We observed in the preceding page A Simple Observation that the force exerted against a surface by a “burst” of air will diminish if the distance increases, simple observation that leads us to sum interesting possibilities.

-X ç========================================================è +X

Fig 0

For instance, if we have a pressurized spaceship in 0g with a free floating mass (M2) inside, if the mass (M2) has a propeller (motor and batteries included) and the propeller is switched on for 3s, two things will happen:

One: mass M2 will gain velocity in the +X direction.

Two: the gas molecules that are expelled in the –X direction will collide with the spacecraft’s rear hull exerting a force (F) in the –X direction.

Yet that force (F) will be stronger if the mass is activated in position 1 than if it is activated in position 2.

Remember what this man said:

Experiment we must

Frictionless experiment with a torsion balance apparatus

Using metrology similar to Henry Cavendish’s 1706 experiment to measure the force of gravity between masses

We need an airtight structure (box), and we must turn on the propellers for x seconds at different positions.

Position 1, near the box’s opposite side.

Position 2, far from the box’s opposite side.

If the resulting force (which we can deduce by box’s change in position/velocity) is the same regardless of the propellers position, I am wrong and will never bring this idea up again.

If the resulting force decreases as the distance increases, well that means we have a new method of space propulsion.

The method has been tested horizontally on ball bearings, dry ice plucks and floating on water, however in order to eliminate the influence of friction I shall suggest the following “test rig”

Simple Dynamic Tests Rig I.

Fig 1

We put a motor and propeller (representing mass M2) balanced by a counter weight hanging from a string (Fig 1), this permits the assembly to easily rotate around the vertical axis and will represent the movement of the inner free floating mass (M2).

Fig 2

The balancing motor assembly is inside a perimeter cylinder structure (fig 2), balancing motor assembly and perimeter cylinder structure may rotate independently (until the balancing motor assembly bumps into the separator borders).

Fig 3

Cutaway (Fig 3) illustrates the balancing motor can turn on its vertical axis independently of the surrounding perimeter / support / separators for an approximately 40º angel before colliding with one of the separators.

We can replace the balancing propeller with a wheel in direct contact with the perimeter cylinder as a control experiment (see Note 2)

Testing

Turning on the motor/propeller near (almost touching) “rear” separator

(As in position 1 fig 0)

If we position the motor/propeller assembly as close as possible to the “rear” separator (fig 4a), turning on the motor blows air directly against the “rear” separator giving the perimeter cylinder a clockwise movement (green arrows), the balancing motor/propeller assembly will accelerate in the counter clockwise direction (blue arrows) (fig 4b) until it collides with the “forward” separator bringing the perimeter cylinder’s clockwise spin to a standstill (fig 4c).

In the described configuration it is difficult to obtain an increment in rotation of the perimeter cylinder, the spacecraft will not accelerate.

Fig 4a                                                                        Fig 4b

Fig 4c

Video 1

Breakdown of results with motor/propeller near (almost touching) the “rear” separator/target surface.

Fig 5

Turning on the motor/propeller as far from the “rear” separator as is possible

If we position the balancing motor assembly’s initial position far form the “rear” separator (fig 6a), with a approximate 35º angle (θ 3), when we turn on the propeller the balancing motor assembly accelerates in the counter clockwise direction (fig 6b) as in the previous experiment, but the perimeter cylinder’s clockwise acceleration is significantly less than the previous experiment, this is because the force exerted against an object by a (non laminar) gas flow decreases when the distance separating the gas source (propeller) from the target surface (separator) (see).

The instant of collision between the balancing motor assembly and the “forward” separator (fig 6c) finds the perimeter cylinder has made only a small clockwise movement, and the momentum transferred by the balancing motor assembly to the perimeter cylinder is sufficient to accelerate it in the counter clockwise direction beyond its original position and continue turning in the counter clockwise direction (fig 6d).

By repeatedly inverting the direction of the propeller (Note 3) it is possible to continually “bump” the “forward” separator constantly increasing the perimeter cylinders counterclockwise velocity. (See cycle for generation thrust on a spacecraft)

Fig 6a                                                                                         Fig 6b

Fig 6c                                                                                    Fig 6d

Video 2

Video 3

Breakdown of results with motor/propeller as far as possible from the “rear” separator/target surface.

