Inertial Propulsion

[elias]

Hello everyone,

I have recently developed interest in inertial propulsion systems, which develop a reaction-less propulsion for space drive. There are various designs, which some of them create an unbalanced centrifugal force for propulsion: JLN Labs - Inertial Propulsion Engine
One of them which seems to work is the Thornson Inertial Engine: The Thornson Inertila Engine experiment by JL Naudin

These systems violate Newtons Third law of motion. This thread may be a good place to discuss and develop such devices, which are a type of "anti-gravity" engines.

One of my recent findings is this patent:
PAT2PDF - Free PDF copies of patents: Download and print!

Elias

[Dingus]

I remember being really interested in the Thornson Engine a two or three years ago. One idea I had, that I wish I could have gotten around to doing was to make a small one with a variable speed, and attach it to a small toy train. (or similar closed-circle-loop track system it can't fall off of) From there I'd slowly tune it until it meets the resonant frequency of the train it's on & see how fast it could go.

[elias]

I remember being really interested in the Thornson Engine a two or three years ago. One idea I had, that I wish I could have gotten around to doing was to make a small one with a variable speed, and attach it to a small toy train. (or similar closed-circle-loop track system it can't fall off of) From there I'd slowly tune it until it meets the resonant frequency of the train it's on & see how fast it could go.

Hello
I don't think that it is a resonant effect, it utilizes the centrifugal force, and makes it unbalanced to achieve a one way propulsion. The force generated is increased by a power of 2 when the speed of rotation increases. The speed of the train should increase until the propulsive force is equal to the total friction. The one Naudin has built has very light and short arms, Thus small amount of propulsion is produced.

[elias]

Inertial Propulsion

This article is from Inertial Propulsion, which discusses the error in Newtonian Mechanics.

Inertial Propulsion

Classical Mechanics rests, among other things, upon the foundation of Isaac Newton’s equations of motion. In its simpler form, Newton’s Third Laws, for example, states that, “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” This might be thought of as a conservation law, in the sense that a net external force on a body will result in an equal and opposite, reactive force by the same body. This leads ultimately to other fundamental laws such as the conservation of energy or conservation of momentum.

There is, however, unwritten Assumptions in Newton’s Third Law. Such assumptions are clearly a fundamental aspect of the law, but all too often they are not stated explicitly with the law. This omission results in the law’s misinterpretation, or a faulty assumption as to the realm of applicability of the law.

These assumptions can be phrased in the following ways: 1) Newton’s Third Law is only applicable to a mass without dimensions (i.e. a “point mass”). This assumption is extant despite the fact that virtually by definition a “point mass” cannot exist in nature -- for a body to have mass inherently implies that the body also has dimensions. Therefore, for a force to act upon the body, it will in the general case act upon one portion of that body and not upon the entire body all at once, or act upon different parts of the body with different intensities of force.

A second, related assumption is that the force acts upon the entire body simultaneously. If we apply a force, for example, to the end of a rod, before the rod can react to this force (in accordance with Newton’s Third Law), the “action” of the force must make it’s way along the length of the rod, and then return to where the force is being applied (and thus be in a position to react to the external force). Only in this way can the full mass of the rod communicate its presence to the impinging force.

It is a fundamental reality of physics that the rod -- or any massive object -- acts as if all of its mass were concentrated at its center of gravity. Accordingly, the application of a force, must communicate its presence and magnitude to the center of gravity of the rod. Inasmuch as the speed at which this communication is transmitted along the length of a typical rod is on the order the speed of sound in the medium of the rod, any “transmission time” of the information (regarding application of the external force) is quite short. In the case of a metal, for example, this transmission might be on the order of one ten-thousandth of a second (0.0001 seconds).

The “transmission time” viewpoint allows us view the second assumption of Newton’s Third Law as an assumption of absolute time (or absolute simultaneity), if the action is at a distance. This assumption continues despite the reality that the “reaction” of a body to an externally applied force can not be simultaneous with the initial application (the “action”) of the external force. This profound restriction on Newton’s Law brings time into the equation -- a restriction which becomes the critical factor.

It should be noted that this concept of a non-simultaneous “reaction time” to an applied force (whatever the nature of that force is considered to be) is applicable not only in mechanics, but also in electromagnetism and other fields of physics. A sudden surge (an “action”) of current along a conductor, for example, will also result in an equal and opposite reaction -- but again not simultaneously. Likewise a rotating shaft surrounded by permanent magnets arranged so as to impel the rotation will encounter an equal and opposite magnetic force which will brake the rotation -- after a time delay, or what might be called the “Critical Action Time” (CAT)! [1]

The point to be emphasized here is that the laws of mechanics are applicable in the electromagnetic realm and vice versa, and that mechanics, electromagnetism, and other areas of physics are not separate or unrelated. The same form of differential equations often apply in different fields, along with the form of their solutions.

