International Alternative Energy Center
International Alternative Energy Center
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?




 All Forums
 General Discussion
 General Discussions
 Inertia drive reserch.
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

TinMan
Advanced Member


4082 Posts

Posted - September 01 2014 :  08:26:54  Show Profile Send TinMan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
As there is no section for reactionless/inertia drives,i will just post it here in the general section.

So we all know there can be no such thing as an inertia drive,or a reactionless drive as some refer to them-as every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Well is this set in stone,or based around only test carried out at the time?. Is it just a matter of not putting things in the right order,or not using the right mass to achieve an unequal reaction.

I wonder if any one has thought about fluid flow's,and how they react when two flows of different velocities collide at right angle's. Over the last two weeks ,i have been playing with such a setup(as pictured below).

I have found that two jets of water colliding at right angles,has no effect on the nozzels which the water flows from,and has no effect on the pressure of the water flowing from the nozzles-no increase in pressure within the water delivery line's.

In the picture below,we can see a reading of 1.3kg's of thrust on the scale.The actual thrust from jet 1 is actually half that,as the scale is mounted mid point between the hinge and the jet. This gives us a two to one lever. What i find interesting is that,with or without the high pressure jet running,the pull force on the scale remains much the same-between 1.1kg's,and 1.3 kg's.It is also interesting that when we switch jet 2 on(the high pressure jet) we can get about 95% of the water from jet 1 to take a right hand turn,without it effecting the pull force on the scale.
Where has this equal and opposite force gone ?.

I am also in the process of building a simple little setup that will show how the equal and opposite force/torque of a motor can be made to do the same work as the force that created it.This effect is used today in a few machine's,but most would just pass it by,and pay no attention to it. This video i hope to have done and uploaded here by sunday 7-9-14, or as the USA put's it-9/7/14 !why do you guys go month day year??? lol.!



swim at 90 degrees to the current and gain speed in two directions

skype-thetinman.69

Google AdSense

USA
Mountain View


Jerry Volland
Junior Member



USA
76 Posts

Posted - January 07 2017 :  16:08:40  Show Profile Send Jerry Volland a Private Message  Reply with Quote
"So we all know there can be no such thing as an inertia drive,or a reactionless drive as some refer to them-as every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Well is this set in stone,or based around only test carried out at the time?. Is it just a matter of not putting things in the right order,or not using the right mass to achieve an unequal reaction."

It is a matter of not putting things in the right order. When the operation of an Inertial Drive is analyzed from the correct perspective, it can be seen that the term "reactionless drive" is a misnomer.

If you have a motor with a weighted spoke and the motor is fastened to a frame, Newton's First Law says that the weight on the end of the spoke will tend to move in a straight line unless something applies an action against it. This action is provided by the inertia of the mass which comprises the motor, the frame, and anything the frame is connected to. The reluctance of the action mass to change its velocity will pull the spoke's weight into a curving trajectory. Under Newton's Third Law, applying a force to the moving weight will also produce an equal but opposite reaction, AND this reaction force will be felt by the same mass which applies the action force. The motor's shaft pulls against the weight and the reaction force pulls against the motor's shaft. The Resultant Force, from Newton's Second Law, is felt by the mass of the spoke's weight. Centrifugal Force is felt at the shaft, not at the weight. Centrifugal Force is the reaction to Centripetal Force. With an Inertial Drive which is based on Centrifugal Force, thrust is the REACTION. This type of device should therefor be called a Reaction Machine, rather than a Reactionless Drive. An Inertial Drive does not in any way violate Newton's Laws or any other tenant of physics. It's just a matter of looking at it from the right perspective.

Javitar

-----

"Use your own free will or someone else will use it for you." - O'Sensei Steve Armstrong.

>>You don't have to go TO the edge to go past it.<<
Go to Top of Page

Jerry Volland
Junior Member



USA
76 Posts

Posted - February 05 2017 :  20:59:11  Show Profile Send Jerry Volland a Private Message  Reply with Quote
The successful operation of an Inertial Drive system doesn't violate the known Laws of science. Resultant movement in the same direction as an applied force certainly does not violate Newton's Law when the applied Centrifugal force is itself a reaction.

One common argument used by skeptics and Trolls is that a working Inertial Drive would violate the Conservation of Momentum Law. That law plainly states: "In a rotary system, Angular Momentum is always preserved, in the absence of external torque input". Anytime you turn the motor's speed up - at a desired point in the rotation - external torque is in fact being input. The increased rotational speed can then be reduced at any time, simply by inputting reverse external torque. I'll come back to this later, but my next post will deal with non-rotary systems, such as Tinman's idea.

_____
On the fringe of the fringe.
Go to Top of Page

Jerry Volland
Junior Member



USA
76 Posts

Posted - February 07 2017 :  22:30:24  Show Profile Send Jerry Volland a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Albert Einstein considered the concept of Inertial Propulsion and came up with the idea of placing a large tank of water on a flat bed railroad car. He said that a hole near the bottom of the tank would direct a powerful stream of water at a thick steel plate, also fastened to the car. Gravity's acceleration would cause the impact force against the plate to exceed the reverse force produced by the jet as it exited the tank, resulting in a net force which would move the car. However:

"When something changes direction it's previous motion disappears." - Doreal.
(edit: consider a plumb bob)

Gravity moving the water downwards will not accelerate it horizontally. (UNLESS the impact plate lies between the tank and the equator, due to the component of gravity which acts perpendicular to the earth's equatorial plane, at any distance.)

Einstein said this was the only system he could envision. So it seems our very own TinMan is smarter than Einstein, at least in this case. Einstein's system will not work inside a gravity shielding field, but TinMan's will.

The truth really is out here.

_____
On the fringe of the fringe.

Edited by - Jerry Volland on February 08 2017 01:25:15
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
International Alternative Energy Center © 2000-2009 ForumCo.com Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.17 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000
RSS Feed 1 RSS Feed 2
Powered by ForumCo 2000-2008
TOS - AUP - URA - Privacy Policy
ForumCo Free Blogs and Galleries
Signup for a free forum or Go Banner Free