Inertial impulse space drive

Yea... I really think you need to go back and relearn a couple principles...

Either its an isolated system or a system with external force, but you are trying to cut the boundaries on the system and pretend the boat and the water are not there, sorry, but they are. You can't just pretend something doesn't exist in physics.

Or you know, you could ask an astronaut, suspended in a perfect vacuum and ask them how far they got swinging their head back and forth on a spacewalk...

i know the "principles" and they need to be re-interpreted. this is not a violation of "Conservation of Linear Momentum", on the contrary, it reaffirms it as the boat moves because of it. you see, when you force your body to a sudden stop, moment must be conserved so it is transfered to the local system in this case the boat, so it moves.

this also applies to the astronauts in space, or any other object anywhere.

originally posted by: tachyonator7

originally posted by: WeAre0ne]My friend, that spring in that video contracted in the middle like I said. However, it appeared to contract from the top, down because of gravity.

that's an outright lie. you can clearly tell the "top" (being upside down) never moved an inch, whilt the rest of the spring collapased into it.

Now I believe you are just trolling.

You are completely ignoring gravity in the video. You are showing a video of a slinky (very weak spring) that can't even resist gravity on its own (which is why it is hanging down). When the guy lets go of the top of the slinky, the spring is actually contracting in the middle, however the bottom half of the spring is too weak to contract against gravity, and so only the top appears to be contracting downwards.

You also can't use the video in your example and just imagine it "being upside down" and call the bottom "the top", and then ignore gravity...

You can't be that foolish. So I believe you are trolling.

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

originally posted by: tachyonator7

originally posted by: WeAre0ne]My friend, that spring in that video contracted in the middle like I said. However, it appeared to contract from the top, down because of gravity.

that's an outright lie. you can clearly tell the "top" (being upside down) never moved an inch, whilt the rest of the spring collapased into it.

Now I believe you are just trolling.

You are completely ignoring gravity in the video. You are showing a video of a slinky (very weak spring) that can't even resist gravity on its own (which is why it is hanging down). When the guy lets go of the top of the slinky, the spring is actually contracting in the middle, however the bottom half of the spring is too weak to contract against gravity, and so only the top appears to be contracting downwards.

You also can't use the video in your example and just imagine it "being upside down" and call the bottom "the top", and then ignore gravity...

You can't be that foolish. So I believe you are trolling.

i believe you are when you claim springs contract in the middle not bottom > up, that sounds like trolling to me, or just utter and complete ignorance.

a reply to: tachyonator7

LOL... right. Answer this then...

If made a device that stretched out a spring horizontally, and I made the device release both ends of the spring at exactly the same moment in time. Which direction would the left side of the spring contract towards, and which direction would the right side of the spring contract towards?

originally posted by: tachyonator7

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

originally posted by: tachyonator7

originally posted by: WeAre0ne]My friend, that spring in that video contracted in the middle like I said. However, it appeared to contract from the top, down because of gravity.

that's an outright lie. you can clearly tell the "top" (being upside down) never moved an inch, whilt the rest of the spring collapased into it.

Now I believe you are just trolling.

You are completely ignoring gravity in the video. You are showing a video of a slinky (very weak spring) that can't even resist gravity on its own (which is why it is hanging down). When the guy lets go of the top of the slinky, the spring is actually contracting in the middle, however the bottom half of the spring is too weak to contract against gravity, and so only the top appears to be contracting downwards.

You also can't use the video in your example and just imagine it "being upside down" and call the bottom "the top", and then ignore gravity...

You can't be that foolish. So I believe you are trolling.

i believe you are when you claim springs contract in the middle not bottom > up, that sounds like trolling to me, or just utter and complete ignorance.

Wait, so what is your plan for an engine? A billion tubes with springs cocked and they all go off one after the other? Fraid to say, it aint gonna work...

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
a reply to: tachyonator7
LOL... right. Answer this then...

If made a device that stretched out a spring horizontally, and I made the device release both ends of the spring at exactly the same moment in time. Which direction would the left side of the spring contract towards, and which direction would the right side of the spring contract towards?

