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

[allcanadian]

@gravityblock

Why wouldn't this work?

I had thought of that as well however in order to make it rotate with "less work" the point of rotation must be at the center of mass. We have already established the bottom portion is more dense to make the ball float so either we lower the point of rotation to rotate freely which leads to more work the next cycle or we require work to rotate which ends up being equal to the work performed by the float. I have been all through this scenario and I couldn't make the numbers work however if you can then you must know something I don't.


My thinking is that if the solution is obvious then we can be sure someone else must have thought of it at some point and since we do not have a working device this would imply the solution is not obvious but elusive and abstract. It must be something unique and my solution to this problem was based on the device below which I have built and tested and found to be very interesting.
www.rexresearch.com/bellocq/bellocq.htm


AC

[gravityblock]

@gravityblock

I had thought of that as well however in order to make it rotate with "less work" the point of rotation must be at the center of mass. We have already established the bottom portion is more dense to make the ball float so either we lower the point of rotation to rotate freely which leads to more work the next cycle or we require work to rotate which ends up being equal to the work performed by the float. I have been all through this scenario and I couldn't make the numbers work however if you can then you must know something I don't.



AC

Here's a video to make sure we're on the same page.  We can put a solid sphere inside a larger hollow sphere and fill the hollow sphere with liquid detergent so both the sphere and detergent will float back to the top in unison.   The center of mass for the tube should be near the point of rotation (center of the tube) as the sphere is making it's way back to the top between the 3 o'clock position (assuming a CW rotation) and the 6 o'clock position (I hope I got that right).  The idea is to have the rising sphere reach the top of the tube at the same time the bottom of the tube reaches the 6 o'clock position.  The timing will be critical.  This means the mass of the sphere, density of the liquids, the diameter and length of the tube, etc. must be in the correct proportions relative to each other in order for the timing to be correct.  If properly done, the sphere should trace out an elliptical orbit while undergoing both perihelion and aphelion similar to planets.  The tube will be completely enclosed.

Gravock   

[allcanadian]

@Gravityblock
That is a very interesting video however we can make some simple observations here, the salt water is most dense which is why it is at the bottom, the detergent slightly less dense so it is above the salt water. As well the density of the ball is in between both the salt water and the detergent which is why it has settled between the boundary of the two fluids.


At which point a question comes to mind... if the most dense ie.. heaviest substances are at the bottom then when we rotate the column aren't we trying to move/rotate the heaviest substance to the top and the lightest to the bottom?. It may a fluid however it seems to me that the salt water at the bottom would always be heavier than the top which is why it is at the bottom and would require work to lift/rotate it.




AC

[gravityblock]

@Gravityblock
That is very interesting video however we can make some simple observations here, the salt water is most dense which is why it is at the bottom, the detergent slightly less dense so it is above the salt water and the density of the ball is in between both the salt water and the detergent.

At which point a question comes to mind... if the most dense ie.. heaviest substances are at the bottom then when we rotate the column aren't we trying to move/rotate the heaviest substance to the top and the lightest to the bottom?. It may a fluid however it seems to me that the bottom would always be heavier than the top which is why it is at the bottom and would require work to lift/rotate it.

AC

Let's say we have a tube filled with 6ft. of salt water.  We'll place the pivot point for the tube at 3ft.  Now, adding the sphere and liquid detergent to the tube will make it top heavy.  Yes, the center of mass isn't at the center of rotation at this time (if it was, then it wouldn't be top heavy).  By being top heavy, the tube will begin to rotate.  Once the tube reaches the 3 o'clock position, then the sphere will start rising to the top.  The center of mass will then move towards the center of rotation as the sphere is rising and as the tube rotates towards the 6 o'clock position.

The idea is to have the rising sphere reach the top of the tube at the same time the bottom of the tube reaches the 6 o'clock position so the process can repeat and sustain itself.  The timing will be critical.  This means the mass of the sphere, density of the liquids, the diameter and length of the tube, etc. must be in the correct proportions relative to each other in order for the timing to be correct.  If properly done, the sphere should trace out an elliptical path while undergoing both perihelion and aphelion, similar to what occurs with planets.  I'm just trying to copy nature.

Gravock

[MarkE]

@Gravityblock



I think personal criticism takes away from the debate of concepts which I believe is our purpose here. I like to take a little poke every now and then as much as the next person however an endless series of personal critiques as we see in this thread is not the way to make our point. It does not matter what others say, it matters that we can justify our thoughts and idea's with common sense and real world examples that work.


That being said can you find any problems or issues with what I have proposed?. I'm not looking for any kind of agreement here and would I expect everyone to be very critical of everything I proposed. I expect them to break it down piece by piece in a logical and reasonable manner to find any errors in judgement I may have made and that my friend is what science and progress is all about.


Small minds talk about people and great minds talk about concepts... so let's talk about concepts.
Let's end this pointless he said she said nonsense and get on with it.


Can anyone here find fault with what I have proposed?




AC

The GPE is the energy store.  The demonstrated machine moves water up and down and if there were no losses, would still exhibit no gains.  As I understand it, you want to make the tube extra slippery so that you can move the tube independently of the water.  You are still just moving a mass up and down and cannot realize any energy gain cycle to cycle.  If the tube is closed at the top then slippery or not you will be lifting and dropping water mass in addition to the mass of the tube and it is back to square one.