Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Inertial Impulse Drive - "impossible" they said

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Inertial Impulse Drive - "impossible" they said

    main flywheel and half-flywheel mass counterrotate at the same rpm. thus, half-flywheel mass travels an eliptical path always facing the same direction. since it travels close to the axis first half of the cycle and close to the rim another half of the cycle, there is a differential of inertial moment, thus, BY THE LAW, a unidirectional net force is produced. flywheels are kept in phase by the timing pulley.



    the aim is to further understand the phenomena and to consider the implications. please comment.

  • #2
    Originally posted by etherflow View Post
    main flywheel and half-flywheel mass counterrotate at the same rpm. thus, half-flywheel mass travels an eliptical path always facing the same direction. since it travels close to the axis first half of the cycle and close to the rim another half of the cycle, there is a differential of inertial moment, thus, BY THE LAW, a unidirectional net force is produced. flywheels are kept in phase by the timing pulley.



    the aim is to further understand the phenomena and to consider the implications. please comment.
    If true, why have I not come across a Youtube video showing this effect? It would seem reasonably easy to reproduce. Any numbers on how much thrust it could produce - how fast would it need to rotate to 'float'?

    Reminded me of this Youtube video I came across regarding CF which I found intriguing.

    Comment


    • #3
      why it has not been made/reproduced so far is beyond me. remember that
      human stupidity is infinite (i am not refering to members of this forum).

      your video is interesting. i'll follow their development. my idea was inspired
      by many such devices but mostly by one so called gyradoscope.

      i was inspired by it and i found a way to simplify such device down to raw
      operating principle and that is the differential of inertial impulse between the
      two half cycles. this was the solution.

      i expect now it will be fairly easy to make a small device that will levitate
      itself and maybe few times it's weight. the rpm will depend on the weight
      of the system, weight of the half-flywheel and diameter of the shaft
      following the formula for moment of inertia I = mr.




      Originally posted by sprocket View Post
      If true, why have I not come across a Youtube video showing this effect? It would seem reasonably easy to reproduce. Any numbers on how much thrust it could produce - how fast would it need to rotate to 'float'?

      Reminded me of this Youtube video I came across regarding CF which I found intriguing.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by etherflow View Post
        why it has not been made/reproduced so far is beyond me. remember that
        human stupidity is infinite (i am not refering to members of this forum)...
        Haha, wait till you've been here a while.

        it has certainly piqued my interest. Have you actually tested this? Would doubling the weight of the half-flywheel double the directional-thrust as well? Outrunner motors would seem ideal for this, compact with lots of power. There's a Youtube video where some Germans used LOTS and LOTS of outrunners to make a 1-man drone that managed to hover a couple of meters off the ground. I'm thinking that a fraction of those motors would be required to lift a man if this worked! A couple of more for horizantal thrust and your off to the moon!!! Weeeee.....

        Comment


        • #5
          ddn't test it YET.

          outrunner sounds like it would do the job.

          imagine a horizontal line through the axis of the big wheel. you see
          how it divides the path of the half flywheel's center of mass. you see
          that the path above the axis is almost double the path below. that is
          the ratio that determines the net force.

          according to I = mr. doubling the weight will double the net force.

          Originally posted by sprocket View Post
          Haha, wait till you've been here a while.

          it has certainly piqued my interest. Have you actually tested this? Would doubling the weight of the half-flywheel double the directional-thrust as well? Outrunner motors would seem ideal for this, compact with lots of power. There's a Youtube video where some Germans used LOTS and LOTS of outrunners to make a 1-man drone that managed to hover a couple of meters off the ground. I'm thinking that a fraction of those motors would be required to lift a man if this worked! A couple of more for horizantal thrust and your off to the moon!!! Weeeee.....
          Last edited by etherflow; 10-12-2015, 11:35 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            You are forgetting that when most of the mass is far from the axis, the whole will rotate slower than when it is near to the axis. THAT is "the LAW". Otherwise there would be an increase of energy in the system when the mass is at the far end.
            Remember the orbital velocity is wr (w being the angular velocity), then the kinetic energy is mv/2 becomes mwr/2. So when r increases while w remains constant, the kinetic energy increases.
            Thus, to keep a constant velocity you must add energy when the mass-centre to axis distance increases, and you must put a break on it when this distance decreases.
            This externally REQUIRED force is the force that you thought to get for free....

            Nice try though!

            Ernst.

            Comment


            • #7
              you forgot two half cycles have the same length in time.

              it will rotate faster when far from axis. so, w does not

              stay the same due to counterrotation of the half-flywheel.

              half-flywheel has higher angular velocity when crossings the

              longer path in the SAME time, that is, in other half of the cycle

              when travelling near the rim. so, due to this geometry, no external

              force is needed to gain apparently free energy and a net force.

