Inertial impulse space drive

LOOL, what a pearl!. here, i'll go very slow, so you may catch up. read carefully so you don't get confused again.

you claim there is a downward force (from the top of a spring contracting) which is CANCELED OUT by the ground, but you somehow imagine this force CANCELED OUT by the ground doesn't excert force on the ground pushing against it. LOL, i am laughing writing this..

further you claim, once the tube is in the air, this same force now magically does create downward movement of the tube, the same force that didn't push downward a moment before.

tell me you are trolling, cause this is beyond stupid, not only you have no idea what you are talking about, this is pure insult to intelligence anywhere, anywhen.

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
You still don't understand... Holy @#$%!

The downward force that prevents the tube from jumping once it is already in the air is the force provided by the downward movement of the tube. That force does not exist when the device is on the ground, because the tube can not move downward, it is resting on the ground!

How do you not understand this?

You didn't simplify or break down anything. You can't simplify or break down something you don't understand.

Folks, this is what happens when people believe that our predecessors are dumb, old relics, to be thrown to the wayside, not the foundation upon which to further our knowledge.

To overcome the resistive force of solid ground, you would require a spring which would produce a stronger force.

Now you will have a tube/spring that will hop and leave an indent in the ground.

Still won't propel you through space, though.

I will attempt to show you where you are misunderstanding, one more time.

originally posted by: tachyonator7
you claim there is a downward force (from the top of a spring contracting) which is CANCELED OUT by the ground, but you somehow imagine this force CANCELED OUT by the ground doesn't excert force on the ground pushing against it. LOL, i am laughing writing this..

It doesn't exert any EXTRA force. They key word here is EXTRA. Why do you keep ignoring that word? There is already a downward force being exerted on the ground when it is stationary (action force), and an equal and opposite upward force (reaction force). Watch this video here at 1:46 to understand that.

When the spring is released, the top half of the spring has a contracting force that wants to pull down the tube. When on the ground, it can't pull down the tube because the tube is resting on the ground experiencing the action and reaction force from the ground. So instead of pulling down the tube, that contracting force from the spring pulls the center of the spring upward. The contracting force of the spring is not canceled... if it was, the spring would not fully contract. The force that is canceled is the force that would be present if the tube was able to move... inertia.

originally posted by: tachyonator7
further you claim, once the tube is in the air, this same force now magically does create downward movement of the tube, the same force that didn't push downward a moment before.

When in the air, the downward contracting force of the spring can move the tube down because its not stopped by the ground. So when the tube is moving downward, inertia is present. That downward inertia cancels out any upward force from the spring, causing the device to not move at all, because the two up and down forces cancel each other out. They are equal and opposite.

originally posted by: tachyonator7
tell me you are trolling, cause this is beyond stupid, not only you have no idea what you are talking about, this is pure insult to intelligence anywhere, anywhen.

I agree that this is beyond stupid... I have explained the same thing more than 5 times and you still don't understand, and that is causing you to project your own lack of understanding onto others.

you didn't understand anything i said, and now you got even more confused in your claims.

It doesn't exert any EXTRA force. They key word here is EXTRA. Why do you keep ignoring that word? There is already a downward force being exerted on the ground when it is stationary (action force), and an equal and opposite upward force (reaction force). Watch this video here at 1:46 to understand that.

the weight of the tube is one thing, the downward force from contracting of the top of the spring is EXTRA force. two are NOT the same.

IWhen the spring is released, the top half of the spring has a contracting force that wants to pull down the tube. When on the ground, it can't pull down the tube because the tube is resting on the ground experiencing the action and reaction force from the ground. So instead of pulling down the tube, that contracting force from the spring pulls the center of the spring upward. The contracting force of the spring is not canceled... if it was, the spring would not fully contract. The force that is canceled is the force that would be present if the tube was able to move... inertia.

"So instead of pulling down the tube, that contracting force from the spring pulls the center of the spring upward.". this is completely wrong. the force from the contracting of the top of the spring would excert PRESSURE (EXTRA force) against the ground as long as tube is in contact with the ground, in no way would it be redirected upwards. downward pressure is transfered to the ground over nonelastic tube, so upper part of the spring pulling the tube down can never "pull the center of the spring upward". in other words, this downward force would necessarily act as a continous pressure.

