful experimentator. So why don't you carry out the experiments, described in the two PDF links? I will show you what exactly to do in order to decrease the negative effects of weight and friction to their necessary and enough minimums here, on Earth. What do you think about my suggestion? You are welcome to join us and become a member of our team. It will be our pleasure to work with you.
(And one more small addition. The system, described in the two PDF links, as if tends much more to a violation of the law of conservation of linear momentum than to a violation of the law of conservation of mechanical energy.)
---------------
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George
Thanks a lot for your last letter. And here are my answers.
------------
(A) I am glad that you agree with items (1) and (2).
------------
(B) About items (3), (4) and (5).
It's clear that you are obviously a man of strong artistic intuition and it is a well-known fact that intuition is very often much more powerful than any logic and mathematics. But in this particular case it seems to me that your strong artistic intuition slightly misleads you. I do not doubt that you are well-educated in theoretical and applied mechanics but may be it's worth if you have a look again at the three Newton's law definitions and at some terms like mass, velocity, linear momentum, mechanical energy (potential and kinetic), mechanical work, mechanical power, force, force resolution (tangential force component and normal force component), etc.
I am writing all this because I actually do not understand what are talking about in your arguements related to items (3), (4) and (5). Everything is well explained in the hand-written text and the related figures (the two PDF links) and in my last letter.
But I do not insist on you to agree with me at any cost. You are free to have your personal opinion and to defend it. It is always good if there are several points of view related to the solution of a certain problem.
--------------
(C) About item (6).
Yes, I perfectly agree with what you have written about saleable product/affordable price/reasonable profit.
Yes, you are absolutely right that a working prototype has to be done. Unfortunately we are totally engaged with our next 6 inventions, mentioned in the hand-written text. And here an idea came to mind. It's evident that except a man of strong artistic intuition you are also a very skillful experimentator. So why don't you carry out the experiments, described in the two PDF links? I will show you what exactly to do in order to decrease the negative effects of weight and friction to their necessary and enough minimums here, on Earth. What do you think about my suggestion? You are welcome to join us and become a member of our team. It will be our pleasure to work with you.
(And one more small addition. The system, described in the two PDF links, as if tends much more to a violation of the law of conservation of linear momentum than to a violation of the law of conservation of mechanical energy.)
---------------
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George
re: IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHI
Hi Georg1 ,
Quote "It's clear that you are obviously a man of strong artistic intuition and it is a well-known fact that intuition is very often much more powerful than any logic and mathematics."
---
You're such a sweet talker ! But you are spot on ! :)
+++
Quote "So why don't you carry out the experiments, described in the two PDF links? "
---
Because my artistic intuition is busy :)
Quote " You are welcome to join us and become a member of our team."
---
Thanks for the offer , I'll think about it - I hope by the time I've covered the three Newton's law definitions and (looked) at some terms like mass, velocity, linear momentum, mechanical energy (potential and kinetic), mechanical work, mechanical power, force, force resolution (tangential force component and normal force component), etc. " that I won't have lost my enthusiasm ! :)
Quote "It's clear that you are obviously a man of strong artistic intuition and it is a well-known fact that intuition is very often much more powerful than any logic and mathematics."
---
You're such a sweet talker ! But you are spot on ! :)
+++
Quote "So why don't you carry out the experiments, described in the two PDF links? "
---
Because my artistic intuition is busy :)
Quote " You are welcome to join us and become a member of our team."
---
Thanks for the offer , I'll think about it - I hope by the time I've covered the three Newton's law definitions and (looked) at some terms like mass, velocity, linear momentum, mechanical energy (potential and kinetic), mechanical work, mechanical power, force, force resolution (tangential force component and normal force component), etc. " that I won't have lost my enthusiasm ! :)
Have had the solution to Bessler's Wheel approximately monthly for over 30 years ! But next month is "The One" !
re: IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHI
WARNIMG FRAUD WARNING MUNCHAUSEN FRAUD MUNCHAUSEN WARNING
GEORGE1 FRAUD MUNCHUSEN FRAUD WARNING GEORGE1 FRAUD MUNCHAUSEN
GEORGE1 FRAUD MUNCHUSEN FRAUD WARNING GEORGE1 FRAUD MUNCHAUSEN
No Data - No Problem
re: IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHI
1) To Art and to all colleagues of good will and sense of humor in this forum. Please look at the two Baron Munchausen's PDF links as a part of the entertainment industry. Simply have fun and be happy!
2) To Hmserebus. You are a professional sick hater and an unskillful agent of the BIG OIL for sure. You have to take your medicine every morning.
2) To Hmserebus. You are a professional sick hater and an unskillful agent of the BIG OIL for sure. You have to take your medicine every morning.
re: IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHI
Dear colleagues,
Let me tell you about two more things.