              Originally posted by Ernst View Post
              You are forgetting that when most of the mass is far from the axis, the whole will rotate slower than when it is near to the axis. THAT is "the LAW". Otherwise there would be an increase of energy in the system when the mass is at the far end.
              Remember the orbital velocity is wr (w being the angular velocity), then the kinetic energy is mv/2 becomes mwr/2. So when r increases while w remains constant, the kinetic energy increases.
              Thus, to keep a constant velocity you must add energy when the mass-centre to axis distance increases, and you must put a break on it when this distance decreases.
              This externally REQUIRED force is the force that you thought to get for free....

              Nice try though!

              Ernst.
              Last edited by etherflow; 10-13-2015, 01:47 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                the big wheel will actually be a shaft

                Comment


                • #9
                  Theory vs. Fact

                  Hey, I'm all for coming up with nice theories but the proof is in the doing. There are plenty of ideas and theories here and plenty of people wanting other people to do stuff based on their ideas. It won't happen. The people doing stuff here are doing stuff based on what other people have actually done and can be duplicated. If you are not able to join in the effort to actually do something you will not get much love from this forum. Keep reading and viewing because there there are examples of all this to be found on this forum. But, you will not gain understanding by reading comments. You will need to do it and see for yourself that it works. So, the main question is this: Are you willing to put your credibility on the line and set forth your claim? 1. Have you built it? 2. Did it work? 3. What is your criterion that tells you you have a working device that functions outside of conventional accepted science?

                  Start there or risk being viewed as just another useless troll.
                  There is a reason why science has been successful and technology is widespread. Don't be afraid to do the math and apply the laws of physics.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    who said i am looking for someone to build it?

                    all you contributed to the thread are false accusations.

                    talking about a "useless troll".

                    Originally posted by wayne.ct View Post
                    Hey, I'm all for coming up with nice theories but the proof is in the doing. There are plenty of ideas and theories here and plenty of people wanting other people to do stuff based on their ideas. It won't happen. The people doing stuff here are doing stuff based on what other people have actually done and can be duplicated. If you are not able to join in the effort to actually do something you will not get much love from this forum. Keep reading and viewing because there there are examples of all this to be found on this forum. But, you will not gain understanding by reading comments. You will need to do it and see for yourself that it works. So, the main question is this: Are you willing to put your credibility on the line and set forth your claim? 1. Have you built it? 2. Did it work? 3. What is your criterion that tells you you have a working device that functions outside of conventional accepted science?

                    Start there or risk being viewed as just another useless troll.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Inertial Propulsion Engine

                      High there

                      Nice thread IMHO it is always better to start where others ended.

                      Please read the following link Robert Cook and his Patents

                      Robert Cook: Inertial Propulsion Engine ~ US Patent # 4238968 ~ USP # 3683707
                      Robert L. COOK Inertial Propulsion Engine

                      CIP Principle

                      Hope it helps

                      JJ

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        thnx. i know of cook and CIP. if you would

                        sketch cooks device down to it's most basic

                        operating principle, how would it look like?

                        Originally posted by myenergetic View Post
                        High there

                        Nice thread IMHO it is always better to start where others ended.

                        Please read the following link Robert Cook and his Patents

                        Robert Cook: Inertial Propulsion Engine ~ US Patent # 4238968 ~ USP # 3683707
                        Robert L. COOK Inertial Propulsion Engine

                        CIP Principle

                        Hope it helps

                        JJ
                        Last edited by etherflow; 10-14-2015, 02:49 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by myenergetic View Post
                          High there

                          Nice thread IMHO it is always better to start where others ended.

                          Please read the following link Robert Cook and his Patents

                          Robert Cook: Inertial Propulsion Engine ~ US Patent # 4238968 ~ USP # 3683707
                          Robert L. COOK Inertial Propulsion Engine

                          CIP Principle

                          Hope it helps

                          JJ
                          Wow, something else I was not aware of, thanks for posting this.

                          This has been verified by many, not to mention a couple of professors;

                          Endorsements ~

                          All scientists and engineers (except for2) have endorsed the CIP principle after seeing the model.

                          Prof. Ching Fong (former chairman of the Physics Dept, UC Davis, and Prof. Of Solid State Physics) has analyzed the system and estimates the energy efficiency potential at 53% and a propulsion efficiency of 98%.

                          Prof. Durward Jackson of California State University at Los Angeles declares the system "One of the 10 greatest inventions in history".
                          Countless numbers of engineers have declared it the greatest invention in history!
                          - so why the fcuk are we still being fed the line about it being impossible?!?!?
                          Last edited by sprocket; 10-14-2015, 06:32 PM. Reason: punctuation...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            ..........

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by etherflow View Post
                              the big wheel will actually be a shaft

                              Etherflow, if this works as you think, what percentage of a single 360 degree rotation should the device experience a 'forward' thrust? I presume the math can tell you that. I'm thinking about the CIP, if it really has a 98% propulsion efficiency, that would mean that nearly all of the rotational energy is being converted into forward momentum. Or does your idea only work in 'pulsed-mode', where during only a percentage of a 360 degrees would the device experience a forward momentum? Of course if that was the case, wouldn't action/reaction come into play? Fascinating nevertheless, especially since reading about the CIP.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X