Sunday, 11 June 2017

Full length video from 6-10-17

quote [ This is a Fb livestream filmed by a friend at the demonstration in its entirety. It begins with me being interviewed by a local reporter and that video will be linked once the story airs. ]

This is a demonstration of the Inertia Engine with motors and water circulation, sealed in a box with two layers of plastic around it.
It travels approximately 45ft in seven minutes.

26ft torsional pendulum
50lb machine
50lb counterweight
powered by two Harbor Freight angle grinders speed-controlled with dimmer switches.
Harbor Freight "waterfall pump" for circulation.
Wheels made from cheap aluminum cook pots.
Valves made from swamp-cooler float valves.
Anyone with a lathe should be able to build a version capable of flight.
[SFW] [science & technology] [+2 Interesting]
[by -_-@9:30pmGMT]


midden said @ 11:39pm GMT on 11th Jun [Score:3 Underrated]
Does this guy have a succinct document explaining what he's doing, or at least what he thinks he's doing, along with a list of all the measures he has taken to eliminate other interpretations? Otherwise, it's just a hundred pounds of mass hanging, a bunch of sloppy angular momentum added to it, and over time the mass drifts in one direction. I'm not going to spend half an hour trying to figure out what another "physics defying" youtube nut is going on and on about.
sanepride said @ 12:28am GMT on 12th Jun [Score:2]
I think what you mean to say is 'unworthy self-link'.
midden said @ 12:36am GMT on 12th Jun [Score:1 Insightful]
Woah! I didn't realize that was actually Face.
-_- said @ 12:52am GMT on 12th Jun
Yep, that's me.
My post history here, and on original SE, contains more info.
Feel free to check our description at Fü where there's a link to our youtube channel at the top of the page.
This thing works and I'm just seeking third party confirmation so that everyone understands they can play with this tech too.
No patent, fully public domain.
Actually does work,
midden said @ 12:59am GMT on 12th Jun [Score:2 Underrated]
I have seen at least one previous post of this setup, that I'm guessing was from you. I'm sure it works, but I suspect that it's working differently than you think it is. I'm not at all an expert, but I am enough of a science geek to know that angular momentum is a far from intuitive thing.

Thanks for the link. I will give it my best shot at an open-minded read.
-_- said @ 3:09am GMT on 12th Jun
Yeah, in the previous video I posted I was using horizontal wheels that contributed angular momentum that the splashplate had to overcome in order to move in the splashplate direction.
In this motorized one I used vertical wheels to avoid just that.

Thank you for taking a look at it :)
-_- said @ 3:10am GMT on 12th Jun
Damn it ... mod then reply D:
I owe you one ;)
lilmookieesquire said @ 5:14am GMT on 12th Jun
I think you can mod after replying now. It's a feature. :)0
-_- said @ 9:44am GMT on 12th Jun [Score:1 Sad]
I can't seem to though, perhaps I have less features :/
lilmookieesquire said @ 2:48pm GMT on 12th Jun [Score:1 Interesting]
There might be a thing to prevent sock puppets where you have to contribute a certain amount but I don't remember what the limits were.
donnie said @ 8:33am GMT on 12th Jun
I am an expert and it definitely doesn't work, especially not the way he thinks. We all tried telling him this years ago but -_-'s brain is a one-way street. The very fact that this demonstration, this "proof", shows a rotating device is evidence that, even after ten years of stubbornly working on this, -_- still has no clue about physics or angular momentum whatsoever.

This is really the equivalent of taping a cat into a cardboard box, watching it jump around, and exclaiming "OMG, reactionless drive proven!". It does not... for reasons that should be obvious to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of what their eyes are looking at.
-_- said @ 9:56am GMT on 12th Jun
So you're saying you didn't watch the video.
This is reasonable given that the last time I posted a video on this subject to SE you posted multiple derogatory comments but the you tube channel tools showed that there had been no views via the link I provided to SE.
You claim knowledge of an experiment you have neither witnessed nor performed.
You claim absolute knowledge of Newton's thoughts as he wrote his words.
In short ... you claim a lot while giving no argument other than "because I said so" laced with ad-hominem attacks.