Fig 7

What is observed?

When we turn on the motor, the clockwise angular displacement of the perimeter cylinder is depended on the distance that separate the propeller from the “rear” separator, (Videos 1, 2 and 3), this is because the force exerted against an object by a (non laminar) gas flow is inversely proportional to the distance separating gas source from the target surface.

The balanced motor assembly continues to gain angular velocity until it collides with one of the separators (Fig 17c), it transfers momentum to the perimeter cylinder that gains velocity in the counter clock wise direction, the balanced motor assembly bounces in the clockwise direction, the cycle can be repeated indefinitely by changing the direction of the propeller (see Note 4) at the appropriate moment (see videos 2 and 3)

Some are disturbed because the experiment appears to contradict the law of conservation of linear momentum, others that have given the matter some thought believe it does not.

Little propeller car in box

Video 4

This video (4) is for demonstration/explaining purposes only, it does not constitute any kind of “demonstration of proof” for although the little car’s bumping does make the frame rotate, it only rotates at a constant speed.

There are various apparatus that are capable of continues velocity, a successful experimented must demonstrate the ability of CONSTANT ACCELERATION. (As illustrated in figs 6 and 7)

An artifact that may move a closed system from one spot to another may be useful in satellite positioning, but we need constant acceleration to reach the stars.

CONCLUSION

After repeating the experiment numerous times we can:

Confirm that it is not possible to increase the frame’s rotation by acceleration of a contained mass by any means that requires direct contact with the box (figs 20 to 24) (various other mechanisms were tried but not shown in the document)

It is possible to increase the frame’s rotation if the contained mass is made to accelerate with no direct contact with the cylinder by means of air currents (figs 25 to 33).

This experiment is presented to observe a simple method of propulsion for spacecraft and can be easily replicated.

No insights on apparent conflicts with the conservation of linear momentum law are offered in this particular document.

NOTES

Note 1 What about Newton’s third law (To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction)?

Fig 8

The motor spins the propeller (A), when the propeller collides (B) with a air molecule (D) 2 equal and opposite forces interact, F1 pushes the propeller assembly in the +X direction, and F2 hurls the molecule (D) in a –X direction.

Fig 9

With every collision (we are taking billions and billions of collisions) two equal forces hurl the colliding molecules in different directions, the magnitude of the forces does not change but the vector direction are randomized with every collision. See kinetic theory of gases.

Note 2 Control Experiment

 a                                                b

10

If we attach the wheeled assembly to the motor (b) in such a manner that the wheel is in contact with the perimeter circle so that when the motor is turned on the wheel will “roll” on the cylinder (Fig 10)

Fig 11a                                                                                                                                     Fig 11b

Fig 11b illustrates what happens when we turn on the motor so that the wheel turns in a clockwise direction, the motor / wheel assembly pushing against the perimeter cylinder will move in a counter clockwise direction (θ 1)  while the perimeter cylinder will turn in a clockwise direction (θ 2).

The ratio between the counter clockwise angular displacement of the balancing motor assembly (θ 1)  and the clockwise angular displacement of the perimeter cylinder (θ 2) will depend on the ratio between the masses of the objects, if they have equal mass (this can be controlled by adding mass where necessary) the angular displacements will be equal. (Fig 11b)

If we reverse the direction of the motor the objects will return to their original position. It is not possible to give the perimeter cylinder a constant angular acceleration if the balanced motor assembly is restrained to a fixed angle by separating panels.

At most we can obtain a cyclical clockwise anticlockwise oscillation

Note 3

To control the propeller motor (on-off-left spin-right spin) it is best to use a RC controller so that no external cables protrude from the assembly.

Suggested method:

Obtain an inexpensive toy RC car or other toy

Remove the RC circuit (generally includes the battery compartment) (fig 38)

Fig 12

Connect the control wires of one of the toys motors (most have two or more) to the propeller motor, in this example a normal LEGO motor (fig 12)

This setup will control the propellers direction remotely.

Fig 12