1) Precise mathematical calculations (including intergrals) unambiguously show the correctness of the conception described in the two PDF links https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/20 ... _01-12.pdf and https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/20 ... s01-08.pdf. Baron Munchausen can lift himself into the air by pulling himself up by his own hair for sure! The calculations however take too much space (20 pages) and that's why they are not given here. But anybody, who is interested in, can do the math.
2) There are special computer programs (since 1990s) which entirely and fully imitate real mechanical (as well as electrical, chemical and other) processes. There are numerous clips in YouTube which totally and fully imitate the real mechanical processes which occur in the internal combustion engines (ICE) for example. The clips are animations which show clearly vectors (as time varying directions and magnitudes) of linear and angular velocities and of forces and torques related (a) to the rotating crankshaft, (b) to the reciprocally moving pistons and (c) to the cylinders. AND PLEASE NOTE -- there is an option which allows imitating of the real mechanical processes in ICE with and without friction, that is, friction can vary from zero to any value(magnitude) bigger than zero.
So if there are enthusiasts (enthusiasm is one of the basic requirements of any great deed) in this forum who are well educated in computer sciences, then they could adapt the above mentioned programs to the Baron Munchausen's reactionless drive conception and show all of us in this forum the related adaptations.
---------------------------------
And let me repeat again -- nobody forces you into accepting of the Baron Munchausen's conception for a reactionless drive. Please consider the two PDF links as a part of the entertainment industry. Simply have fun and be happy!
Best regards,
George
Let me tell you about two more things.
1) Precise mathematical calculations (including intergrals) unambiguously show the correctness of the conception described in the two PDF links https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/20 ... _01-12.pdf and https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/20 ... s01-08.pdf. Baron Munchausen can lift himself into the air by pulling himself up by his own hair for sure! The calculations however take too much space (20 pages) and that's why they are not given here. But anybody, who is interested in, can do the math.
2) There are special computer programs (since 1990s) which entirely and fully imitate real mechanical (as well as electrical, chemical and other) processes. There are numerous clips in YouTube which totally and fully imitate the real mechanical processes which occur in the internal combustion engines (ICE) for example. The clips are animations which show clearly vectors (as time varying directions and magnitudes) of linear and angular velocities and of forces and torques related (a) to the rotating crankshaft, (b) to the reciprocally moving pistons and (c) to the cylinders. AND PLEASE NOTE -- there is an option which allows imitating of the real mechanical processes in ICE with and without friction, that is, friction can vary from zero to any value(magnitude) bigger than zero.
So if there are enthusiasts (enthusiasm is one of the basic requirements of any great deed) in this forum who are well educated in computer sciences, then they could adapt the above mentioned programs to the Baron Munchausen's reactionless drive conception and show all of us in this forum the related adaptations.
---------------------------------
And let me repeat again -- nobody forces you into accepting of the Baron Munchausen's conception for a reactionless drive. Please consider the two PDF links as a part of the entertainment industry. Simply have fun and be happy!
Best regards,
George
re: IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHI
And two more arguments related to Baron Munchausen's reactionless drive which are not related to higher mathematics.
1) Firstly, please look again at Figs. 1,2,2A and 3 in link https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/20 ... s01-08.pdf and at the related text in link https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/20 ... _01-12.pdf. Please assume that the inside walls of the straight-line black pipes are quite rough and covered with abrasive paper. The two blue balls slide inside the straight-line black pipes s-segments. Let us assume that the resisting force of friction is 1N. (The weight of an average apple is around 1N.)
Secondly, please look again at Figs. 4,5,5A and 6 in link https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/20 ... s01-08.pdf and at the related text in link https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/20 ... _01-12.pdf. Please assume that friction inside the zig-zag channels is 100000 times smaller than 1N (which is perfectly possible by using modern technologies), that is, the resisting force of friction is now 0.00001N. Therefore friction can be assumed negligible -- it is much smaller than the weight of a mosquito! And the related experimental error is 0.001%, that is, the experimental error can be also neglected as the acceptable margin of experimental error is 1% at most.
How to explain the Baron Munchausen's reactionless drive in a simpler and more understandable way?
2) Now we are preparing a presentation (text and drawings) of another approach which allows replacing of friction (Figs. 1,2,2A and 3) with another technology unit. The blue ball slides with negligible friction inside the straight-line black pipe and at a certain moment pushes sideways an oblique piston which on its behalf slides in a straight-line channel. This channel (a) is perpendicular to the black straight-line pipe and (b) is firmly attached to the black straight-line pipe. There is a spring of suitable stiffness inside this additional channel. The blue ball slides inside the black straight-line pipe and pushes the oblique piston, which on its behalf presses the spring. After some period of time the piston is totally pushed out of the black straight-line pipe and is locked in its ultimate position; the spring is maximally pressed and the related velocities are the same as in Fig. 3. If friction is assumed negligible, then (a) no heat is generated and (b) the related energy is accumulated in the spring as a potential energy. (The spring is assumed to be ideal and I will not explain now what is an ideal spring and how it correlates with a real spring.)