Put up or shut up.
foobar said @ 5:19pm GMT on 12th Jun
-_-, it's on you to put up or shut up. It's not on the rest of us to figure out how you're not actually violating the known laws of physics. It's not "because I said so," it's "because everyone who's ever studied this says so."

Yeah, they may be wrong, it's extremely unlikely, but possible. It's on you to prove it, and it's going to take a lot more than a youtube video with some tamale pots to do it.
-_- said @ 8:07pm GMT on 12th Jun
Ok foobar.

A: I'm not violating any known laws of physics.
_a1) Conservation of Momentum only applies to closed systems.
_a2) A rotating body containing elements that are co-rotating is not a closed system due to the presence of an outside source of acceleration (centrifugal force) inside the rotating frame.

B: An experiment is required to test a hypothesis.
_b1) Two counter-rotating cans of water with controlled leaks.
_b2) Test with, and without, a splash plate.

C: I am now seeking, via the internet, third parties to recreate the experiment in an effort to get its results accepted by others.
donnie said @ 8:24pm GMT on 12th Jun
No scientist will even bother because the answer is known. It's not worth the effort to recreate this experiment because science has already done it so many times, and in so much detail, that there is no further need to re-do it. The only purpose here would be for your own education, something which you seem stubbornly opposed to.

You want to talk about arrogance - you're the one standing on a soapbox flipping the bird to every scientist now, and for the past four centuries, who have devoted their lives to providing us with the knowledge we have today. You haven't even bothered to learn the laws of physics you think you're not breaking and yet you have the gall to suggest that it is SCIENCE that is in error and not yourself.

Imagine being the overweight and out-of-shape person you are going up to Usain Bolt and shit-talking about how you can totally run 100m faster than him, then put it on him to prove that you're wrong. Forget about it - you'll get laughed out of the room and look like a dick for not giving the hard work and discipline that someone else has put to their craft fair respect.

Same thing here - if science was a sport, you've not even bothered to get in shape and yet you think somehow that by divine and superior genius you've come up with a world-shattering new idea. You haven't, it's not, and nobody gives a shit enough about your broken understanding to spoon feed you an education to prove it.
-_- said @ 8:31pm GMT on 12th Jun
Show me one example of this experiment ever being done before by anyone anywhere and I'll stop posting this stuff to SE.
donnie said @ 8:42pm GMT on 12th Jun
It is linked in the video above.
donnie said @ 8:49pm GMT on 12th Jun
Seriously, though, the power of science is that it is general - there are an infinite number of experimental variations you can come up with. You don't need to do them all to know what the result will be. That's the whole point.

A kid on a swing can produce motion - is that a reactionless drive? Could you go to the moon with an engine built on the same principles? No, and no. Does your contraption produce motion? Yes. Is it a reactionless drive? No.
-_- said @ 9:37pm GMT on 12th Jun
Well of course there's a reaction, that's why I always put "reactionless" in quotes. The only difference here is that the reaction occurs inside the rotating frame where it can be cancelled out by the application of centrifugal force acting upon the interior mass.
So, the reaction isn't linear while the action is, this allows for a net unbalanced linear force.

Be a scientist, not a reference librarian ... unless of course you can find any references to this experiment having been done before by anyone else anywhere ever. Otherwise you're not being scientific about this at all.
donnie said @ 9:44pm GMT on 12th Jun
Whatever... let me know when you get that phone call from Sweden. Surely there's a Nobel Prize here just waiting for you. Your genius is the stuff of envy and legend, surely.
-_- said @ 9:55pm GMT on 12th Jun
Dude, I don't give a shit about any of that crap, I'm just trying to help the world.
Oh well, not surprised to see you bow out though, I've long doubted your claim to a scientific education, your inability to approach this scientifically only goes to reaffirm that :/
donnie said @ 12:26am GMT on 13th Jun
If you really want to help the world, why are you so opposed to actually trying to learn real science? Seriously, it has been ten years since you last floated this idea and everyone told you it was stupid. That's long enough to have completed a PhD's worth of learning - you could actually have had a clue by now but you don't. It takes a year or two at most to learn the calculus required to describe systems like this - you could actually have a working model of what's going on here instead of wasting a decade with wild imaginations, guesswork, and fallacious reasoning. Are you afraid that you might be wrong? Are you trying deliberately to avoid having to face that possibility?
-_- said @ 3:37am GMT on 13th Jun
So... you've got nothing at this point but character attacks.
Have a good day.
foobar said @ 8:50pm GMT on 12th Jun
I am now seeking, via the internet, third parties to recreate the experiment in an effort to get its results accepted by others.