There is yet a third assumption of Newton’s Law that is often glossed over. This is the idea that the body upon which an external force acts, is a rigid body. It’s rather as if when you push a large lump of jello, you may get a equal and opposite reaction by the jello on your finger, but the jello itself may not accelerate as a body whose dimensions have not been altered by the imposition of the external force. This latter assumption has profound implications in situations substantially more interesting that pushing against jello (or as exemplified in the old adage, “Don’t push the river.”).

Consider, for example, an artillery shell (generally assumed to be a rigid body) impacting upon a sheet of armor plate (also assumed to be rigid). As the artillery shell first strikes the armor plate, the leading edge of the artillery shell (call it the first wave of atoms in the makeup of the artillery shell) is forced backwards by the Coulomb repulsion between electrons in the outer shells of the atoms in both the artillery shell and the armor plate. This first wave, however, quickly finds itself repulsed by the atoms in the artillery shell immediately behind the leading edge (i.e. the “second wave”). (One can also think of this as “being caught between the rock and the hard place.”) The process continues with succeeding waves of atoms in the artillery shell, until the leading portion of the shell is oscillating against the armor shell -- effectively hammering its way into the armor plate. Meanwhile, the trailing edge of the artillery shell proceeds to deaccelerate in a non-oscillatory fashion. In effect, under the extreme deacceleration of the artillery shell upon impacting the armor plate, the artillery shell proves itself not to be a rigid body -- a fact which has been experimentally observed! [2]

The fundamental key to all of this is that something not generally appreciated about Newton’s Third Law is the fact that the law fails at extreme accelerations (or in this case, deaccelerations), and in addition, when the body has sufficient size that the time delay -- the “transmission time” which communicates the imposition of a force to the center of mass (or “center of inductance” in an electrical circuit). This point has been addressed by Davis, Stine, and others [1, 2, 3], who realized that the non-simultaneity and possibly non-rigid nature of reality comes into play under conditions of extreme accelerations.

More significantly, it becomes ever more clear that one can initiate an action upon a body, and then detach before the equal and opposite reaction can fully manifest itself.

If a force is applied to an object and there is a time delay (the “Critical Action Time”) before the object can fully resist the application of the force, then the force (which has already initiated the action upon the object) can retract and avoid the object’s reaction. This is similar to what we do when we hammer a nail. Just as the hammer is about to make impact, we loosen our grip on the hammer such that the shock the nail and the hammer receive at impact is not transmitted into our hand. This is particularly true when we’re dealing with a sledge hammer. (Or at least after the first, body-shattering blow.)

This also relates to the popular notion in the movies that someone can hit someone else’s head with their head, and while the recipient falls over unconscious, the initiator of the action escapes Scot free. How can that be? Because the initiator also retracts his head quite quickly, and therefore avoids the results of the impact -- what in physics would be called the impulse. The recipient has been sent reeling back, his head well hit, while the initiator is walking away as if nothing happened.

Numerous, additional examples can be found at The Fifth Element.

This principle can be used in advanced propulsions systems, in what we would refer to as Inertial Propulsion Systems.

In mainstream forms of propulsion, there is the essential requirement of something called reaction mass. Basically, this means that in order to propel anything, something else must be pushed against, or reaction mass expelled. Rowing a canoe is pushing against the water in order to move in the opposite direction. In a rocket, small masses are violently thrown in the opposite direction of the rocket’s intended travel, but at very high speeds (thus the mass times velocity, the momentum, is the same for both the rocket and the reaction mass being expelled.) [There is also the very strange, theoretical means of travel via Quantum Wormholes, but this requires “ghost radiation” or negative energy, which is even more esoteric and wildly speculative than propulsion without reaction mass!]

In Inertial Propulsion, the trick is to do something very quickly and avoid the need for reaction mass. Think of it as going into a bank to rob it, but being so quick that you can get out of the bank with the money before the bank can react. In effect, you can get away with anything, if you exit the system sufficiently quickly. (Of course, if you’re not faster than the monitoring cameras, the ‘system’ you will need to exit might include the country.)

This process also shows up in the case of yanking a table cloth from a table without the dishes crashing to the floor*. The Experiment denoting the distinction between inertial mass and gravitational Mass is also a demonstration of the basis for Inertial Propulsion.

[*Last Thanksgiving Day, there was a world disaster, when someone (probably a brother-in-law) attempted to yank the table cloth from the fully loaded dining room table. It was the downfall of Turkey, the overthrow of Greece, and the destruction of China.]

Inertial Propulsion is therefore the use of Mach’s Principle and Connective Physics to accomplish one’s need to move it! The key is to do a series of impacts (impulses) with a sufficiently high, tuned frequency that one never has to pay the reaction mass price.

