Omni-Directional propulsion (ODP)

[jakethesnake]

It’s interesting that you describe this in the manner that you did, converting a rotational force into a linear force and I kind of alluded to this in an earlier post (page 3 2nd post).<br /><br /><font color="orange">"If a gyro or gyros are used to augment or direct this force does this violate the laws of physics?"</font><br /><br />Also Chris Hewatt via email asked me if I understand how his invention works and this was my reply.<br /><br /><br /><font color="orange">Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:35:53 -0800 (PST)<br /><br />Hi Chris,<br /> <br />Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you but a few things came up at work and I have been basically swamped.<br /> <br />I did go back and review your Patent and I think what I have come up with is a feel for what this devise does. Also I did see your post and explanation, although I don’t think I got it exactly right but I think I get the jest of it.<br /> <br />Chris you posted this:<br /> <br />“The easiest example is if you hold a broom stick and someone grabs the other end and twists it then you are going to move. They gyro provides that twist and the rotation of the stick provides the momentum.”<br /> <br />This is what I think is happening but to be honest I’m not sure.<br /> <br />You are using gyros to lock and unlock motion but at the same time don’t loose their energy i.e. revolutions per. minute. In this fashion you are kind of converting energy which is rotating about itself to a linear force.<br /> <br />I will admit that looking at the drawings one tends to get a feel of what is going on but not quite so, at least I made a stab at it.<br /> <br />Please let me know if I am even close and thanks for the post.<br /> <br />Wayne”</font><br /><br />Although your explanation is much more articulate then mine I think we both have come up with the same guess as to how Chris Hewatt might be accomplishing forward motion. When I get a response back I will let you know what he says although he might just post his answer here <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong></strong> </div>

 

[spacester]

I have not given the proposed device a full analysis, but I see no perpetual motion machine here. Nor do I see anything posted which refutes this claim on a fundamental basis.<br /><br />There is energy input to the device in maintaining the angular momentum of the gyroscopes, right? All the rest is a method of converting that rotational kinetic energy and angular momentum into a linear form.<br /><br />Converting rotational motion to linear motion is one of the puzzles of the ages but that does not mean new solutions are not possible.<br /><br />Our 'job' here, in anticipation of the demo of a working prototype, is to determine if this is 'bozo flux' by watching the 'bogosity' meter. I try to remember that the meter can occasionally give false positive readings. Certainly the claim made here has made the needle jump, but I for one am not able to confirm this as bogus.<br /><br />I did carefully read your post, vanDivX and I do not see any errors. Nicely done.<br /><br />Some of the most difficult mathematics I've ever worked with is the dynamics and kinematics of gyroscopes. It seems to me that an extraordinarily clever person/team just might be able to make this work. The math is quite rigorous and strikes me as not lending itself to creative thinking. So an empirical investigation using modern materials and design methods yielding revolutionary results is not out of the question in my mind. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jakethesnake]