Offer a bounty, and put it in escrow. No one is going to do this for free.
-_- said @ 10:15pm GMT on 12th Jun
I've offered some local professors $500 if they can physically show (on my rig) that the motive force is anything other than I have described, but no takers yet.
I'm considering publicly challenging one to a $5K wager on the subject but it feels unmannerly to do so :/
foobar said @ 11:51pm GMT on 12th Jun
That makes you sound like a con artist. Of course they won't accept.

Look at it from their perspective; there's effectively no chance you've honestly found something new, a decent chance you're trying to pull something, and a large one that you're just a kook.

You want their credibility, but you're not offering anything to them.
-_- said @ 12:08am GMT on 13th Jun
are you suggesting a bounty (in escrow) for someone to recreate the experiment and confirm my results?
How do you suggest it be structured?
It cost around $100usd to build and test, perhaps a $1000usd bounty would be in order?
foobar said @ 1:07am GMT on 13th Jun
How many hours did it take to build and test? Consider that, in addition to the cost of a professional's time, they're also going to need to use professional equipment.

And, of course, you're going to have to accept the virtually certain probability that they will show you're wrong, and include that in the bounty.
-_- said @ 3:13am GMT on 13th Jun
Aye aye, thanks for the input.
Have a good day.
kylemcbitch said @ 8:53pm GMT on 12th Jun
I am sorry Face, you and I are friend but this will not stand:

"Conservation of Momentum only applies to closed systems."

The law of conservation of momentum is a fundamental physical law that applies to every interaction involving matter. There is no distinction between open and closed systems relating to the applicability of this law.

-_- said @ 9:32pm GMT on 12th Jun
Try googling "conservation of momentum"

"Conservation of momentum is a fundamental law of physics which states that the momentum of a system is constant if there are no external forces acting on the system. It is embodied in Newton's first law (the law of inertia). ... The forces between them are equal and opposite."

Or try Wikipedia

"In a closed system (one that does not exchange any matter with its surroundings and is not acted on by external forces) the total momentum is constant. This fact, known as the law of conservation of momentum, is implied by Newton's laws of motion." ~ here

kylemcbitch said[3] @ 9:49pm GMT on 12th Jun
Indeed, but that's not what you said:

"Conservation of Momentum only applies to closed systems."


Conservation of Angular Momentum when applied to both closed and open system:

1)Closed system - A closed system does not interact with its environment so there is no net
external impulse. The total momentum of a closed system is conserved. That is, the total
momentum of the system remains constant.

2) Open system - An open system interacts with its environment, so that it can exchange
both energy and momentum with the environment. For an open system the change in the
total momentum is equal to the net impulse added from the environment–from objects
outside the system.

In both cases, the law applies. Angular momentum is additive; the total angular momentum of a system is the (pseudo)vector sum of the angular momenta. The rate of change of the angular momentum of an open system is equal to the torque of the applied.

