MythBusters
Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
Junior Member
Registered: 03-04-08
|
A property of physics states that you cannot chance the location of the center of mass of a system without applying an outside force. Inventors around the world are constantly trying to challenge this. Not challenge the Math, but challenge the concept. One example that I have come across is the Thornson Inertial Engine. I know there are other examples of the concept of perpetual motion. I would like to see the mythbusters give this an eventual "Yay" or "Nay". A popular video is online of the Thornson Inertial Engine in a small canoe. http://www.americanantigravity.com/articles/521/1/Thorn...al-Engine/Page1.htmlTry it! |
Senior Member
Registered: 12-02-05
|
As with ALL perpetual motion schemes, it will be nay.
|
Senior Member
Registered: 02-18-08
|
It's not perpetual motion, but it still doesn't work.
There are ways to propel yourself using some gravi-magnetic effects, but these are extremely weak. None of the people who invent these propulsion devices even know gen-rel, never mind being able to use it to design a device that uses relative motion of masses.
For the canoe video, have they tested the water flow? I bet the thing simply vibrates, causing canoe to push water backwards. I've seen plenty of toys that do just that.
|
Junior Member
Registered: 03-04-08
|
If this device causes a directional flow in the medium it is in contact with then it should be tested in a vacuum.
I suggest the device be re-engineered using non-metallic components (or shrouded in a Faraday cage) and fixed to a Maglev platform in a vacuum chamber.
If it still performs then it will be shown to be independent of fluid flow.
|
Senior Member
Registered: 02-23-08
|
Testing perpetual motion machines on Mythbusters is pointless. The object of Mythbusters is to try and scientifically prove or disprove whether something is viable. Those that believe perpetual motion machines are potentially viable don't trust science and therefore would never be swayed by the results (not to mention, they'd just believe the men in black pressured Adam and Jamie into arriving at the desired result). Those that do trust science, don't need to see the Mythbusters prove that perpetual motion is impossible.
|
Senior Member
Registered: 11-12-04
|
What fit the external force changes the shape of the object?
Wrap a car around a utility pole or slam it into a concrete wall and I'll bet there's a good chance the center of mass changes position.
|
Senior Member
Registered: 02-23-08
|
quote: Originally posted by srmarti:
What fit the external force changes the shape of the object?
If there IS an external force the C.G. CAN move. quote: Wrap a car around a utility pole or slam it into a concrete wall and I'll bet there's a good chance the center of mass changes position.
If there IS an external force the C.G. CAN move. But the question is how can you cause the C.G. to move without applying an external force? And the answer is: you can't. See where we're going with this? |
Senior Member
Registered: 11-12-04
|
quote: Originally posted by spork: quote: Originally posted by srmarti:
What fit the external force changes the shape of the object?
If there IS an external force the C.G. CAN move. quote: Wrap a car around a utility pole or slam it into a concrete wall and I'll bet there's a good chance the center of mass changes position.
If there IS an external force the C.G. CAN move. But the question is how can you cause the C.G. to move without applying an external force? And the answer is: you can't. See where we're going with this?
Sorry, I misunderstood. To paraphrase your saying the center of mass won't move if you don't do something? Well of course it won't. Oh I see now. You're attempting to describe reactionless propulsion. Uh, you're going nowhere.  |
Senior Member
Registered: 02-23-08
|
quote: Originally posted by srmarti:
Oh I see now. You're attempting to describe reactionless propulsion.
Well, not me so much. But that's the claim of the "inertial propulsion" wackos. quote: Uh, you're going nowhere.
No you're getting it. |
Senior Member
Registered: 02-18-08
|
There is actually a very neat way to think about the problem of reaction-free propulsion.
Let us try to use vacuum itself to push off from. How? It might seem odd to you, but vacuum can be electrically polarized. Lets try to use this. Imagine that we are already moving at some small speed and want to speed up. Lets put two large metal plates parallel to each other (yes, a capacitor) and surround them with a metal wall from all sides but one. Now, let us apply voltage to the plates. This generates an electric field between the plates, and that polarizes the vacuum. Now, lets quickly switch the polarity. The electric field now opposes the polarization of vacuum, so the capacitor will repel from "vacuum". There is an actual force. Because of the metal walls surrounding the system, we break the symmetry enough so that the net force is in one direction - opposite to the direction in which we have the opening. We have propulsion without expelling anything!
But do we? Lets look at the electric field behind the craft. It keeps oscillating, even quite a distance away from the craft. What happened? Alternating voltage on a capacitor turned it into an RF emitter. You are pushing from vacuum, but you create waves on the vacuum. Radio waves. They are traveling backwards from the craft at the speed of light. They carry away mass and momentum. They are what provides your craft with propulsion, and if you include the mass of electromagnetic radiation, your C.G. is still in the same place it was before. Well, darn.
Moral is, no matter what you push off from, and you do need to push off from something, you are pushing that something back. It doesn't matter what it really is. It can be vacuum itself, as described here, but if you have propulsion, you have a jet stream. All hail the third law.
|
Senior Member
Registered: 02-23-08
|
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and offer that your analogy may not have simplified this problem for many people - but it's a good one nonetheless.
|
Senior Member
Registered: 11-12-04
|
quote: Originally posted by KSquared:
There is actually a very neat way to think about the problem of reaction-free propulsion.
Let us try to use vacuum itself to push off from. How? It might seem odd to you, but vacuum can be electrically polarized. Lets try to use this. Imagine that we are already moving at some small speed and want to speed up. Lets put two large metal plates parallel to each other (yes, a capacitor) and surround them with a metal wall from all sides but one. Now, let us apply voltage to the plates. This generates an electric field between the plates, and that polarizes the vacuum. Now, lets quickly switch the polarity. The electric field now opposes the polarization of vacuum, so the capacitor will repel from "vacuum". There is an actual force. Because of the metal walls surrounding the system, we break the symmetry enough so that the net force is in one direction - opposite to the direction in which we have the opening. We have propulsion without expelling anything!
But do we? Lets look at the electric field behind the craft. It keeps oscillating, even quite a distance away from the craft. What happened? Alternating voltage on a capacitor turned it into an RF emitter. You are pushing from vacuum, but you create waves on the vacuum. Radio waves. They are traveling backwards from the craft at the speed of light. They carry away mass and momentum. They are what provides your craft with propulsion, and if you include the mass of electromagnetic radiation, your C.G. is still in the same place it was before. Well, darn.
Moral is, no matter what you push off from, and you do need to push off from something, you are pushing that something back. It doesn't matter what it really is. It can be vacuum itself, as described here, but if you have propulsion, you have a jet stream. All hail the third law.
No. You can't put an electric charge on a vaccumm. You actually have to matter and charged particles like electrons. |
Senior Member
Registered: 10-18-09
|
O, all mighty ignorence, "it can not work because it can't" and that is all that they have to say. Visit YouTube, you conservative "no-men". Look for "Inertial propulsion" and see it works. And don't tell me about "NASA reply", they can't properly fly even what they have.
|
Senior Member
Registered: 10-18-09
|
I invite mr. SmitZ, to continiue conversation on the topic of inertial propulsion in "Viral Videos" section, "Inertial drive/engine" post. And anyone else who is interested.
|
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|
advertisement
|