I tend to think that this guy is on to something but it’s very hard to get by all that we know about physics at this point. I have been doing a lot of reading lately which I can’t avoid addressing.<br /><br />At this point there has never been any substantial proof or any working devise that has ever show Newton’s third law of motion to be wrong! Also Chris Hewatt says that he hasn’t discovered anything new to science so I just don’t think I understand what he has done here.<br /><br />Here is some interesting reading of other devises that have claimed to be “Reactionless Propulsion” systems plus something from Wikipedia about “Reactionless Drives”.<br /><br /><br />I actually have just talked to this guy Jerry Pournelle who investigated the “Dean Drive” via email and he doesn’t think it will work but also says you never know.<br /><br />Link about the “Dean Drive”:<br /><br />http://www.jerrypournelle.com/sciences/dean.html<br /><br />Wikipedia about “Reactionless Drives”:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionless_drive<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong></strong> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It’s interesting that you describe this in the manner that you did, converting a rotational force into a linear force and I kind of alluded to this in an earlier post (page 3 2nd post). <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> I noticed some allusion to pictures/drawings on this thread but I have never seen any, all I did when I intially read this thread was to visit that link given and read that page fairly fast and that was it, I didn't look for some links on that page leading to some illustration, I then made my first post here where I explained how I understood what that webpage tried to explain and which wasn't all too clear - IMO it shouldn't bring the gyroscope into the discussion on front page announcing the project as that is highly misleading and only serves to confuse the whole thing (unless they really mean to obtain linear motion of CM (Center of Mass) from gyroscopic motion as such which would be impossible as I still see it), I think the gyroscope might be involved as part of mechanical implementation of the project but not as the source of propulsion, that is as principal part of mechanism, that can only come from that conversion of rotational motion into linear as I figured out independently (I was and still am quite sure that gyroscopic motion can't lead to motion of CM that I didn't really pay much attention to what was said in later posts (that's like dismising something and not paying attention to further details when it becomes clear that someone approaches you with some perpetual motion claims which you know are false without bothering with details...)<br /><br />such conversion of rotational motion into linear as I proposed in my last post and which principle I think pretty well must be at the heart of that aprlabs project (spelling?) is not patentable, only the specific mechanical impementation of that physical principle is patentable matter IMO<br /><br />that said, some practical implementation of my idea <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>As the weights are rotating, the central shaft will move to and fro, such that the center of mass of the system will remain in the same location. When the balls are both travelling North, the shaft will be moving South. When you lock the shafts, all motion will cease, and the device will remain at its original location.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />but the point is that you would be increasing the angular momentum not just on the forward/backward legs of travel but also on the cross travel at right angles to the North/South line<br /><br />also to eliminate the North South to and fro motion of the weights and axle assembly, you could have a second identical pair of pole/weight assembly on the same central axle but starting its motion in opposite directions which would counteract the axle N/S travel and allow you to input usefull (working) angular momentum even on the N/S legs of travel<br /><br />in that case you would have (starting from locked position) two weights at the end of each pole in the right and left hand direction and they would start rotating on each side in opposite directions which would enable you to keep inputing the energy of angular momentum into all four weights on all legs of travel - N/S & E/W<br /><br />point here is that no matter how you start the multiple pairs of weights, each pair of them will move during each turn in the needed direction at which point you could lock their axles and convert their angular into linear momentum<br /><br />to be quite honest I am not yet 100% persuaded myself that such mechanism would generate CM motion but so far I don't see where I go wrong, this is all just basic physics but because of that it can get slipery<br /><br />your objection would be true if only single weighted pole were to be used because then the axle and the weight momentum would cancel itself when the rotation would be locked, likewise you wouldn't get any CM motion sidewise in the curren <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[billslugg]

vanDivX<br /><br /><font color="yellow">but the point is that you would be increasing the angular momentum not just on the forward/backward legs of travel but also on the cross travel at right angles to the North/South line </font><br /><br />No. You have not changed the angular momentum of the system. If your arms and shaft rotate in one direction there must be a motor armature somewhere to acquire an equal and opposite angular momentum, in order to get the arms moving. When the brake is applied, all motion stops. In each case, and at all times, the net angular momentum is zero.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">also to eliminate the North South to and fro motion of the weights and axle assembly, you could have a second identical pair of pole/weight assembly on the same central axle but starting its motion in opposite directions which would counteract the axle N/S travel and allow you to input usefull (working) angular momentum even on the N/S legs of travel </font><br /><br />Also no. Angular and linear momentum systems are each, in their own right, additive. If you have one system that produces zero, and you add an identical but oppositely oriented system, you still have zero. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

when I was posting last night I realized where I made a mistake anf fooled myself for a bit but this board didn't allow me to edit anymore, it seems it went down for the night... I wanted to post this -><br /><br />to be quite honest I am not persuaded myself that such mechanism would generate CM motion when I look at the whole mechanism proposed from the 'outside' as a system, that is, not involved with its moving parts and simply applying basic physics but it can get slipery if one gets too involved and doesn't analyze it properly<br />------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Analysis: motion in circle is equivalent to a superposition of two linear oscilating motions at right angles to each other - for example the NS and EW directions (NorthSouth & EastWest) - and the motion of a point along the circle is then simply a superposition of the two oscilating linear motions along these two lines<br /><br />that then means that when when the weight reaches the extreme points, either on the left West side or on the right East side the momentum that was developed on this 'cross leg' is spent (equals zero), in either case it would only act in this cross direction which is at right angle to the intended travel of the device and so it couldn't contribute to the forward motion at all<br /><br /><br />the other case when the weight oscilates along the North South leg cannot lead to Center of Mass motion either (as pointed out in your ealier post) and of course adding the second pair of weights (to counteract the to and fro motion) wouldn't change anything since each pair of the masses acts independently, that is their action is simply superposed on (added) to the action of the other mass pairs and since either pair of itself cannot move CM of the system, neither can their superposition as you pointed out here <blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Angular and linear momentum systems are each, in their own right, additive. If you have one syst</p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jakethesnake]