So, how do you plan to apply continually higher amounts of torque?
-_- said @ 10:02pm GMT on 12th Jun
And that is the core of the problem here, the way people are learning "open system/closed system" ... it's not the same as open container/closed container ... the exterior environment is not the only possible exterior source of force or acceleration as proven by the outside source of acceleration in a rotating frame which is the centrifugal force.
I am amazed at this modern desire to "correct" Newton's usage of the terms open/closed ... Newton was more intelligent and knowledgeable on this subject than all of us combined yet all of y'all want to interpret his words differently than he wrote them.
kylemcbitch said[1] @ 10:13pm GMT on 12th Jun
So again, the mechanism by which you apply torque is the question here. If you are using the momentum of the system itself, you are in closed system. If the mechanism does not use the momentum of the system itself, then you must be gaining torque via energy from the surrounding environment, yes?

Balance laws being what they are, this would leave you net neutral (energy from outside the system can be used to supply torque, but using the momentum of the system means loss of energy that has to be regained. Eventually you will hit the cap on the mechanical ability to add momentum and will be left where you lose energy and then need to supply more to get back to base. You essentially have a mechanical battery, not an engine.
-_- said @ 10:23pm GMT on 12th Jun
"Outside" doesn't always mean "outside the box" you can also have an "outside source of acceleration" wholly contained within a box. That is what I am using to redirect/cancel the reaction to releasing a droplet. The released droplet then increases the linear momentum of the box containing the wheel.
The surrounding environment is irrelevant.
kylemcbitch said[1] @ 10:37pm GMT on 12th Jun
Take the earth-sun system. It's open in so far as Earth is concerned. However, entropy being the bitch it is, the Sun is not an open system and thus it is subject to blowing the fuck up on day when it starts to run out of fuel.

The same is happening here. To use this device as an engine means using the stored potential of the motion of the system. That potential is capped at the underlying torque mechanism: once you reach the mechanical limit of the torque, you will be unable to add more. Presuming the droplet then adds to the system, you might be able to just barely rise above that torque limit but then are left with the fact you can't get those droplets back without taking from the system. Centrifugal force will pin it to the extreme end of your rotational devices.

Thus when you use it, you lose energy (as if you just took some charge from a battery.) While the device may operate in extreme energy efficiency, that is all it's doing.

If you can tell me how you'd use this device to power something without ending it's reaction then I'd acquiesce you'd have something here. You both are using the same principle, and you are both (wrongly) convinced you have an engine rather than a battery.
-_- said @ 11:08pm GMT on 12th Jun
Kyle ... this isn't a perpetual motion machine, it requires constant input of electricity to operate.
The video you linked is to an art installation that is well known to simply be highly efficient, ie; it will run longer than most people's attention spans.
kylemcbitch said @ 11:18pm GMT on 12th Jun
I understand that, but what I am saying is that your reasoning behind what is closed and open is actually in play here.

You are claiming that the motion of your rotational devices is open. That is wrong. It's dependent on energy supplied within the system. Which means using the device uses the energy of the device.

Basically, you're doing nothing but storing the energy you're supplying via electricity into a flywheel battery system. You can actually remove the flywheel entirely and just use whatever it is that you are using to supply the energy to power whatever you wish to provide energy to and it would be more efficient, since you're not first pumping it into a 80%~ battery storage system first.
-_- said @ 11:49pm GMT on 12th Jun
Are you familiar with non-inertial reference frames?

I'm just converting angular momentum into linear momentum, that's all it is really.
The wheels aren't free rotating, they are constantly powered by motors in this demonstration.
With a splash plate it moves, without a splash plate it does not.
That alone should cause you curiosity ... if what you are saying is physically accurate then what explains these behaviors?
donnie said @ 12:11am GMT on 13th Jun
You cannot convert angular momentum to linear momentum. It doesn't work that way. Linear momentum is conserved. Angular momentum is conserved. They are independent.
kylemcbitch said[2] @ 1:24am GMT on 13th Jun
Heres an experiment that you can try:

Take some fairly smooth, non-rotating airflow, maybe from an air-conditioner vent. Put a simple little rotary fan in front of it, not turned on. You should see the fan start to spin a little, driven by the wind. Now using some ribbons that blow in the wind measure the airflow behind the fan. You should see a bit of rotation, opposite to the fan rotation. Remove the fan and that rotation should go away.

