Personality Cafe banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
372 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just the other day I came up with a concept that I thought should be able to create a unidirectional force without interacting with an outside environment.

The starting concept was this:
-Take ball or disk made out of a compressible material and place a bar through it's center to make constant it's axis of rotation.
-Now acheive a means for one directional side to always be compressed thereby reducing the radius of the sphere, or planar disk only on this one side. It would then expand on rotation as it reaches the opposite side
-My theory was that as the mass compressed around this one side of the rotational axis, it would slow due to the need to travel less distance to make the same angular change and since the mass was slower it would then exert less centripetal force upon the axis, thus making it so that upon rotation one side would literally become heavier than the other.

Since the simplicity of this system seemed like something anyone could think up I doubted my theory and was trying to figure out why it wouldn't work.

Initially I supposed that the force needed to slow the momentum of the mass upon compression would be transferred to help increase the momentum of mass needed upon expansion. However, Just a moment ago it finally dawned on me that the the increased angle of momentum caused by the compression would not allow this momentum transfer as I perceived and so the decreasing of momentum upon compression combined with the increasing of momentum upon expansion would work together to negate any decrease in centripetal force upon this compressed side.

it was kinda a letdown at that moment but hey, the more we understand, the less we know.

Upon research I found that there have been others that followed this incorrect train of thought a bit further than I. Some of these resulted in devices or theories like the following which seem to have proven to be false:
Dean drive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reactionless drive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,168 Posts
Anti-gravity, inertial drives, and perpetual motion are the modern day staples of science fiction and con men. If you are really interested in the subject Robert L. Forward, a physicist at J.P.L., wrote a book on negative matter for the lay person. It's interesting reading.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
372 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Anti-gravity, inertial drives, and perpetual motion are the modern day staples of science fiction and con men. If you are really interested in the subject Robert L. Forward, a physicist at J.P.L., wrote a book on negative matter for the lay person. It's interesting reading.
While I have dabbled in theories, and conceptualized systems related to many science fiction concepts, it is a valuable experience to actually work through these concepts and understand why they are indeed fiction, especially in cases where my initial ignorance may see it as a workable possibility.

Although working through these concepts may lead me to label many of them as fictional impossibilities, I look forward to the day when I am further proven ignorant as a workable solution is found to turn science fiction into science fact
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
923 Posts
I can understand the feeling many times I have pondered problems of science come up with a possible solution only to learn after typing it in that it already had been proposed.

My favorite moment however was in my geometry class where I believed there had to be an easier way of figuring out angles and such other than sin, cos and tan. After hours of work, I realized that the ratio's and such that I was getting were in fact sin and cos, so i gave up and applauded my self for discovering the thing I was trying to surpass...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
992 Posts
I can understand the feeling many times I have pondered problems of science come up with a possible solution only to learn after typing it in that it already had been proposed.

My favorite moment however was in my geometry class where I believed there had to be an easier way of figuring out angles and such other than sin, cos and tan. After hours of work, I realized that the ratio's and such that I was getting were in fact sin and cos, so i gave up and applauded my self for discovering the thing I was trying to surpass...
Makes me laugh hard inside when people try to find a way around the thing they don't like just to find out the way they like is similar or exact to the information you were presented. It's good to try something new to see if it works though, the more you learn the more you know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,128 Posts
The main problem is that you've missed relativity.

It is possible to perpetually suspend one object around another with centrifugal force - this is why our solar system orbits around. Problem is that changing mass won't cut it, and would actually probably defeat what you are trying to do.

Second problem is that you can't do this on Earth because Earth's gravity is strong enough to override all the parts of the machine, so even if on their own they wouldn't collide, Earth's effect of gravity on all of the parts together will make them collide.

Edit: this also applies to two sides of a ring. Maybe you can make it spin by having one side suddenly be heavier, I'm not sure, but what I am sure of is that it will also fall at the same time. Spinning it won't suspend it since gravity will be pulling on all parts of the ring anyway. You need a counter gravitational force to suspend it or enough force around the center of gravity - the Earth - rather than just the pivot point.

The axle could be relatively small and not necessarily the gravity source that you need to suspend from.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
636 Posts
Another issue I see is that you are assuming you can achieve a means for that one side to be consistently compressed without involvement from the outside environment. I don't see how that could be possible.

But it's always fun to speculate. That's where ideas for brilliant experiments come from! Keep on brainstorming!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
372 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Another issue I see is that you are assuming you can achieve a means for that one side to be consistently compressed without involvement from the outside environment. I don't see how that could be possible.

But it's always fun to speculate. That's where ideas for brilliant experiments come from! Keep on brainstorming!
From my initial ball design I actually came up with a version that would have been simplified to build. Essentially it was like the design below. A cylinder that would spin, with a bearing positioned within connected to wires and counterweights. The thought was if the bearing was connected to the cylinder and positioned closer to one wall over the other, it would function the same as having the opposite side compressed, since the rotational angle would be the center of the cylinder rather than the center of the bearing.
o

---|---
/ | \
o------o------o
\ | /
---|---
o

Of course once I discovered my initial concept faulty I discarded any plans to actually build the thing, but up until then I was tempted to try.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
372 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
I apologize for my poor picture above, but the system kept screwing with my spacing
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Are you guys aware of the suppressed antigravity methode, by using high voltage 100kv or somethin direct current over an insulator, it just blasts of. Thomas Thomson Brown wrote a paper in 1928, got hired by the milatery. He later wrote a book with his concept on space. He disagreed with the idea of relativity in the follow. Space is not stiff neighter does is bend. Its in constant motion.

I am convinced that space is one big ocean and electicity is the low tech easyest way to move..
One Problem, we dont have the battery capability to last an 5v phone 1 day...
Unless we device some sort of Low Energy Nuclear Reactor like Fleischman and Pons did in 1989 ;)

I WANT A HOOVERBOARD!!!!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,929 Posts
as I perceived and so the decreasing of momentum upon compression combined with the increasing of momentum upon expansion would work together to negate any decrease in centripetal force upon this compressed side.
It doesn't seem to obvious when you're trying to get it to work am I right?:tongue: But I like your idea it makes think...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
372 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Recently I revised my propulsion system concept due to a little knowledge I obtained that I admit I am very ignorant on. This knowledge being that some energized quarks are calculated to have more mass than than they do in their low energy states.

Quarks, being the subatomic particles that make up protons and neutrons are normally in one of two energy states called Up, and Down but other energy states called Charm, Strange, Top, and Bottom also have been found to be create-able. In these alternative energy states the mass of the quark changes. The Top quark in particular has a mass roughly the same as an atom of tungsten.

All these quark states quickly decay back to the more stable energy states, but could this change theoretically be harnessed for a propulsion device? I imagine a jet engine, with recirculating air, quarks are energized at the intake, then accelerated. They then decay and are recirculated back to the intake. Since the mass was greater during acceleration than deceleration you have an net gain in angular momentum of your vehicle.

The problem I see with this though is that the energy form required to energize the quarks itself will have mass as will the energy form released during decay, so that energy would have to be released in a reverse direction. On the other hand, perhaps recirculating the quarks would not even be needed. The released energy mass from the decay of the quarks itself may be all the necessary thrust that would be required (just thought of that last point as I wrote this)
(note: I am currently ignorant on what kind of energy particle actually makes up this extra mass, some sort of different lepton or boson maybe? not that I really know much of anything about most of them)

Any critiques on this or confirmation on the information and possibility would be welcome
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top