## Thrust from Centripetal forces.

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

### Thrust from Centripetal forces.

Guys, please don't think poorly of me for this post, its just for fun. After I worked it out I just had to tell someone.

It started because I don't understand the Mach Effect or the ME thrusters so I tried to simplify the idea using physics I can understand. I started by thinking of swinging a bucket of water over my head. Centripetal forces keeps the water contained. So if I could have an empty bucket on the low half of the arc, and a full bucket on the upper half, then I could lift myself up just by swinging the bucket faster. Then I thought of a device to do just that, and here it is.

http://aeroaero1.bravehost.com/

It seems like I could do a similar thing using electrons for mass but just now I don't feel like doing all the Googleing it would take to put it into physical terms. Of course with electrons, I could spin the wheel a whole lot faster!
Aero

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

### Re: Thrust from Centripetal forces.

Aero wrote:Guys, please don't think poorly of me for this post, its just for fun. After I worked it out I just had to tell someone.

It started because I don't understand the Mach Effect or the ME thrusters so I tried to simplify the idea using physics I can understand. I started by thinking of swinging a bucket of water over my head. Centripetal forces keeps the water contained. So if I could have an empty bucket on the low half of the arc, and a full bucket on the upper half, then I could lift myself up just by swinging the bucket faster. Then I thought of a device to do just that, and here it is.

http://aeroaero1.bravehost.com/

It seems like I could do a similar thing using electrons for mass but just now I don't feel like doing all the Googleing it would take to put it into physical terms. Of course with electrons, I could spin the wheel a whole lot faster!

You are talking about an idea which I have always referred to as an inertial diode. I, and I think a whole lot of other people have thought of this or similar ideas going back many decades.

The Mach effect devices are the closest thing i've ever seen to a real world "inertial diode" type device.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

### Re: Thrust from Centripetal forces.

Aero wrote:Guys, please don't think poorly of me for this post, its just for fun. After I worked it out I just had to tell someone.

It started because I don't understand the Mach Effect or the ME thrusters so I tried to simplify the idea using physics I can understand. I started by thinking of swinging a bucket of water over my head. Centripetal forces keeps the water contained. So if I could have an empty bucket on the low half of the arc, and a full bucket on the upper half, then I could lift myself up just by swinging the bucket faster. Then I thought of a device to do just that, and here it is.
Dean Drive. Someone "rediscovers" it every few years. Doesn't work.
Aero wrote:It seems like I could do a similar thing using electrons for mass but just now I don't feel like doing all the Googleing it would take to put it into physical terms. Of course with electrons, I could spin the wheel a whole lot faster!
I ran across this in printed form ~20 years ago. Good for a laugh.
Vae Victis

krenshala
Posts: 914
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:20 pm
Location: Austin, TX, NorAm, Sol III

### Re: Thrust from Centripetal forces.

djolds1 wrote:Dean Drive. Someone "rediscovers" it every few years. Doesn't work.
But it does lift off the ground ... just before slamming back down again. From what I saw of the Dean Drive, it looked like a very complicated way to make a machine that can hop up and down in place until it shook itself apart due to slamming its own weight into the ground repeatedly.

While it may have some similarities to the M-E device description, it didn't seem to be quite the same to me. I can't say the M-E is any different in end result, however, though it would definitely be interesting if it was.

ZenDraken
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 5:14 pm
Location: Pacific NW

### Re: Thrust from Centripetal forces.

I like your diagram, Aero.

Unfortunately when you add mass to the right side of the wheel, the mass must be accelerated with an upwards force, creating a downwards reaction force. When you catch the mass on the left side you must decelerate it with an upwards force, also creating a downwards reaction force.

I don't have time to do the math, but I suspect the two downwards reaction forces will exactly cancel any upwards centripetal force.

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

### Re: Thrust from Centripetal forces.

krenshala wrote:
djolds1 wrote:Dean Drive. Someone "rediscovers" it every few years. Doesn't work.
But it does lift off the ground ... just before slamming back down again.
Well, My device works! Didn't you see the two Magic control boxes? They contain my secret and I won't show you now that you have been so contrary!

@djolds1 - I read the two papers that you linked, thanks. But only the one device bore any similarity to my concept, where he slid a rod through the rotating drive shaft, using a cam, so that the rotating mass was always to one side of the center of rotation. He said it worked, and it seems it should, but it shook itself apart and it should do that, too.

Well, I'm over my snit now, so maybe I'll tell you how my device differs from the other devices. It is actually two side-by-side counter rotating wheels smoothing out the external vibrations (read "shaking") from the equivalent of 16 cylinders giving smooth continuous thrust. The magic boxes simply adsorb the momentum of the downward moving mass and injects it into the upward moving mass. Think lever, or as I wrote before, teeter-totter. Plus, it unhooks the downward moving wheel and hooks a mass (with the upward momentum) to the upward moving wheel.

Remember, energy efficiency is not an issue. I can use as much energy as I need, just no reaction mass. The only reason this wouldn't work is if the reaction force from decelerating the downward moving mass and accelerating the upward moving mass (as supplied by the fulcrum of the teeter-totter) was equal or greater than the centripetal force of the mass as it rode around the wheel. Integrated over time, of course, but this is a design parameter to be adjusted. Oh, if it's greater, then the device will simply fly in reverse!

And then there is the fact that a lot of smart people have tried similar ideas .... Does that mean no idea along these lines can work?

@ZenDraken - Looks like we've cross-posted.
Aero

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111
Well, since it won't work as a mechanical device, I have an idea to use electrons to cause the changing mass. Here is a picture.

http://aeroaero2.bravehost.com/

The inner, rotating wheel is coated with separate conformal metal plates, isolated from each other. The outer half wheel does not rotate. It is coated with a single metal plate. The conformal metal plates on the rotating inner wheel are connected to the negative pole of a battery or power supply, while the outer, stationary plate is connected to the positive pole.