What IS Angular Momentum?
-_- said @ 3:20am GMT on 13th Jun
I don't know what you think the relevancy of your fan experiment is but the video you linked somewhat supports my thesis, though they conflate "outside source" with "physically outside the system" the same way the rest of you do.
kylemcbitch said @ 4:27am GMT on 13th Jun
The fan experiment is an attempt to teach you the difference between torque and moment. The fan rotates due to air resistance, creating torque and thus angular momentum. Remove the fan, the torque is null, the fan stops rotating due to the same forces that caused it to rotate to begin with. The only way to change angular or linear momenta in a system is to apply external forces. BY DEFINITION external forces are outside the system in question. Now, the electricity you are supplying to the system is an external force. However, your water drop is not, and thus it is doing fuck all here.
sanepride said @ 9:59pm GMT on 11th Jun [Score:1 Funny]
Portrait mode. Why did it have to be portrait mode...
-_- said @ 10:07pm GMT on 11th Jun
I know ...Aaaaarrrgh :/
But ... there's a different camera angle on my youtube channel but it has focus issues at the beginning.
There was a third camera angle but I have to wait for the story to air on tv before I'll have that one to share.
donnie said @ 8:35am GMT on 12th Jun
mechavolt said @ 11:26am GMT on 12th Jun [Score:1 Underrated]
While I do think it's cool that you're experimenting, forging me for trusting professional physicists with controlled experiments over a guy with a wooden contraption hanging from some string. I wish you all the luck in the world in proving me wrong, though.
-_- said @ 8:11pm GMT on 12th Jun
Thank you mechavolt

A) this is a controlled experiment.
B) Newton's Cradle is just balls hanging from strings.
C) Demonstrating simple physics only requires simple experiments.
D) I'm trying to get professional physicist to recreate this simple experiment under whatever controlled conditions they desire.
backSLIDER said @ 7:24am GMT on 12th Jun
As near I can tell; you are blowing a sail with a fan.
-_- said @ 9:46am GMT on 12th Jun
If the water dripping from the rotating wheel imparted any linear acceleration to the wheel you would be right.
It does not.
This is proven and provable.
It is a very simple experiment to do.
backSLIDER said @ 4:51am GMT on 13th Jun
I've done this experiment actually. With water in a tire. It does in fact have an equal force in reaction. Why would it being water be different then a kid on a marry go round anyway? Magic water?
donnie said @ 9:40am GMT on 12th Jun
I think this post gets the most applicable possible downvote categories...

Unworthy Self Link

...take your pick :/
-_- said @ 9:43am GMT on 12th Jun
As I have said to you elsewhere..

Mine cost less than a hundred bucks to test for yourself.
Or, if you're in the area, you're welcome to play with any of mine.
At this point I'm fairly certain you haven't actually looked into my work, and that your reasoning is that since it is impossible it would therefore be a waste of your time.
To this Sir I say your arrogance is surpassed only by your ignorance, and neither would survive without the other.
donnie said @ 8:31pm GMT on 12th Jun
I don't doubt it does exactly what you've shown - one would expect this. It isn't what you think, however, and your understanding of what is going on is wrong. The machine moves, surely, but the conclusions you're implying about why are what's wrong.
-_- said @ 8:38pm GMT on 12th Jun
Ok donnie, let's see...
Neither the motors nor the wheels are oriented to the plane of the pendulums rotation.
Exemplified by the pendulum remaining motionless while the motors and wheels run without water .
The water pump itself doesn't contribute any momentum to move the pendulum as it has been run by itself as well.

The machine/pendulum behaves differently with/without the splash plate.

What do you hypothesize is the source of locomotion then?
donnie said @ 8:40pm GMT on 12th Jun
I don't have to hypothesize - write the damned equations down and see for yourself. The wonder of science is that it is freely available to anyone in the world, doubly so now with the wonder of the internet.

If you want a scientist to take you seriously you need to at least be able to do the math to model your system. Otherwise, you're wasting everyone's time, including your own.
steele said @ 5:59pm GMT on 12th Jun
-_-, this seem about right?