When in the air, the downward contracting force of the spring can move the tube down because its not stopped by the ground. So when the tube is moving downward, inertia is present. That downward inertia cancels out any upward force from the spring, causing the device to not move at all, because the two up and down forces cancel each other out. They are equal and opposite.

again, wrong as ever. there is no downward force (or it is infinitesimally small), so tube would jump in the mid-air exactly the same as off the ground. once again, if there was a downward force, it would excert the pressure on the ground. (don't make stuff up to fit your "theory")

originally posted by: tachyonator7I agree that this is beyond stupid... I have explained the same thing more than 5 times and you still don't understand, and that is causing you to project your own lack of understanding onto others.

you ain't explained nothing, you just immersed yourself in more confusing contradictions out of utter ignorance of the laws of physics.

originally posted by: tachyonator7
furthermore, let's put the tube on the wheels. ... it moves in one direction, of course.

tachyonator7,

I did an experiment for you.



It will never work because of Newton's 3rd Law.

Regards,
NAVSEA

tachyonator's concept may be feasible in space in a feed forward mode.
a reply to: NAVSEA

The way forward is for us to learn how to interact with Space and gravity, such as find a cheap way to create enough Photons and you could bend space in front or in back of your craft in space for propulsion. Or possibly find a way to cheaply focus enough energy (Mass) to create a gravity well in front of your craft enough to pull it slightly while keeping the well projected well in front of your craft as it moves toward it, or maybe there is an exotic forum of energy we could use cheaply.

Maybe find a way to use the Strong force by neutron and proton flooding of sorts.

you called that an experiment? cart didn't move at all.

originally posted by: NAVSEAI did an experiment for you.

It will never work because of Newton's 3rd Law.

Regards,
NAVSEA

a reply to: tachyonator7
It was a better experiment of your hypothesis than what you provided.

Your claim:

A stressed spring, contained inside a fixed structure, will propel said fixed structure, in the direction of the spring, upon the release of one end of the spring.

NAVSEA's experiment:

A stressed spring on a fixed structure with the ability to release the spring at one end. The spring is released and the results are observed.

An experiment remains an experiment regardless of whether the observations agree with your hypothesis.

originally posted by: tachyonator7
you called that an experiment? cart didn't move at all.

That was the whole point of his experiment - to show that Newton's 3rd law states that your theory is bunk.

To recap:

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

A forward and a backward force, cancelling each other out causing the cart to 'not move at all'.



Physics 101. So his experiment was 100% a success. Or at least 99%.

LOL, only bunk is your ignorance of physics. it didn't move because he used a weak spring on a heavy cart.

i already shared the video of a successful experiment. here it is again: www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: GaspodeThat was the whole point of his experiment - to show that Newton's 3rd law states that your theory is bunk.

To recap:

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

A forward and a backward force, cancelling each other out causing the cart to 'not move at all'.

Physics 101. So his experiment was 100% a success. Or at least 99%.

originally posted by: tachyonator7
you called that an experiment? cart didn't move at all.

Yes, that is what we call an experiment, and our observation from that experiment is that the cart didn't move at all.

originally posted by: tachyonator7
it didn't move because he used a weak spring on a heavy cart.

No, it didn't move because of Newton's 3rd Law.

That spring was not weak by any means. It took about 50 lbs of force for me to stretch that spring across the length of the cart. It was not safe. That spring could break your bones.

At the end of the video I pushed the cart with just my finger to show how easy it was for the cart to move. It was not heavy at all. My finger is nowhere near as strong as the force from that spring.

I can do the test again with 2 of the same springs later, but I don't see a point.

Regards,
NAVSEA

originally posted by: tachyonator7
i already shared the video of a successful experiment. here it is again: www.youtube.com...

tachyonator7,

As you can see in the slow motion part of that video, the entire bottle moves backwards before it moves forwards. When it moved backwards you can see the bottle pushed the clothes pin backwards too, then the pin moves forward. The bottle was pushed forward by the clothes pin.

Regards,
NAVSEA

3rd law is not in conflict with this phenomena, there is action and reaction. i can't claim for your experiment, but i think it was not assembled right. it looks too heavy and if you pause the video you can see you are still holding the pliers at the impact moment. when i get time i will repeat my experiment without the pin. any possibility of pushing against something will be eliminated.

originally posted by: NAVSEAAs you can see in the slow motion part of that video, the entire bottle moves backwards before it moves forwards. When it moved backwards you can see the bottle pushed the clothes pin backwards too, then the pin moves forward. The bottle was pushed forward by the clothes pin.