-----------------------------
It seems to me that many members of this forum (excluding a few clumsy and ignorant agents of the BIG OIL) as if fear the truth.
Nevertheless simply have fun!
Best regards,
George
1) Firstly, please look again at Figs. 1,2,2A and 3 in link https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/20 ... s01-08.pdf and at the related text in link https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/20 ... _01-12.pdf. Please assume that the inside walls of the straight-line black pipes are quite rough and covered with abrasive paper. The two blue balls slide inside the straight-line black pipes s-segments. Let us assume that the resisting force of friction is 1N. (The weight of an average apple is around 1N.)
Secondly, please look again at Figs. 4,5,5A and 6 in link https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/20 ... s01-08.pdf and at the related text in link https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/20 ... _01-12.pdf. Please assume that friction inside the zig-zag channels is 100000 times smaller than 1N (which is perfectly possible by using modern technologies), that is, the resisting force of friction is now 0.00001N. Therefore friction can be assumed negligible -- it is much smaller than the weight of a mosquito! And the related experimental error is 0.001%, that is, the experimental error can be also neglected as the acceptable margin of experimental error is 1% at most.
How to explain the Baron Munchausen's reactionless drive in a simpler and more understandable way?
2) Now we are preparing a presentation (text and drawings) of another approach which allows replacing of friction (Figs. 1,2,2A and 3) with another technology unit. The blue ball slides with negligible friction inside the straight-line black pipe and at a certain moment pushes sideways an oblique piston which on its behalf slides in a straight-line channel. This channel (a) is perpendicular to the black straight-line pipe and (b) is firmly attached to the black straight-line pipe. There is a spring of suitable stiffness inside this additional channel. The blue ball slides inside the black straight-line pipe and pushes the oblique piston, which on its behalf presses the spring. After some period of time the piston is totally pushed out of the black straight-line pipe and is locked in its ultimate position; the spring is maximally pressed and the related velocities are the same as in Fig. 3. If friction is assumed negligible, then (a) no heat is generated and (b) the related energy is accumulated in the spring as a potential energy. (The spring is assumed to be ideal and I will not explain now what is an ideal spring and how it correlates with a real spring.)
-----------------------------
It seems to me that many members of this forum (excluding a few clumsy and ignorant agents of the BIG OIL) as if fear the truth.
Nevertheless simply have fun!
Best regards,
George
-
John Collins
- Addict
- Posts: 3299
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 6:33 am
- Location: Warwickshire. England
- Contact:
re: IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHI
Perhaps the lack of interest is due the excessive amount of text?
JC
JC
Read my blog at http://johncollinsnews.blogspot.com/
This is the link to Amy’s TikTok page - over 20 million views for one video! Look up amyepohl on google
See my blog at http://www.gravitywheel.com
This is the link to Amy’s TikTok page - over 20 million views for one video! Look up amyepohl on google
See my blog at http://www.gravitywheel.com
re: IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHI
Well, the text is shortened.
1) The experimental error caused by friction in a real experiment can be reduced to 0.001% (modern technologies allow this) while the acceptable margin of experimental error is 1-2% at most and 5% as a standard.
2) Friction can be replaced by oblique pistons which are pushed aside by the moving blue balls. Pistons press high-quality springs that accumulate potential energy and do not practically generate heat.
----------------------
Note. Yet as if it's worth to read this excessive amount of text.
1) The experimental error caused by friction in a real experiment can be reduced to 0.001% (modern technologies allow this) while the acceptable margin of experimental error is 1-2% at most and 5% as a standard.
2) Friction can be replaced by oblique pistons which are pushed aside by the moving blue balls. Pistons press high-quality springs that accumulate potential energy and do not practically generate heat.
----------------------
Note. Yet as if it's worth to read this excessive amount of text.
re: IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHI
Don't fear the truth! And the truth is that BARON MUNCHAUSEN CAN LIFT HIMSELF INTO THE AIR BY PULLING HIMSELF UP BY HIS OWN HAIR FOR SURE! The law of conservation of linear momentum and the law of conservation of mechanical energy are not correct in some cases! Any rule/law has its exceptions and there is nothing disturbing and tragic in this fact. Be simply braver and have fun!
re: IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHI
Any member of this forum who is a top expert in computer simulation of mechanical systems? As they do it in NASA and in Formula 1?