“DUDE I GET IT”, and I agree with you, I would like to see the “MOTION” also, so for God Sakes stop repeating yourself!!!<br /><br />You seem to be writing just to listen to yourself and no doubt making a very good point but, for the love of “GOD”, give it a rest PLEASE!!!<br /><br />Did you not read what this specific post was linked too??? Or are you one that just rubs salt into ones wounds continuously without any addition to the conversation???<br /><br />Do you truly believe that Einstein and Newton where 100% right? Because if you do we are going to be stuck here in the middle of nowhere for one hell of a long time!!! Although the test of time has no doubt proven these two absolute and utter geniuses as being a “GOD SEND” to all of mankind scientifically and for one hell of along time… you are most certainly going to have to look past them and get to the next level!!! And if not, "Hasta la vista, baby", just sits back and watches!!!<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong></strong> </div>

 

[billslugg]

vanDivX<br />First, kindly reserve the comments of my esteemed collegue Mr. JakeTheSnake for future consideration under calmer circumstances. I hypothesize his patience is outweighed by his impetuousness. I admire your ability to push the limits of thinking and seek new knowledge. I am not here to say that recactionless thrust cannot be achieved, it is just prohibited under current laws. However, look at dark matter and the acceleratiion of distant galaxies. A possible example. As for Earthly profitmaking? Its fading baby. <br /><br />edited for reduced comprehension <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

I totally agree with you. (LOL) And I couldn't have said it any better. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[jakethesnake]

I understand that Einstein has proven Newton to be incorrect about “several” things and even Einstein himself has said that the biggest mistake of his life was his static model of the Universe, hens a very well known picture of Einstein looking into a telescope standing next to Edwin Hubble in reference to Hubble’s discovery of the expanding Universe.<br /><br />OK so I get that and I also get that “Quantum Mechanics” and Einstein’s “Theory of General Relativity” doesn’t jive… not even close so, what is one to do?<br /><br />I will tell you what… and that is “Change”… which, has been eluded too by “billslugg” in what is being noticed by a somewhat but not totally invisible force i.e. “Dark Matter” and/or “Dark Energy” and what I believed to be the Holy Grail of Change!!! <br /><br />So to close this and to let you know something beyond what has been in our face sense Newton’s third law of motion… “Change” and “Change” will most certainly happen and I believe very soon, which most likely is not to be (ODP) although when something of this nature comes on to my radar I will always take a very close look at it and inquire about it!!!<br /><br />I have come here for one reason and that is the minds that I know reside here at SDC!!! Including you stevehw33 but, do me and others a favor… please ad to the discussion not to the staunch gallery of nay Sayers, also expand your mind, and maybe just maybe, say how that might be!<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong></strong> </div>

 

[casualphilosoph]

The basic physical question is can linear impulse be converted or saved into rotational impulse? As far as I know both have independant laws of conservation such this can not be done.<br />However I can imagine that some kind of friction or transmission of impulse to earth could take place to make this propulsion system work on the surface of our planet.<br />(I remember this experiment were you let an zylinder roll and let another zylinder slip and the one rolling is slower and I am still wondering how the rotational impulse conservaion works here, friction or does the earth gain rotational impulse)<br /><br />Also if we have a long stafflike comet and jump from one end, will the comet gain rotation or not and if it does will the one that jumped move forward or not?(and what changes if the staff rotates around its axis XD) <br /><br />Besides that I wonder what if in non euclidian closed universe linear impulse is not rather a form of rotational impulse.

