Inertial impulse space drive

A spring exerts the same amount of force on either end, please tell us when a person can push themselves with a human hair in space, how equal and opposing force is going to move anything anywhere?

true, in basic design, it would need two engines stretching and releasing two pairs of strings periodically. smallers the intervals between firing of the strings, smoother would be the acceleration.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
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

originally posted by: tachyonator7
true, in basic design, it would need two engines stretching and releasing two pairs of strings periodically. smallers the intervals between firing of the strings, smoother would be the acceleration.

With either option...the acceleration would be so smooth, you wouldn't even feel it...

I think the OP is suffering from the same thing many of us here suffer from. There's a tendency to have an overinflated sense of understanding when you just start to scratch at the surface of something. The problem is to really understand science requires so much more time and intelligence than most of us have available in our short lives. Real science is exhausting.

It's just like how a child entering life will say things like "I'll never have kids!" or "If I was principal, recess would be longer!" We all think we know what's best for the world even as we're just toddlers. I think the same thing happens when we blame everything on our president or our miltary leaders, and so on. We think we could do a better job or that the job is so easy, but we really have no idea.

There're more people who think they know yet don't than people who do. ATS is a prime example of this. It's a BS hot spot.

I think in some sense, democracy or even republics face the danger of having the under educated general public having too much sway as opposed to giving more of the sway to the highly educated or the experts in the given fields. Of course, if all the sway is given to the experts then the under educated won't likely be represented fairly and there's always hte possiblity the ruling elite will become tyrranical or are actually wrong.

About 50% of the congressman and woman are millionaires. Yet only about 8% of the general population are millionaires. So our republic isn't fully representative of its population. These congress members are fairly well educated though.

Here's an interesting article:
www.livescience.com - Democracy May Depend on the Ignorant...

The linked article just covers some research about travel decisions of fish in a group. It may or may not have much relation to all this. But what it shows is having an ignorant portion in the group gives more sway to the majority, indicating whne hte fish are not trained (or are ignorant) they go with the majority instictively.

funny your location is "corporate shillquarters". read the thread, you missed all the key points. when one side of the spring is released, there is only one force at work, contracting it towards the opposite end, smashing it to the inner wall of the tube and transfering that kinetic energy to the tube making it move. it's has nothing to do with human hair, it's a simple transfer of inertia.

originally posted by: boncho
A spring exerts the same amount of force on either end, please tell us when a person can push themselves with a human hair in space, how equal and opposing force is going to move anything anywhere?

did i ever claim to know all the principles behind the phenomena? i am just claiming the phenomena is real and that's a fact. beyond that, i hope it will be in our joined efforts to research the science behind it, so we can better understand it and envision it's possible applications.

originally posted by: jonnywhiteI think the OP is suffering from the same thing many of us here suffer from. There's a tendency to have an overinflated sense of understanding when you just start to scratch at the surface of something...

originally posted by: tachyonator7
funny your location is "corporate shillquarters". read the thread, you missed all the key points. when one side of the spring is released, there is only one force at work, contracting it towards the opposite end, smashing it to the inner wall of the tube and transfering that kinetic energy to the tube making it move. it's has nothing to do with human hair, it's a simple transfer of inertia.

originally posted by: boncho
A spring exerts the same amount of force on either end, please tell us when a person can push themselves with a human hair in space, how equal and opposing force is going to move anything anywhere?

I believe I said earlier you are ignoring the entire system and only taking into consideration what you want to.

Answer this... How do you load the springs?

a reply to: boncho

Yoke and tackle...to unicorns.

believe I said earlier you are ignoring the entire system and only taking into consideration what you want to.
Answer this... How do you load the springs?

i'm not ignoring anything, you are. it is irrelevant how spring is loaded, manually or by a motor. the point is when fired, it makes the tube blast off like a bullet. this is the law of physics, law of nature.

originally posted by: tachyonator7

believe I said earlier you are ignoring the entire system and only taking into consideration what you want to.
Answer this... How do you load the springs?

i'm not ignoring anything, you are. it is irrelevant how spring is loaded, manually or by a motor. the point is when fired, it makes the tube blast off like a bullet. this is the law of physics, law of nature.

Here's a good point. So it's like a bullet right? Is it something like this?