-_- said @ 8:23pm GMT on 12th Jun
No .. sorry .. that's not how it works.
What you describe is the generation of uneven force inside the wheel.
That is the method people have been trying to make work for decades (centuries?) and it simply does not work, all it produces is shaking/vibration.
With my approach the wheel stays balanced at all times with equal distribution of mass/weight around the center of rotation, even while water drips through the valve.
The water that drips out of the rotating wheel has a predictable flight path and carries with it a lot of momentum as it is traveling at the same speed it was inside the wheel it leaked from.
That momentum is harvested by the splash plate and increases the linear momentum of the container.
If it were not for the centrifugal force acting on the water inside the wheel the leaking would cause imbalance of the wheel and counter acceleration of the wheel would occur.
As is, the presence of an outside source of acceleration inside the wheel allows one to manifest a Net unbalanced force in the direction of the splash plate.
steele said[3] @ 8:54pm GMT on 12th Jun
I thought that's what I was illustrating. :) Hence the arrow on outside of the wheel. To me, what you're basically describing is an extension of the same forces happening within the wheel but by controlling the timing of the valve its extended outwards to your plate.

So, to recap if i was a better artist...
Basic equal distributed force would be a consistent circle of outward energy.
Counterweighted motor is an offcenter oblingish type rotating outward energy resulting in vibrations.
Your method is an offcenter oblongish energy with a reasonably consistent direction resulting in movement. IOW, as far as the energy distribution of the water is concerned, the plate is an extended wall of the wheel, yes?

IOOW, you've inverted the concept of a vibrational motor.
-_- said @ 9:48pm GMT on 12th Jun
Love ya buddy, but that's not how it works.
The primary point here, the point that everything else hinges on really, is that a dynamically balanced wheel releasing a portion of its mass (within the capability of the remaining dynamic mass's capability to compensate for) does not experience linear acceleration opposite the vector of the released mass.

In other words..
A LeBlanc balancer with a controlled leak doesn't experience a linear acceleration of its axis.

In other words..
A spinning wheel full of water aint going to move because of a leak even though the water that's leaking out looks like it's being thrown out of the wheel (which it aint).

steele said @ 9:51pm GMT on 12th Jun
IOW, as far as the energy distribution of the water is concerned, the plate is an extended wall of the wheel, yes? ???
-_- said @ 10:12pm GMT on 12th Jun
I don't believe it is.
There are two distinctly separate systems here.
1) non-inertial rotating frame (rotating wheel of water), having an outside source of acceleration (centrifugal force), which maintains a "center of mass aligned with center of rotation" net zero state even though some of the liquid mass leaks out.
2) Inertial linear frame (a box containing the wheel), having an outside source of mass/force (droplets leaking from the wheel) that accelerate it in a linear direction.

Does this help?
steele said[1] @ 10:29pm GMT on 12th Jun
I'm like 99% sure here, -_-

Map out the energy distribution of your water based on where it's applying force. Including the plate. You're going get something of a mild egg shape with the lump leading towards your plate. The center of that energy field is going to be offset from the center of your rotating frame towards your plate. That's where you're getting your directional acceleration from. By using the valve to shift the shape of your energy distribution field of the liquid you've inverted the concept of a vibrational motor and basically created a steerable top.
-_- said @ 11:20pm GMT on 12th Jun
I understand where you're coming from but that isn't what is happening.
Consider .. once the droplet leaves the wheel it is in free fall being subjected to neither centrifugal nor centripetal forces and thus has exited the rotating frame. Meanwhile the wheel itself remains at net zero due to the work being done by the centrifugal force acting upon the contained liquid mass.

Running the system without the splash plate results in the entire rig remaining stationary.
Running the system with the splash plate results in the rig moving in the direction of the droplet's flight/impact with the splash plate.
This has been physically tested and proven.

If your concerns were correct then the experimental results would have been..
With splash plate the device would remain stationary.
Without splash plate the device would moves opposite the vector of the droplet's flight.

