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
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
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