Greetings all,
Here's something that's been puzzling me for a while :
Would a functioning reactionless drive (the holy grail of Henry Bull, Eric Laithwaite & others) constitute PM?
Presumably it requires an input of energy to generate it's uni-directional impulses. But it is of course breaking Newton's third law.
If this were possible, then one assumes that the energy required to generate motion and overcome inertia would still fit within the first law of thermodynamics.
But if such a reactionless device was operating in a circular motion, surely weights could be lifted of moved without the dreaded reaction that stops all PM designs from turning of their own accord.
Any thoughts on this?
Presumably if you'd broken Newton's third law then this might embolden you to also break the first law of thermodynamics?
Frank
PS Has anyone seen my laptop? It was a shiny black Hewlett Packard, stolen from the Bordeaux area of France last winter. And it had countless designs for non-working wheels on it... (sentimental value of course)
PM & reactionless drive
Moderator: scott
Hi F.Nepure - I agree with you. I believe that a reactionless space drive is the exact same as a gravity PM wheel, simply used in reverse. As an electric motor is to a generator; as a hydraulic pump is to a hydraulic motor; as a fan is to a windmill; etc, etc.
If you analyse any motion engine, we are basically creating force in order to accelerate a mass. Motion itself doesn't require energy to sustain - but due friction losses and work done, we need to constantly accelerate a mass simply to keep it at a constant velocity. Force creates acceleration. So if we consider electric motors, hydraulic pumps, fans, internal combustion engines etc, we are consuming Energy simply to create the necessary Force with which to accelerate the mass.
It should not take much lateral thinking to see that if we have a constant supply of Force, we have the ability to constantly accelerate a mass. Gravity is - for practical purposes - a constant supply of Force. Unlike a wound up spring, which depletes in energy as we use it. Of course, we are hoodwinked into believing that we can only take Force from gravity via a falling mass, which eventually hits rock bottom and runs out of Time. A Bessler wheel is effectively a falling mass system that never hits rock bottom. The force of gravity acting on at least some of the mass in that system is no longer able to stress Planet Earth to it's core, because the Force of gravity is being used to cause Acceleration ...
If you could create a reactionless space drive, you could input Energy to create a unidirectional Force.
If you had a Bessler wheel, you could use a unidirectional Force to output Energy.
Same thing in my book. Which is why I think that the search for a Reactionless Space Drive is a very valid approach to finding the Bessler solution. Both would violate the status quo physics 'laws' as commonly understood. But laws are made to be broken.
If you analyse any motion engine, we are basically creating force in order to accelerate a mass. Motion itself doesn't require energy to sustain - but due friction losses and work done, we need to constantly accelerate a mass simply to keep it at a constant velocity. Force creates acceleration. So if we consider electric motors, hydraulic pumps, fans, internal combustion engines etc, we are consuming Energy simply to create the necessary Force with which to accelerate the mass.
It should not take much lateral thinking to see that if we have a constant supply of Force, we have the ability to constantly accelerate a mass. Gravity is - for practical purposes - a constant supply of Force. Unlike a wound up spring, which depletes in energy as we use it. Of course, we are hoodwinked into believing that we can only take Force from gravity via a falling mass, which eventually hits rock bottom and runs out of Time. A Bessler wheel is effectively a falling mass system that never hits rock bottom. The force of gravity acting on at least some of the mass in that system is no longer able to stress Planet Earth to it's core, because the Force of gravity is being used to cause Acceleration ...
If you could create a reactionless space drive, you could input Energy to create a unidirectional Force.
If you had a Bessler wheel, you could use a unidirectional Force to output Energy.
Same thing in my book. Which is why I think that the search for a Reactionless Space Drive is a very valid approach to finding the Bessler solution. Both would violate the status quo physics 'laws' as commonly understood. But laws are made to be broken.
re: PM & reactionless drive
I seem to remember someone here (greendoor?) contemplating the thought-experiment on whirling bricks on lengths of string in space some time ago.
The question being: if you gave a free-floating astronaut one or two lengths of string attached to bricks, is there any way he (or she) could whirl these masses in a motion that would generate uni-directional force? Newton thought not.
Who else agrees that solving this would essentially be the same as solving PM?
Eric Laithwaite devoted years to developing his reactionless drive, which he believed in (if no-one else did) :
"So now I myself have demonstrated that I've been correct all along. Anyone seeing the experiments would know at once, if they knew their physics, that I've done what I said I could do, and that I'm no longer a heretic."
And it was all based around his observations of a childs spinning top:
"Tops are certainly fascinating. They fascinated the Victorians and the Edwardians after them, and many a Newtonian treatise has been written about their motion. They are used with great precision in gyroscopes in ships, submarines, aeroplanes and rockets, so there must be some understanding of their motion. But Laithwaite contended that the familiar precessing top that can be bought in the toyshop, being of a different design (not supported through its center of gravity), is not properly described by Newton’s laws of motion.