LOOL, that's ridiculous. if you stretch the spring and releease the BOTH ends at the same time of course it would collapse in the middle as both ends contract relative to the point they were streched against. that just proves my point, when you release the spring normally, from one end, it will collapse to the oppsite side, NOT the middle.

originally posted by: boncho

originally posted by: tachyonator7

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

originally posted by: tachyonator7

originally posted by: WeAre0ne]My friend, that spring in that video contracted in the middle like I said. However, it appeared to contract from the top, down because of gravity.

that's an outright lie. you can clearly tell the "top" (being upside down) never moved an inch, whilt the rest of the spring collapased into it.

Now I believe you are just trolling.

You are completely ignoring gravity in the video. You are showing a video of a slinky (very weak spring) that can't even resist gravity on its own (which is why it is hanging down). When the guy lets go of the top of the slinky, the spring is actually contracting in the middle, however the bottom half of the spring is too weak to contract against gravity, and so only the top appears to be contracting downwards.

You also can't use the video in your example and just imagine it "being upside down" and call the bottom "the top", and then ignore gravity...

You can't be that foolish. So I believe you are trolling.

i believe you are when you claim springs contract in the middle not bottom > up, that sounds like trolling to me, or just utter and complete ignorance.

Wait, so what is your plan for an engine? A billion tubes with springs cocked and they all go off one after the other? Fraid to say, it aint gonna work...

no, they would go off in pairs as otherwise the craft would change direction all the time unless springs are all in the same line.

*** ATTENTION ALL ***

Can we please tone down the aggression and stop playing "mine is bigger than yours" whilst we're at it.

Thank you.

don't actually care how it works although I can see it, I just hope it will be OK and we can look forward to travelling further afield.

Its when science is stuck in certain beliefs that suddenly get disproved and the after the old has caught up with the new we move on.

originally posted by: tachyonator7
LOOL, that's ridiculous. if you stretch the spring and releease the BOTH ends at the same time of course it would collapse in the middle as both ends contract relative to the point they were streched against.

Thank you for proving my point...

When your device is in mid-air, and you release the bottom side of the spring, there is nothing holding the top side of the spring, so you are effectively releasing both sides of the spring at the same time. The spring will contract inwards on itself. Your device will neither go up nor down.

However, when your device is on the ground, and you release the bottom side of the spring, the top side of the spring is being held by the top of the outer tube, which is pushing down the sides of the tube, down on the ground. So your device will lift off the ground, but that's about it.

originally posted by: tachyonator7
that just proves my point, when you release the spring normally, from one end, it will collapse to the oppsite side, NOT the middle.

Wrong. It proves you wrong.

A spring will always contract (collapse) in the middle. Even if you release only one side, it is still contracting in the middle, except one side is fixed in place so you don't see the other side move inward. If the side that is not released is not fixed in place, it will move inward.

Again... refer to my nifty graphic I made on page 2. You should understand.

Thank you for proving my point...

When your device is in mid-air, and you release the bottom side of the spring, there is nothing holding the top side of the spring, so you are effectively releasing both sides of the spring at the same time. The spring will contract inwards on itself. Your device will neither go up nor down.

LOOOL, i DISproved you time and time again. you are being confused. when both sides are released at the same time both sides contract towards the opposite end, NOT the middle. when device is in the air and the bottom of the spring is released it's NOT like you are "releasing both sides of the spring at the same time", you are releasing the spring relative to the opposite side, against witch it was stretched, therefor it will NOT "contract inwards on itself", that's plain ridiculous.

However, when your device is on the ground, and you release the bottom side of the spring, the top side of the spring is being held by the top of the outer tube, which is pushing down the sides of the tube, down on the ground. So your device will lift off the ground, but that's about it.

totally wrong and already disproved. spring is ALWAYS being stretched relative to the top of the tube, NOT the ground, so stretching the tube does NOT make the tube heavier. that's plain absurd and easy to prove.

Wrong. It proves you wrong.

A spring will always contract (collapse) in the middle. Even if you release only one side, it is still contracting in the middle, except one side is fixed in place so you don't see the other side move inward. If that one side that was not released is not fixed in place, it will move inward.