 

[jakethesnake]

Thank you SOOO Much for loosing the "Motion" slogan!!!<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Have you ever read through this post because you seem to miss a lot!<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br /><font color="orange"> “Present the eviodence that Newton's 3rd law is wrong, then. Show us that this purported claim is true. Denigrating newton and Einstein does not in the slightest way present any evidence that current model is wrong. It does state pseudoscience, tho.” </font><br /><br />I wrote (4th page 2nd post):<br /><br /><font color="orange">“At this point there has never been any substantial proof or any working devise that has ever show Newton’s third law of motion to be wrong!</font><br /><br />So I guess I’m agreeing with you or am I not?<br /><br />I also wrote and said referring to Einstein and Newton on (4th page 2nd post): <br /><br /><font color="orange"> “Although the test of time has no doubt proven these two absolute and utter geniuses as being a “GOD SEND” to all of mankind scientifically and for one hell of along time…”</font><br /><br />How is that Denigrating Newton (Capital “N”) or Einstein??? <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br />You also wrote (4th page 2nd post):<br /><br /><font color="orange"> “If you'd known anything at all about the sciences, is that Newton was not correct, about a good many things, altho his basic theories are still being used, except where Einstein showed the theory was not correct.<br /><br />If any had read my consistent statements that Einstein was WRONG about the unvierse, as it IS probabilistic on a quantum level and that he was WRONG about EPR and non-locality, and he was likely wrong about CEE as pertains to being a barrier to velocities, esp. at quantum processes, then you'd know one doesn't believe in Einstein, completely either.” </font><br /><br />I didn’t think you were trying to denigrate Newton or Einstein although maybe me but oh well.<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><b></b> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong></strong> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

"Thank you SOOO Much for loosing the "Motion" slogan!!!"<br />"Besides not reading to closely have you ever heard of spell check???"<br /><br />Then again, you used loosing when you meant losing <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />He dosen't always read the whole posts in any case, AFAIK. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[jakethesnake]

Wayne, all in all you’re pretty good when it comes to writing and spelling but, I was looking back through your stuff, shall I go on??? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong></strong> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

No, all I was saying is that if you are going to cast stones, make sure you've cleaned up your own post.<br /><br />By my own admission, I am a lousy typist. That's why I use preview. Still I don't catch all the typos right away.<br />From what I see, Mr s does not preview his posts, he goes back and edits them later. <br /><br />As I said, Mr s does not appear to thoroughly read the post he is responding to. He appears to find some point to refute, then unleashes his salvo.<br />Take that into account. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[jakethesnake]

Wayne,<br /><br />My point was not to cast a stone amongst a sea of words because to error is most definitely human and most certainly, I will do as others do, error, I don’t know how many times I could have kicked myself after I have accepted a post knowing seconds later that I have screwed up! <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" /> Although I must say that Microsoft Word errors a hell of a lot also, hens I used loosing when I should have used losing!!! Not to gripe again but, that was something Microsoft Word didn’t unfortunately catch! <img src="/images/icons/mad.gif" /> At least when I comment in a forum such as this, I at least take the time to carefully look it over and, certainly don’t pontificate such as other’s I know i.e. “stevehw33” without doing so!!! If you don’t see this in what and how I write then I would say you are not paying attention to my commentary and or my opinions!!!<br /><br />Wayne you seem to be somewhat of an advisory to almost everything I write. I do admit that I tend to get somewhat overly zealous, OK, maybe even carried away with my opinion or, let’s just say…it’s kind of ”My Style”!<img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" /><br /><br />When you have righteously put me in my place for being overly aggressive I have always admitted so without hesitation but, DUDE, what’s up with always being on the attack? I give “stevehw33” a pass because he is always laying down as you say a “Salvo” without reading a post through but, you don’t ever show up to my posts anymore unless there is something dirogitory to say???<br /><br />I see that you sometimes partially agree with me such as your last post but, please tell me that it isn’t the Pluto thing is it??? Which if you don’t know will soon be a Planet again!!! Not that this is the post for this subject but, at this time of the 10,000 plus registered astronomers only 27% agree with the IAU which, means a big change in 2009 but, I “thinkith” (I know this is a purposely misspelled word for effect) this is a p <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong></strong> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Jake, I have no problem with you at all.<br />And how could you even think there's any resentment from Pluto. That was a great discusion. You;re still wrong, but.. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Now in this thread I said nothing derogatory, I have discussed the issue, and pointed out what I perseived as problems and points for further discussion.<br /><br />I only commented on the loosing thing because it's a pet peeve of mine.<br /><br />Wayne, Too <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[jakethesnake]

OK, I guess I had that coming! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong></strong> </div>

 

[jakethesnake]

Understandable and makes sense so, I would say its time to move on. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong></strong> </div>