He drew the curtain covering the blackboard to reveal a modification of Newton’s second law (in an inertial frame) that bears the same relation to the usual equation as does the equation for the voltage on a resistance, capacitance and inductance to Ohm’s law.
In practical terms he had four main contentions about gyroscopic precession. First, he believes that the angular momentum of precession (about a vertical axis) is created out of nothing, so that angular momentum is not conserved about that axis in direct contradiction of Newton’s mechanics; second, he believes the precession is not accompanied by any centrifugal force (the force you feel if you swing a bucket around in the garden); third, he contended that it requires no force to stop the precession; and fourth that if the precession is speeded up, the tops (which certainly rise) do so without there being any consequent downward reaction"
[from New Scientist 1974]
The question being: if you gave a free-floating astronaut one or two lengths of string attached to bricks, is there any way he (or she) could whirl these masses in a motion that would generate uni-directional force? Newton thought not.
Who else agrees that solving this would essentially be the same as solving PM?
Eric Laithwaite devoted years to developing his reactionless drive, which he believed in (if no-one else did) :
"So now I myself have demonstrated that I've been correct all along. Anyone seeing the experiments would know at once, if they knew their physics, that I've done what I said I could do, and that I'm no longer a heretic."
And it was all based around his observations of a childs spinning top:
"Tops are certainly fascinating. They fascinated the Victorians and the Edwardians after them, and many a Newtonian treatise has been written about their motion. They are used with great precision in gyroscopes in ships, submarines, aeroplanes and rockets, so there must be some understanding of their motion. But Laithwaite contended that the familiar precessing top that can be bought in the toyshop, being of a different design (not supported through its center of gravity), is not properly described by Newton’s laws of motion.
He drew the curtain covering the blackboard to reveal a modification of Newton’s second law (in an inertial frame) that bears the same relation to the usual equation as does the equation for the voltage on a resistance, capacitance and inductance to Ohm’s law.
In practical terms he had four main contentions about gyroscopic precession. First, he believes that the angular momentum of precession (about a vertical axis) is created out of nothing, so that angular momentum is not conserved about that axis in direct contradiction of Newton’s mechanics; second, he believes the precession is not accompanied by any centrifugal force (the force you feel if you swing a bucket around in the garden); third, he contended that it requires no force to stop the precession; and fourth that if the precession is speeded up, the tops (which certainly rise) do so without there being any consequent downward reaction"
[from New Scientist 1974]
Far be if from me to denigrate Professor Eric Laithwaite's contribution to science but in fairness to the truth one must read that extract Frank Nepure quoted in context, viz,
http://merlib.org/node/6194
Frank Grimer
http://merlib.org/node/6194
Frank Grimer
re: PM & reactionless drive
I do believe this would OverUnity.
If you have an object with a constant acceleration consuming a constant energy. At some point the object will have separated itself from Earth gaining enough potential energy + the kinetic energy that the two combined would eventually exceed the energy consumed.
For example: Assuming you can have about 400N acting on 20kg, assuming a 400Watt rate of power consumption ( you can go up or down with power consumption, but it just changes your break-even point). Rounding off gravity 10m/s^2 giving us 200N. We end up with an equal counter-force of 200N. So this would be much like falling on Earth only you would go up instead of down. Let us do this for 10 seconds. Let us also start from rest, and assume no air friction.
Force=200N
mass=20kg
____F=ma, a=F/m
acceleration=10m/s^2
time=10 seconds
____d=at^2/2
distance=500m
____v=(2ad)^.5, v=sqrt(2ad), v=at
velocity=100m/s
____E=mv^2/2=mad
Kinetic Energy =100000 joules
Potential Energy=100000 joules (coincidentally they are equal)
Total Energy =200000 joules = 200kj.
____W=j/s, j=Ws
Consumed Energy=4000 joules
In this case we have 50X more energy coming out than we have going in.
If you have an object with a constant acceleration consuming a constant energy. At some point the object will have separated itself from Earth gaining enough potential energy + the kinetic energy that the two combined would eventually exceed the energy consumed.
For example: Assuming you can have about 400N acting on 20kg, assuming a 400Watt rate of power consumption ( you can go up or down with power consumption, but it just changes your break-even point). Rounding off gravity 10m/s^2 giving us 200N. We end up with an equal counter-force of 200N. So this would be much like falling on Earth only you would go up instead of down. Let us do this for 10 seconds. Let us also start from rest, and assume no air friction.
Force=200N
mass=20kg
____F=ma, a=F/m
acceleration=10m/s^2
time=10 seconds
____d=at^2/2
distance=500m
____v=(2ad)^.5, v=sqrt(2ad), v=at
velocity=100m/s
____E=mv^2/2=mad
Kinetic Energy =100000 joules
Potential Energy=100000 joules (coincidentally they are equal)
Total Energy =200000 joules = 200kj.
____W=j/s, j=Ws
Consumed Energy=4000 joules
In this case we have 50X more energy coming out than we have going in.
I came here to chew some bubble gum, and kick some ass.....and I'm all out of bubble gum.