Again... refer to my nifty graphic I made on page 2. You should understand.

you are totally wrong and deluded. by repeating that false claim, you're just mocking yourself. spring will NEVER contract in the middle when released from one side, it will always contract like it does, BOTTOM > UP. your graphic is complete nonsense based on a false premise.

a reply to: tachyonator7

The only thing you have disproved is the notion that you know what you are talking about. You are misunderstanding basic physics, and interpreting some of my words wrong as well.

Lets try again...

Imagine you have one of your tubes with a stretched out spring in the middle floating in zero gravity in a vacuum. As pictured below:



You should agree that there are 2 forces involved. The spring is trying to contract inwards towards the center. That means force 1 is pulling to the right, and force 2 is pulling to the left.

Now answer this...

If we released the left side of the spring (force 1). What would happen to force 2? Where would force 2 go?

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
a reply to: tachyonator7

The only thing you have disproved is the notion that you know what you are talking about. You are misunderstanding basic physics, and interpreting some of my words wrong as well.

Lets try again...

Imagine you have one of your tubes with a stretched out spring in the middle floating in zero gravity in a vacuum. As pictured below:

You should agree that there are 2 forces involved. The spring is trying to contract inwards towards the center. That means force 1 is pulling to the right, and force 2 is pulling to the left.

Now answer this...

If we released the left side of the spring (force 1). What would happen to force 2? Where would force 2 go?

you clearly lack any understanding of basic laws of physics and you don't know what you are rambling about. i explained why you are totally wrong, but you persist in your delusion. let me quote you:

when your device is on the ground, and you release the bottom side of the spring, the top side of the spring is being held by the top of the outer tube, which is pushing down the sides of the tube, down on the ground.

nothing is pushing down on the ground, if that was the case, placed on the scale, tube would increase in weight before it jumps, which is not the case.

there is NO force 1 and force 2, two opposing forces exist only when both ends are released at the same time.

there is just a elastic-potential energy in the spring taut between two hooks. when ONE of the sides is released the elastic-potential energy in the spring will act as a force in a given direction, contracting towards the opposite end and tranfering it's kinetic energy to the tube, makeing it move.

so, both your claims are wrong. to summerize:

1. tube doesn't get heavier before it jumps
2. when bottom of the spring is released, there is only one unidirectional force

a reply to: tachyonator7

there is NO force 1 and force 2, two opposing forces exist only when both ends are released at the same time.

That statement is so wrong that this thread has to be a troll job.

The end.

That statement is so wrong that this thread has to be a troll job.

The end.

you misunderstood, spring is pulling both sides, but it is NOT "trying to contract inwards towards the center", both sides are trying to contract toward the opposing end. spring would contract in the middle only if both ends were released at the same time, which is not the case here, as only one side is being released.

If springs did not impart force,a catapult would be impossible.

a reply to: tachyonator7


I've read this whole discussion from end to end and I have to ask a few questions.

Do you honestly believe that you've come up with something that hundreds of highly trained physicists specializing in propulsion systems have somehow overlooked?

Have you built a model? Have you tested it? Have you collected data to show what type of impulse you're getting from the system?

originally posted by: N3k9Ni
a reply to: tachyonator7

I've read this whole discussion from end to end and I have to ask a few questions.

no problem

Do you honestly believe that you've come up with something that hundreds of highly trained physicists specializing in propulsion systems have somehow overlooked?

let me answer rhetorically. do you honestly belive that mainstream science is transparent and uncontrolled?..and that you are allowed to invent whatever you want.

Have you built a model? Have you tested it? Have you collected data to show what type of impulse you're getting from the system?

i experimented with a single spring model for now and also another person built it and verified it. you can do it to, and i indeed welcome you to do it.

Interesting concept, may work.
Some engineering hurdles will be there to actually get a large space craft with this drive built into it.
a reply to: tachyonator7

a reply to: Bedlam

Actually, unless you're running a spinnaker straight downwind, a sailboat sails using aerodynamic lift: lower pressure over the curved part, creating suction. When combined with the force from the keel in the water, you go where you want.

It's not a surprise that modern high-performance sailboats have a main sail which looks like a low-speed aeroplane wing standing up.

Older boats like that in the picture above are significantly less optimal, especially for sailing upwind, but they were limited by strength of materials (mast strength and the huge force downward on the hull on the bottom of the mast) from building a very tall mast which is what you really want.