Note, however, that Inertial Propulsion is not necessarily the same as Levitation, inasmuch as the latter often requires a gravitational object to push against.

But as we progress merrily along, it may be comforting to know that the inertia of which we’ve so often complained, may become a wonderfully useful resource of getting around.

Even going backwards...



Connective Physics Zero-Sum Games

As well as forward:

Quantum Wormholes Levitation Gravitation Revisited

_________________________

References:

[1] Davis, W. O., Stine, G.H., Victory, E.L., and Korff, S.A., “Some Aspects of Certain Transient Mechanical Systems”, Presentation to the American Physical Society, New York University, April 23, 1962.

[2] Stine, G. Harry, “Detesters, Phasers and Dean Drives”, Analog Science Fiction / Science Fact Magazine, June, 1976.

[3] Davis, William O., “The Fourth Law of Motion”, Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact Magazine, May, 1962.

[elias]

Insect Flight

My unconfirmed idea is that some insects use Inertial propulsion for their flight, such as bees.
The movement of their wings with such a high speed about 1000 beats/second produces a unidirectional centrifugal force upward and forward, to propel the bees massive body in comparison to its wings.

Or the unexplained manoeuvres a simple fly can perform in the sky which no human made device can match.

[gyula]

Hi Elias,

Maybe you have not seen these?

Videos for veljko by relevance Best Movies Video Page 1 Cart with a pendulum drive

and http://web.archive.org/web/200612101...vidc/index.htm by David E. Cowlishaw Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster

rgds, Gyula

[elias]

Hi Elias,

Maybe you have not seen these?

Videos for veljko by relevance Best Movies Video Page 1 Cart with a pendulum drive

and Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster:JetLESS drive for circular wing (UFO), & related crafts. by David E. Cowlishaw Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster

rgds, Gyula

Hi Gyula,

I am rather familiar with Veljko Milkovic's two-stage oscillator and yes it can produce a forward thrust, but not an upward thrust, and also as it depends on gravity it cannot be used for applications where "performance" is required.

David Cowlishaw's design is pretty interesting and I think he wants to make an uneven spinning orbit, without re-action forces which prevent it from being operational. His design is complicated and I doubt it works as by now he should have made a small prototype to demonstrate it, as it is about 9 years by now. Or there is a cover-up, who knows.

What I know, is the fact that Thornson device it proven experimentally to work, and the obstacle of "it is not possible" has been lifted, and now we need to find out how to do it efficiently and in a more simple way, and most of all how to do it by using only the energy required to overcome friction, and making the device go beyond unity, and requiring only a little amount of energy to travel.

What we haven't yet understood clearly as human beings is the fact that simple is better and always simpler designs are possible.

Elias

[Dingus]

I don't think that it is a resonant effect, it utilizes the centrifugal force, and makes it unbalanced to achieve a one way propulsion. The force generated is increased by a power of 2 when the speed of rotation increases. The speed of the train should increase until the propulsive force is equal to the total friction. The one Naudin has built has very light and short arms, Thus small amount of propulsion is produced.

While the force is affected by the speed, the speed doesn't need to be constant. Likewise the force it produces also is not constant & only produces thrust in that direction when the arms are outstretched, so it can be pulsed. When pulsed at the resonant frequency of the train it's on it might generate more thrust, similar to pushing a swing in one direction timed correctly.

[elias]

While the force is affected by the speed, the speed doesn't need to be constant. Likewise the force it produces also is not constant & only produces thrust in that direction when the arms are outstretched, so it can be pulsed. When pulsed at the resonant frequency of the train it's on it might generate more thrust, similar to pushing a swing in one direction timed correctly.

Dear Dingus,

I thought that resonance applies to oscillating systems, could you explain more, if I don't get it correctly. I don't think that unidirectional travel has anything to do with resonance, correct me if I am missing something.

Of course, if one looks at everything as a particular vibration, such as speed of an object being a vibration for that object in existence, then to make an object reach a particular speed v, we need not necessarily increment an object to speed v, we need only change the speed vibration of the object and it will speed up instantaneously without experiencing acceleration. Which sounds like engineering the Aether.

Elias

[navigator]

I was glad to see this thread. I have always been interested in classical mechanics and the effects forces of nature can have on objects in motion. We are able to place solid objects in the path of wind and falling water, changing its normal path to harvest kinetic energy and convert it to electricity. If that can be done with air and water in motion, why not mass in motion?

There is a common theme, the path and speed the air/water travels is altered in order to harness the kinetic energy. Same with an inertial thruster. The mass travels much faster and farther in one half a revolution than the other, instead of following a uniform path and speed in one revolution. IMO Its time within time and the key to free energy with solid objects in motion.