By the by... Springs in space:

We should really address the thing that started it all though, the idea you have about moving the boat by leaning forward:



If everything were frictionless, or in an environment like space, you couldn't move the boat at all. It's just that there is some friction with the boat against the water, and it makes it able for you to inch it forward a bit. (If it even did or you just perceived as such).

It's kinda like if you take a rug, or fowl you can move your body in a way to push it forward. Not really a good space propulsion system though....

originally posted by: tachyonator7
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:

Riiiiiight. Suuuuure.

originally posted by: tachyonator7

originally posted by: WeAre0ne 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.

The entire weight of the tube and spring is pushing down on the ground... that is all I was talking about....

I didn't say anything about increasing weight before it jumps, because the mass of the entire object doesn't change. You clearly misunderstood what I was trying to say, in layman's terms none-the-less.

Again...

When your device is on the ground, and you release the bottom of the spring, the spring tries to contract inwards towards its center. The bottom half is contracting upwards, and the top half is trying to contract downwards. However the top part of the spring can't move downwards because it is fixed in place by the top and sides of the tube, which are held up in place by the ground.

originally posted by: tachyonator7
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.

Completely wrong.



A spring always tries to contract towards its center. There are two forces. Force 1 (green arrow) and Force 2 (blue arrow). The only reason the center point (red line) of the spring moves to the right is because force 2 (blue arrow) is contracting inwards, and because the right side is fixed in place. If the right side of the spring wasn't fixed in place, the red line would not move. If force 2 didn't exist, only half the spring would contract (force 1) and the red line would not move. Some springs are even designed to have a greater force 1 (green arrow) and lesser force 2 (blue arrow). Did you know that?

The hooks on each side of the spring want to reach the center of the spring (red line). If the above device was in zero gravity, in a vacuum, and you released the left hook; Both the left hook and right hook will try to reach the center of the spring (much like releasing both sides at the same time).

Force 1 (green arrow) will be combined with the weight of the spring to form kinetic energy in one direction, and force 2 (blue arrow) is combined with the weight of the tube to form kinetic energy in the opposite direction. They both cancel each other out.

originally posted by: tachyonator7
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

1: I never claimed it got heavier. The mass of the tube and spring doesn't change.
2: Simply no.

originally posted by: bonchoHere's a good point. So it's like a bullet right? Is it something like this?

by which twisted logic? shooting a bullet imparts a backward momentum on you, that is, on the boat, so there is no net movement. you again showed you completely misunderstood the concept.

By the by... Springs in space:

irrelevant example. there is no weight on a spring, so backward impulse is negligible while virtually all of the spring's potential energy is transfered into movement of the system.

originally posted by: boncho
We should really address the thing that started it all though, the idea you have about moving the boat by leaning forward:

If everything were frictionless, or in an environment like space, you couldn't move the boat at all. It's just that there is some friction with the boat against the water, and it makes it able for you to inch it forward a bit. (If it even did or you just perceived as such).

It's kinda like if you take a rug, or fowl you can move your body in a way to push it forward. Not really a good space propulsion system though....

again, no. it's not that you can "inch it forward a bit" due to "friction", by jerking forward and coming to a sudden stop, you can make it move a lot, like few meters at a time, not an inch or two, independent of the fricition which only slows you down. if boat was suspended on a magnetic field, it would move even farther.

a reply to: tachyonator7

You realize this is done to death by first year physics students all over the world right? That this is not anything new, that you have nothing here that is novel in any way shape or form? Also, it doesn't work the way you claim it does











Sorry hub!

a reply to: boncho

sorry "hub", but it does.

Riiiiiight. Suuuuure.

you show it with your claims.

The entire weight of the tube and spring is pushing down on the ground... that is all I was talking about....

you can't have it both ways compadre. let me quote you: "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".

you clearly say when spring is fired tube is pushing aginst the ground which resists the "downward force" so it jumps up. if there is a "downward force" tube will necessarily appear heaveir, which it doesn't.

I didn't say anything about increasing weight before it jumps, because the mass of the entire object doesn't change. You clearly misunderstood what I was trying to say, in layman's terms none-the-less.

Again...

When your device is on the ground, and you release the bottom of the spring, the spring tries to contract inwards towards its center. The bottom half is contracting upwards, and the top half is trying to contract downwards. However the top part of the spring can't move downwards because it is fixed in place by the top and sides of the tube, which are held up in place by the ground.

yes you did, if it pushes against the ground in order to jump, it HAS TO appear heavier and that is not the case.