Regards,
NAVSEA

a reply to: tachyonator7

Here is a simple experiment to try out. Crouch down, then leap into the air, you will experience an uplifting movement and practically sail, free as a bird, for about a second or so. Now, reset whilst in mid air, that is to say, crouch again, in mid air, and jump again. Sadly you may land badly and cause some damage to both knees, ankles, or even face and head, according to how you land. In a vacuum it is less physically dangerous, but the same principal applies.
Now get into a box, a comfortable box...once again, jump up, you may in fact hit the box and create a temporary movement upwards, but I can't see that being sustained either. Even in space.
This has been a fun thread to read.

speaking of your example, what do you think why all these jumpers draw their hands back and jerk their body forward at the last moment of the jump www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: tachyonator7

Here is a simple experiment to try out. Crouch down, then leap into the air, you will experience an uplifting movement and practically sail, free as a bird, for about a second or so. Now, reset whilst in mid air, that is to say, crouch again, in mid air, and jump again. Sadly you may land badly and cause some damage to both knees, ankles, or even face and head, according to how you land. In a vacuum it is less physically dangerous, but the same principal applies.
Now get into a box, a comfortable box...once again, jump up, you may in fact hit the box and create a temporary movement upwards, but I can't see that being sustained either. Even in space.
This has been a fun thread to read.

It's been many years since this thread. Just as scientific confirmation, i was more less right. Imbalance of force can be produced and that is nothing new. Harry W. Bull Reaction Motor did similar thing 100 years ago. He used weights driven by an electromagnet. On one side is a spring and on another solid metal, elastic vs solid. Force is greater on the spring side cause on the metal side some energy is lost in deformation of the metal. "Tests have shown a weight will yield three times more force by impulse than by impact."

I now know of number of much better ways to do this but i just wanted to share this guy's video confirming the principle.

www.youtube.com...

At 2:12 test you can see device stops in mid-air when magnet hits the opposite side of the tube. But it has moved like half meter to the left not pushing against anything.

He is using a coil expelling a magnet down a long tube. He claims it is a special coil, but i don't think so, i think he is also exploiting the elastic/nonelastic collision.

Few more enlightenments about inertial propulsion. Many years ago about time of this thread i realized any unbalanced mass spinning 360° with varying speed or oscillating within 180° or less converts centrifugal force into linear acceleration.

In other words you can literally 'swim' in space.

Every time you swing a mass in front of you you are being pulled in that direction. If only one mass is swung you will also start to spin around your own axis, naturally, two counterrotating masses must be swung to cancel the back torque.

Take this simple example www.youtube.com...

You will of course say cart is being repelled against his hands but it's not. His hands might as well be side walls, part of the system.

Even better is to accelerate the mass(es) on the axis as in first example above. This way decelerating the mass is resulting in back torque on the axis and you will agree back torque can never affect the linear momentum of the system, only it's spin.

If you have trouble accepting this, consider what really happens.

Imagine yourself stationary in space, there is an object coming from behind you to your left at constant speed.

You throw a lasso and capture the object as it passes by, what happens.

Of course, due to your own inertial mass, object's trajectory is now curved toward you, you have deflected it from it's straight path and it is now pulling you, accelerating you as it follows it's new, curved path.

What we got here is exactly the same thing happening within the system.

a reply to: tachyonator7


ok you have the columbus egg.

they are supossing that the spring remains constant (non deformation).
but it if there is a change in it.it can go forward, and then , yes, what you say is correct.

in the same way that there are machines in space that moves based on diverse forces acting in a body.

if you have machines moving in vacuum (on space or on earth) that can be cool, for example against an ice age.
and i guess that it can be resistant to a weaponized EMP as no electric parts working on it.

I gotta add Harry W. Bull Reaction Motor above is a valid principle but the video of a Italian guy i linked, later i realized he tricked himself. As you can see as at 2:17 as magnet hits the right side of the tube it stops in mid-air. If you wanted to repeat the process you have to return the magnet to the left side but as you do that tube would move back right, so overall you did not move.