The GIT is another type of inertial thruster that uses a spinning ball on a pair of unparallel rails, the narrowest point of the rails being the direction of thrust. Place a GIT in the middle of a gyroscope, mounted so the narrowest point of the rails could be controlled, by a computer while spinning inside the gyroscope, to change the direction of thrust. Then you mount alot of these on the rim of a disc that spins horizontally around a central hub, which is where the control center is located. This could look similar to the many saucer shaped ufos we see portrayed today.

[Cloxxki]

Quick comment to Naudin's Powerball test. I own one, and will state that the device only generates a twist around its central point/axes. If one were to put it on a toy train, it would go no-where, or just fall over. It's a great toy to show how gyros can pick up movement and store it, or twist the heck out of something much heavier.

EDIT to add that I realize my above interpretation pretty much contradicts work I've come across before, where ring spinning inside each other were to cance out gravity. The Powerball has multiple gyros with the same centre, and all it does is jerk. It could aim a satellite, but not change its course.

Naudin shows a Lego interial engine, which on first glace, works. But then, would adding power and spinning weight to this thing, which obviously strengthening the whole unit, allow self-levitation in a vacume?

[navigator]

Hi Gyula,

What I know, is the fact that Thornson device it proven experimentally to work, and the obstacle of "it is not possible" has been lifted, and now we need to find out how to do it efficiently and in a more simple way, and most of all how to do it by using only the energy required to overcome friction, and making the device go beyond unity, and requiring only a little amount of energy to travel.

I think the difference is the TIE uses a pair of mechanics that spin masses in elliptical orbits. One mass spins clockwise the other mass counter clockwise. Together they achieve a directional force when the mass are accelerating, and a balancing effect when decellerating, in one revolution. The fast half of the revolution pushes out and away from itself, while the slow half draws it back and balances the system, instead of pushing away in the opposite direction and comprimising the positive directional force. The mass is changing from potential to kinetic and back to potential energy in one revolution, just like water in a hydroelectric dam or wind through a wind turbine.

Maybe the results of the TIE would have been even better if the masses rotated around the center of the system, instead of on top like a helicopter.

What we haven't yet understood clearly as human beings is the fact that simple is better and always simpler designs are possible.

Elias

I agree, but how many people study classical mechanics these days? It seems to me a forgotten science partly due to the constraints leveid on it by the laws of physics.

If the velocity of the masses increase and decrease, within a constant RPM, is it logical to assume a kinetic energy differential?

My premise is solid objects are the source for mechanical energy. All forms of energy have a source, except mechanical energy. Today, we can only convert other forms of energy into mechanical energy. Any mass has potential energy when still, however the mechanics to put the mass in motion and harness more kinetic enegy, than what is required to mantain the motion, are quite complex.

[Dingus]

I thought that resonance applies to oscillating systems, could you explain more, if I don't get it correctly. I don't think that unidirectional travel has anything to do with resonance, correct me if I am missing something.

The TIE's could create resonance because they do not create a constant thrust. In the videos and animated .gif on this page(not a perfect example) you can see that they appear to vibrate, or jiggle forward. Every oscillation has a frequency. Tesla's "Earthquake machine" consisted of a mechanical oscillator attached to a fixed structure in order to break it. An non-fixed object such as a train on a track would jiggle forward and backwards due to a bi-directional force pulsed at it's resonance. With a unidirectional force pulsed at it's resonance would slowly build speed moving forward, like a swing without gravity pulling it back down.

[elias]

An Experiment that proves the Centrifugal force can move objects forward.

Hi,

Well, in a turning unbalanced rotor, the forces in each direction cancel out but .... depending on where the rotor starts to turn it would cause movement, with acceleration and deceleration:

If the rotor starts moving the system will move and accelerate forward and then decelerate and stop and will again move and accelerate forward, and then decelerate and stop, and this would result in movement in one direction, but this must system must be kept synchronised with the speed of the object to make it go forward and prevent the cancelling force to move it in the opposite direction. If not the movement would turn onto oscillation.

Elias

[elias]

My premise is solid objects are the source for mechanical energy. All forms of energy have a source, except mechanical energy. Today, we can only convert other forms of energy into mechanical energy. Any mass has potential energy when still, however the mechanics to put the mass in motion and harness more kinetic enegy, than what is required to mantain the motion, are quite complex.

I completely agree, that mechanical energy comes from the solid objects and it is drained from the Aether and the Aether from the Source (God) the originator of the Multiverse.

The centrifugal force is what Inertia(A property of the Aether) can manifest as a "real" and very strong explosive force. (The same force the nuclear energy comes from, Uranium enrichment is done by high speed centrifuges)

Rotation is what reveals the power of God, as a Centrifugal force, Now imagine the force F = mv^2/R if the speed v approaches the speed of light. (Unimaginable!?) The fact is as you move further from the axis of rotation the centrifugal force increases linearly. It seems that there is no speed of light bound to rotation.

We have to harness this power with machines such as the Milkovic two stage Oscillator.

Elias