Completely wrong.

A spring always tries to contract towards its center. There are two forces. Force 1 (green arrow) and Force 2 (blue arrow). The only reason the center point (red line) of the spring moves to the right is because force 2 (blue arrow) is contracting inwards, and because the right side is fixed in place. If the right side of the spring wasn't fixed in place, the red line would not move. If force 2 didn't exist, only half the spring would contract (force 1) and the red line would not move. Some springs are even designed to have a greater force 1 (green arrow) and lesser force 2 (blue arrow). Did you know that?

The hooks on each side of the spring want to reach the center of the spring (red line). If the above device was in zero gravity, in a vacuum, and you released the left hook; Both the left hook and right hook will try to reach the center of the spring (much like releasing both sides at the same time).

Force 1 (green arrow) will be combined with the weight of the spring to form kinetic energy in one direction, and force 2 (blue arrow) is combined with the weight of the tube to form kinetic energy in the opposite direction. They both cancel each other out.

springs contract toward the opposite end, not the center. what do you imagine force 2 is acting against? force 2 exists only while the left side is attached. after one side is released, whole elastic-energy potential is transfered into a kinetic energy of the spring towards the opposite end. so nothing canceles and you are completely wrong.

furthermore, let's put the tube on the wheels. when spring is fired, does the tube oscillate back n forth or it moves in one direction without backward motion at all? it moves in one direction, of course.

1: I never claimed it got heavier. The mass of the tube and spring doesn't change.
2: Simply no.

1. yes you did
2. yes indeed

don't be lazy, find a spring and do the expriment. could it be simpler and easier to do? nope.

a reply to: tachyonator7

you show it with your claims.

We already did. With this post. Is there something wrong with the math? Because the math proves you are wrong.

Link to the problem in mathematical terms.

I assure you this has been done, replicated and tested thousands of times over and it is correct.

Mass on a Spring

Consider a compact mass m that slides over a frictionless horizontal surface. Suppose that the mass is attached to one end of a light horizontal spring whose other end is anchored in an immovable wall. (See Figure 1.) At time

be the extension of the spring: that is, the difference between the spring's actual length and its unstretched length.

can also be used as a coordinate to determine the instantaneous horizontal displacement of the mass.

The equilibrium state of the system corresponds to the situation in which the mass is at rest, and the spring is unextended (

). In this state, zero horizontal force acts on the mass, and so there is no reason for it to start to move. However, if the system is perturbed from its equilibrium state (i.e., if the mass is displaced sideways, such that the spring becomes extended) then the mass experiences a horizontal force given by Hooke's law,

Newton's second law of motion leads to the following time evolution equation for the system

, where

This differential equation is known as the simple harmonic oscillator equation, and its solution has been known for centuries.

...
...
...
...
...
...


As we have seen, when a mass on a spring is disturbed it executes simple harmonic oscillation about its equilibrium position. In physical terms, if the mass's initial displacement is positive ( x > 0 ) then the restoring force is negative, and pulls the mass toward the equilibrium point ( x = 0 ) However, when the mass reaches this point it is moving, and its inertia thus carries it onward, so that it acquires a negative displacement ( x < 0 ) The restoring force then becomes positive, and pulls the mass toward the equilibrium point. However, inertia again carries it past this point, and the mass acquires a positive displacement. The motion subsequently repeats itself ad infinitum. The angular frequency of the oscillation is determined by the spring constant, k , and the system inertia, m.

There you have it! Like you said, the "inertial impulse spacial drive", you really had no clue as to how correct you were about the title.

This effect is the reason astronauts can weigh themselves in space. They weigh by the oscillations of springs, (as I posted before in a video for you). All of this stuff is tied together by the same phenomena, and it all makes up a larger body of study of springs, which people have studied for centuries, but for some reason, because you lack any understanding you are on this forum telling everyone they are wrong, and so is hundreds of years of empirical backed research, mathematics and calculations.... all wrong, because you say so! on a whim no less.

sorry "hub", but it does.

Meant to say "bub", blasted autocorrect.

springs contract toward the opposite end, not the center. what do you imagine force 2 is acting against?

They contract to the centre (equilibrium point) and inertia carries it past, which makes it go back the other way, and again, and again and again left to right, right to left, this is expressed at the top of the post, there is absolutely no refuting this point. 'WeAreOne' is right, you are wrong.