Make sense?
donnie said @ 11:40pm GMT on 12th Jun
...unless you've failed to account for something, which you have. It's more exciting if you can figure it out yourself.
donnie said[1] @ 11:48pm GMT on 12th Jun
In fact, I'll give you a clue and invite you to measure and plot the angular velocity of your balance beam as a function of time once the thing gets going. Is the acceleration constant (ie: does the angular velocity increase smoothly)? Or does the angular velocity oscillate? I observe the latter - can you explain why?
-_- said @ 11:58pm GMT on 12th Jun
The machine is far from "perfect" and contributes vibration to the movement but according to the video analysis software we've employed it shows a steady non-zero acceleration.
A more precisely built device would offer smoother results, this is a trend we have already observed in practice.
In short, just because something is vibrating doesn't mean it can't also accelerate smoothly in one direction, said vibration can cause the appearance of oscillating acceleration.
donnie said @ 12:16am GMT on 13th Jun [Score:1 Funny]
Yes, it is far from perfect.
steele said[1] @ 11:47pm GMT on 12th Jun
You're misreading what I'm saying. I'm not arguing about the plate and it fully abides with what I'm trying to convey.

Once the droplet leaves the wheel it is still traveling outward with momentum, no? That's still energy supplied from your rotating frame. Transference of that energy to the plate is what shifts the shape of your distribution field. I'm saying that's why it works with the plate and why it doesn't work without the plate.
-_- said @ 12:04am GMT on 13th Jun
Sorry, I guess the phrase "distribution field" might have me confused.

Do we agree on these points..
a) the center of mass for the wheel itself stays aligned with the center of rotation.
b) the center of mass for the wheel-droplet system moves in the direction of the droplet's flight, fair evidence of an "open system" in play.
c) the center of mass for the container is changed by the impact of droplets coming from the wheel it contains.

steele said @ 12:45am GMT on 13th Jun
Leaking water from your wheel may introduce an offset into your center of mass. What I would like to see is whether or not your experiment works while the whole thing is at a stable buoyancy underwater.

By distribution field, I mean the shape of everywhere the water is transferring force. Both in the wheel and on the plate. That's force applied to the water via the rotational energy of your spindle. Transference of that energy in a non leaking wheel would be outwardly distributed 360 degrees within your wheel. Leaking to the plate introduces a deformity in that shape. That new shape is going to be somewhat egglike. The center of that new shape is going to be slightly offset from the center of your wheel towards the plate. The difference between the center of mass of your wheel and the center of your energy distribution is probably where you're getting your movement from.

Again, I'd like to see the whole thing done underwater without a tether or rail before locking down my opinion on how what you're seeing is happening.
-_- said @ 3:08am GMT on 13th Jun
Doing the experiment on, or under, water would add an element of friction that allows some of the most terrible designs to fool their builders and the public. Though slight, there is enough friction to dampen the return impulse while the more abrupt "drive impulse" overcomes said friction.
You can replicate this issue with a half filled gallon of milk and a Formica table top, simply give the jug an abrupt shove and it will "walk" across the table by the mechanism of internal sloshing and the friction between the jug and the table.
Our next test will either be a swing pendulum or flight, depending on time/resources.
steele said @ 3:20am GMT on 13th Jun
Fair enough. Hmm. I wonder if you could suspended it in a magnetic field large enough for it to travel?
-_- said @ 3:44am GMT on 13th Jun
That would raise whole new questions of suspicion.
A torsional pendulum is the standard way to test for micro-thrust and I've passed that test.
Next I need to pass a swing pendulum test or make it fly.
Flying is probably the only thing that will actually convince people though :/
My consultant(Physics PHD) specified exactly that, but not having the resources to do so yet I figured this would be a good intermediate step.
Time will tell.
steele said @ 3:49am GMT on 13th Jun [Score:1 Good]
Well, good luck!
-_- said @ 3:53am GMT on 13th Jun [Score:1 Good]

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.

Posts of Import
If you got logged out, log back in.
4 More Years!
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things
AskSE: What do you look like?

Karma Rankings