Energetic Forum (http://www.energeticforum.com/)
-   Renewable Energy (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/)
-   -   Inertial Impulse Drive - "impossible" they said (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/20293-inertial-impulse-drive-impossible-they-said.html)

 etherflow 10-12-2015 09:19 PM

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.

http://s3.postimg.org/dzdd7yjnn/gyro.jpg

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

 sprocket 10-12-2015 09:47 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by etherflow (Post 281109) 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. http://s3.postimg.org/dzdd7yjnn/gyro.jpg 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.

 etherflow 10-12-2015 10:08 PM

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 = mr².

Quote:
 Originally Posted by sprocket (Post 281113) 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.

 sprocket 10-12-2015 10:47 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by etherflow (Post 281114) 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.....

 etherflow 10-12-2015 10:57 PM

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 = mr². doubling the weight will double the net force.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by sprocket (Post 281117) 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.....

 Ernst 10-13-2015 09:35 AM

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 mv²/2 becomes mw²r²/2. 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.

 etherflow 10-13-2015 01:26 PM

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.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Ernst (Post 281131) 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 mv²/2 becomes mw²r²/2. 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.

 etherflow 10-13-2015 03:06 PM

the big wheel will actually be a shaft

http://s13.postimg.org/68ke9ihtj/gyro.jpg

 wayne.ct 10-13-2015 07:03 PM

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.

 etherflow 10-13-2015 08:01 PM

who said i am looking for someone to build it?

all you contributed to the thread are false accusations.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by wayne.ct (Post 281157) 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.

 myenergetic 10-14-2015 02:06 PM

Inertial Propulsion Engine

High there

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

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

CIP Principle

Hope it helps

JJ

 etherflow 10-14-2015 02:16 PM

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?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by myenergetic (Post 281193) 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

 sprocket 10-14-2015 06:29 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by myenergetic (Post 281193) 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;

Quote:
 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?!?!?

 etherflow 10-14-2015 08:25 PM

..........

 sprocket 10-14-2015 10:47 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by etherflow (Post 281141) the big wheel will actually be a shaft http://s13.postimg.org/68ke9ihtj/gyro.jpg
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.

 etherflow 10-15-2015 12:00 AM

upward impulse is the second half of the cycle, most of it

being imparted as the weight approaches the top position.

for F = mω²r force increases with the radius of the center

of mass. since the distance from the center of mass of weight

from the main axis is twice in second halfcycle, it is expected

that net force will be half of the force excerted in top position.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by sprocket (Post 281212) 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.

 sprocket 10-16-2015 01:18 AM

Attached is a very rough-and-ready attempt at simulating this with WM2D, not meant to prove anything. Gearing doesn't work with this setup as it would in real life, so I've opted for 2 separate motors. The yellow circle has a 'slot-joint' which allows the rotating assembly the freedom to slide up or down. Stuff isn't working here as it would in real-life with WM2D - the main drive-motor in this instance. This should slide with the rotating assembly as well, but it doesn't.

 etherflow 10-16-2015 01:30 AM

why a slot joint?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by sprocket (Post 281249) Attached is a very rough-and-ready attempt at simulating this with WM2D, not meant to prove anything. Gearing doesn't work with this setup as it would in real life, so I've opted for 2 separate motors. The yellow circle has a 'slot-joint' which allows the rotating assembly the freedom to slide up or down. Stuff isn't working here as it would in real-life with WM2D - the main drive-motor in this instance. This should slide with the rotating assembly as well, but it doesn't.

 sprocket 10-16-2015 10:57 AM

I would have thought that obvious - to graphically display its forward & backword momentum in 'real-time'. The displacment in the 12 o'clock direction should (you've said) be greater than that which would occur when the main drive swings to the 6 o'clock position.

But rather than ask the obvious, why not tell me what you find wrong with this, and/or offer a suggestion. Better yet, knock up your own simulation on WM2D.

Edit:
I guess I should have checked the following beforehand, but in my defence, it's been years since I've used WM2D. Attached is the way the slot-joint behaves with 'Gravity' enabled on WM2D but with no main-drive motor attached - as you would expect! However under the same conditions (ie. with gravity enabled) but with the main-drive motor attached, the rotor assembly remains locked in place, entirely uneffected by gravity. Naturally, I had gravity disabled in the first video, but presumed that the rotor assembly would behave 'naturally' in the slot-joint with the motor attached - ie. allow itself be dragged in the direction of its momentum. This it does NOT do - it is locked in position once the motor is attached!!! So the first video is null & void. I guess a real-life build is called for.

 etherflow 10-16-2015 12:44 PM

no slot joint is needed to "graphically display its forward & backword momentum in 'real-time'".

Quote:
 Originally Posted by sprocket (Post 281259) I would have thought that obvious - to graphically display its forward & backword momentum in 'real-time'. The displacment in the 12 o'clock direction should (you've said) be greater than that which would occur when the main drive swings to the 6 o'clock position. But rather than ask the obvious, why not tell me what you find wrong with this, and/or offer a suggestion. Better yet, knock up your own simulation on WM2D. Edit: I guess I should have checked the following beforehand, but in my defence, it's been years since I've used WM2D. Attached is the way the slot-joint behaves with 'Gravity' enabled on WM2D but with no main-drive motor attached - as you would expect! However under the same conditions (ie. with gravity enabled) but with the main-drive motor attached, the rotor assembly remains locked in place, entirely uneffected by gravity. Naturally, I had gravity disabled in the first video, but presumed that the rotor assembly would behave 'naturally' in the slot-joint with the motor attached - ie. allow itself be dragged in the direction of its momentum. This it does NOT do - it is locked in position once the motor is attached!!! So the first video is null & void. I guess a real-life build is called for.

 All times are GMT. The time now is 04:28 AM.