As the wheel rotates, each negative plate enters the area under the outer, positively charged plate. The configuration becomes a simple, two plate capacitor and electrons flow into the negative plate. It retains the electrons until it exits the area under the positively charged plate. Then two plate capacitor discharges and the electrons flow elsewhere.

I'll let you folks decide what the radius, rotation rate, voltage and other parameters are, but do note that a the mass of an electron is 9.0394E-31 kg. Its going to take a lot of electrons to create a measurable effect.

I guess I would work the problem backwards by first asking the question, "How much force needs exist in order to create a measurable effect?" Working backwards, one can find the required number of electrons, and from that the remaining parameters can be determined. If the numbers come out within a few orders of magnitude of being achievable, then there are lots of things that can be done to improve the device.
Aero

blaisepascal
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:57 am
Location: Ithaca, NY
Contact:

### Re: Thrust from Centripetal forces.

Aero wrote:
Well, I'm over my snit now, so maybe I'll tell you how my device differs from the other devices. It is actually two side-by-side counter rotating wheels smoothing out the external vibrations (read "shaking") from the equivalent of 16 cylinders giving smooth continuous thrust. The magic boxes simply adsorb the momentum of the downward moving mass and injects it into the upward moving mass.
If I recall my Physics 101 correctly, momentum is a vector quantity, so the magic boxes will have to convert a downward pointing momentum into an upward pointing momentum, which it can only do by either

(a) applying an upward force on the mass such that the total impulse (force*time, or total change in momentum) has twice the magnitude of the original momentum of the object, with an equal magnitude but oppositely directed reaction force and momentum on the magic boxes, or

(b) be truly "magical" and have effects outside of known physics.

If (a) is involved, and the magic boxes are attached to the axis of the wheel so that they will go upwards with the wheel, then the reaction force will push them down hard enough to exactly counter the centrepetal forces you expect to be flinging this contraption skyward.

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111
If (a) is involved, and the magic boxes are attached to the axis of the wheel so that they will go upwards with the wheel, then the reaction force will push them down hard enough to exactly counter the centrepetal forces you expect to be flinging this contraption skyward.
I don't really see that since the linear momentum is mass times velocity, and linear velocity in this case is radius times rotation rate. So linear momentum equals mass times radius times rotation rate.

But Centripetal Force equals mass times radius times rotation rate squared.

That is, they differ by a factor of "rotation rate," which is a design parameter. I can choose its value so that the two forces are NOT equal.

On the other hand, the number of impulses will increase linearly with rotation rate so I guess it is possible ... Now tell me why my electrical version won't work.
Aero

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm
The basis of so many perpetual motion machines!... Of course the momenta all add up to nothing. Move on!

Giorgio
Posts: 2836
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy
The magic fill device is a river, the magic empty device is an hole in the bucket.
The energy to make the machine rotate is coming from the external "magic" source, the water running into the river.

Your machine is a watermill semplification.

You can change the water with electrons, but the basic Energy Laws will not change.
Nice drawings tought

Giorgio.

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111
chrismb wrote:The basis of so many perpetual motion machines!... Of course the momenta all add up to nothing. Move on!
OK. I slept on it, and you guys are right. My magic fill device imparts an upward momentum to the mass bucket using a large force over a short distance. The vertical component of Centripetal force exactly cancels that upward momentum by the time that mass bucket reaches top dead center. From there the vertical Centripetal force component accelerates the mass bucket downward to where it reaches the magic empty device which applies a large force over a small distance to decelerate the mass to zero vertical velocity. The upshot is that the change in momentum of the total system equals exactly zero as it does for a whole bunch of other similar systems.

From this I conclude that when I use electrons for mass, instead of mass buckets, the exact same result will hold. The only difference is instead of using mechanical force, it uses electromotive force to accelerate and decelerate the electrons. And the mass buckets (electrons) are now individually very much smaller. If the Centripetal force becomes significant then the mechanical reaction to the electromotive force will also become significant. That is, equal and opposite in terms of momentum. Of course this does not mean the the device won't shake and vibrate but the total system's average momentum change will equal exactly zero. Unless of course there is a new and valid theoretical development which puts some non-standard physics into the magic devices.
Aero

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111
Wait! I have another thought! Bear with me for a moment longer.

If I support the fulcrum of the teeter-totter with a long pole to the ground, then the Earth's surface would supply the reaction force and the whole contraption would lift as long as the pole reached the ground. That pole would need to be something like a hydraulic ram which is no good because I could use it alone to shoot the whole contraption upward. Just like an elevator.

But if I use the electrical version of the device with electrons acting as mass in capacitors then I could power it from the ground. If I uncoil a string of wire from the ground to the device as it lifts, would this transfer the reactive mechanical force back to the ground via the electromotive force? I could then put the contraption in an elevator shaft and the elevator could go up and down in very tall buildings without long heavy cables or hydraulic rams to lift it. Not an inertial drive like I wanted, but perhaps useful none-the-less. (A Space Elevator?)

Note that if this is conceptually possible then any lifting tests of such capacitive devices designed to generate thrust must very carefully isolate the transference of mechanical reaction via electromotive force to the ground outside the measured system. That is, to determine net lift, you have to weigh the generator, too.
Aero

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA
My word! Seems there is such a derth in Polywell news, and even related news, that we are falling back onto Dean drives and perpetual motion schemes. Sigh!

MSimon
Posts: 14333
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:
KitemanSA wrote:My word! Seems there is such a derth in Polywell news, and even related news, that we are falling back onto Dean drives and perpetual motion schemes. Sigh! :roll:
You would prefer politics and global warming?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.