'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours

[gravityblock]

If that's the way you want to perceive it, then so be it.  It is what it is!

Gravock

MarkE

I can't find the fly at fault.  However, you're intentionally being like Dan the downer and the fly on the wall.  There's a big difference!  I've been promoting RD in this topic, and you're saying I'm promoting MM.  That is a big misrepresentation by taking things out of context and twisting them whatever way you choose.  It's a pattern you don't break and it takes up a lot of bandwidth and time in trying to untwist and put it back into it's proper place.

Gravock

[gravityblock]

Oh, to explain, I think MarkE is correct (as well as known science) and you are not correct.  I did not think that I would have to explain that but...there it is.

I knew your vote would need to be explained to yourself.  You chose the reverse, and the reverse was that you think a person is right at this particular time, but will be proven wrong down the road.  The proving wrong was to be done sometime down the road.  Your explanation of your vote is only in regards to the "now", and totally disregards the future (down the road), and totally disregards the proving wrong aspect of it as well.  How convenient of you to leave out the future and the proving wrong aspects in your explanation of your vote.  Now you're following in MarkE's footsteps by conveniently leaving things out.

Gravock

[MarkE]

MarkE

I can't find the fly at fault.  However, you're intentionally being like Dan the downer and the fly on the wall.  There's a big difference!  I've been promoting RD in this topic, and you're saying I'm promoting MM.  That is a big misrepresentation by taking things out of context and twisting them whatever way you choose.  It's a pattern you don't break and it takes up a lot of bandwidth and time in trying to untwist and put it back into it's proper place.

Gravock

LOL

[allcanadian]

@Mark E

You have reduced yourself to ad hominem attacks.  Nice.

I would have to agree, criticizing the person rather than the concept has always been a losing proposition. I'm a little busy right now but in a bit I will post my solution to the float in tube problem and see where it takes us.




AC

[allcanadian]

Concerning the float in a tube problem.


As I said prior at the top of the fixed tube the float displaces a volume of water which must be replaced and there is no getting around this fact. If the water displaced was not replaced then the height of the water column would get smaller and smaller and the process would stop. It requires work to lift the water to be replaced which is equivalent to the work performed by the float when rising in the tube.


My solution seemed obvious in that the weight of the water column is the real issue and if at some point it had no apparent weight then the system properties have changed in our favor. So how do we do it?, I would coat the inside and outside of the tube with a water repellent so the water column acts more like a friction-less rigid body in the tube then cradle the tube so it may move up and down freely on friction-less magnetic springs. If the tube can oscillate up and down with the bottom of the tube always remaining in the water then at the top of the upward stroke the whole of the water column becomes weightless due to it's own inertia. It should be obvious this oscillator is a conservative system... nothing lost nothing gained.


Now if at the top of the tube stroke when the water column is weightless but moving upward we removed the float then the water column may advance upward to replace the volume of the float due to it's own inertia. The water which moved upward let's say 3" to replace the float must also fall the same 3" later on with the whole tube thus mass of the water and tube as a whole is conserved minus the float.


The process would be as follows:
1)  Float in stationary tube rises to the top of the tube performing work.
2)  Energy from an external source is added to set the whole tube/water column in oscillation upward/downward with the bottom of the tube always remaining in the water.
3)  At the top of the stroke when the water is weightless but still acting upwards due to it's own inertia we open a valve and remove the float.
4)  The water column advances up 3" in the tube to fill the float space and a valve is closed then the whole tube and water column falls the same 3" conserving mass and energy with respect to the tube and water column as a whole. ie..the system does not know the float is missing with respect to the mass nor height of the water except for the mass of the float which is small in comparison.
5)  The energy which initially set the tube in oscillation from an external source is then removed and stored and the tube and water column come to rest. The cycle repeats.






As we can see energy is conserved with respect to the whole oscillating tube/water column minus the float mass, it is also conserved with respect to the height of the water column in that the water rises 3" due to it's own inertia when the float is removed then falls the same 3" with the whole tube later on. The thing to keep in mind is that the mass/energy of the oscillating tube is the same regardless of where the float is in the tube. It does not care if the float is at the top or bottom or if it performed work or not. The oscillating tube is simply a more efficient means to remove the float, nothing more. Thus it would seem to me multiple conservative systems may be used to change the properties of the system which may change the rules... or not...we will see.






AC