Reactionless drive - in reverse

[greendoor]

It seems to me that the quest for a gravity wheel should be exactly the same as the quest for a reactionless drive. Gravity is a force in one direction, from which we are trying to get rotary motion. If the was a process that converted rotary motion into force in one direction - we should have the answer.

AFAIK - conventional physics does not believe either is possible. For every force there is an equal and opposite reaction.

But I have a thought experiment for a reactionless drive I would like to submit for consideration. If this seems to work, then it should be possible to reverse engineer it into a gravity wheel ...

[greendoor]

Imagine you are an astronaut, stranded in space. You have two bricks and a long length of nylon string. Your goal is to get back to your rocket, which is some distance away.

You could throw your bricks away, in the opposite direction, and the equal and opposite reaction should propel you back to your rocket. That is the usual ejection of mass that conventional rocketry is based on.

But is there another way that doesn't mean losing mass? If there was, it would be a reactionless space drive - the impossible invention ...

[greendoor]

OK - what happens if we tie a brick to the nylon string and swing it around our head? We would start rotating in the opposite direction, and get nowhere. Right - that's why I gave him two bricks. Start rotating one brick clockwise, and the other brick anti-clockwise. I believe our space cowboy could swing these brick around and maintain a stationary position. It would probably be possible to rotate in any direction by swinging one brick a little faster than the other.

With me so far?

[greendoor]

Now this, I believe, is where the magic can happen. Imagine that our spaceman is swinging these two counter rotating weights - and simultaneously releases both bricks so the both fly outwards toward his rocket.

This would not be done with force - quite the opposite. If force was used, he would fly backwards. Instead, the string holding the bricks is simply released, and the bricks are then free to continue on a straight path, towards the rocket. The hands could even be jerked in towards the body, which I expect would create a reaction sending the body slightly forward to meet the hands.

Am I in error at this point? I suspect if i'm wrong, this is the point where I would be wrong ... but i'm supposing that at this stage, our spaceman has basically remained in the same place ...

If there is a reaction to the release of the bricks, it should be canceled out because they are rotating in counter directions ...

[greendoor]

OK - now imagine that the two bricks fly towards the rocket for some distance. The strings trail behind them, and the astronaut lets the strings slip through his fingers with no effort to stop them.

At the end of the strings (it's really, really long) the strings grow taught. Suddenly, the spaceman pulls on the strings, and he starts moving towards the bricks. The bricks also start moving towards him - equal and opposite reactions.

What i'm suggesting is achieve here is that a new centre of gravity is achieved - halfway the length of the strings.

If i'm correct, our spaceman could winch his way back to his rocket, by swinging the weights - releasing them, letting them travel, and then winching himself to a new 'centre of gravity'.

[greendoor]

If it is indeed possible to travel through space without ejecting mass, but rather, by establishing new inertial reference frames, then it should be possible to create a reactionless space drive from rotating masses ...

I am thinking that the 'secret' is in the 'breaking' of centripetal/centrigugal forces. With two counter-rotating masses, any reaction force should be cancelled out. Instead of forcibly ejecting the masses - we are simply releasing them - temporarily disconnecting them from our inertial system and letting them do their own thing.

So if it is possible to create a system of rotating masses that creates force in one direction ... it should be possible to take an existing force in one direction (gravity) and convert that back into a system of rotating masses!

But that system is going to need to employ that 'disconnect' method ...

[greendoor]

If i'm right, then the Bessler system was using the falling balls as the method to disconnect the masses from one inertial reference and to establish another. It seems to me that the system has to be continually striving to establish a new 'centre of gravity' that is higher than the previous one, in order for the 'existing force in one direction' (the downwards force of gravity) to provide the equal and opposite reaction.

This is why i'm thinking it's necessary to have a 'wheel within a wheel' system, where the centre of rotation is oscillating up and down ...

Or maybe i'm completely barking mad ...

[KAS]

Now, I find this post interesting. Why? because I have a personal interest. For the last few years I have been pre-occupied with researching ways to remove counter torque.
This may seem strange to some because whilst others are searching for additional energy, I have been trying to remove it.

But the only way to remove counter torque is to utilise it. It just wont go away by itself.

Therein lays the problem.

Imagine that our spaceman is swinging these two counter rotating weights - and simultaneously releases both bricks so the both fly outwards toward his rocket.

This would not happen in reality. Mass will not fly outwards from a rotating CF action. If released, they/it would fly tangentially in the direction of the rotation.

This is worth noting greendoor.

Kas

[F.Nepure]

Greendoor,
I like your chain of theoretical thinking!
Sounds similar to the Gyroscope reaction drives constructed by the late professor Eric Laithwaite. His thought experiments were similar, and he did develop this idea quite some way. Although how much success he achieved with it i do not know.

[DrWhat]

More great thoughts.

I have the feeling that you will be creating movement but not additional energy. Remember you have to get those masses swinging again each time you want to restart the process. Also the masses must be smaller than you (the spaceman) so the pull they have is limited and small. You also have no reference frame you are attached to so when you try to get those weights swinging you'll be wobbling all over the place and probably getting cramps in the process. Might be a funny sight!

Now this doesn't mean your idea is not relevant to a mechanism in the Bessler wheel.

It is important to find flaws in ideas so don't feel disheartened. It may be a simple application of an idea that yields the breakthrough.

[MrTim]

It's a shame that the Inertial Propulsion forums were deleted. That site had some great discussions and ideas that were really interesting. Sometimes I hate the internet for all of the good stuff that gets lost....