New ANTI-Newton 3rd law Tommorow?s motor

[Pirate88179]

@ sveinr and Larry:

Thanks for the links.

I see the guy in this video also only runs it one way but, the way he has it constructed with the hanging loops, it would be a pain to reverse it I think.  And yes, I can see the wire bow in the middle making that the lowest point, yet, it continues on. This is interesting.  Thanks again.

Bill

[LarryC]

@Bill,

Right at the very end, he turns it around and runs it the other way, then it cuts after around the middle.

Regards, Larry

[loop888]

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/impdexp.htm

what i'd like to know is: how much power apply the spring?

we know the components and model weight, and the distance things travel, but!
how much power you need to invest?

looks great for space, but's really "tomorrow's" propulsion? i mean, here at earth!

just wondering how effective this is.

saludos!

[zerotensor]

In all the demos, there is friction between the craft and its means of support.  The magnitude of the friction force is proportional to the pressure exerted by the craft on the supporting medium.  If there are no moving parts, and the craft is in a uniform gravitational field, the pressure will remain constant.

Now suppose we place a vibrating mass inside which causes the craft to move up and down.  If we now measure the amount of force between the craft and its medium, it will be seen to oscillate at some frequency.  If a second mass is set to vibrate the craft back and forth, and it is timed so that the craft experiences a "forward" motion at the same time as the friction is lowest, the "forward" direction will be favored.

Just after the craft "jumps", a weight is fired backwards, and the craft lurches forwards.  The weight later returns to its forward position at the moment when the craft is pushing hardest on the table, and so slides little if at all in the reverse direction due to the increased friction at that moment.  The cycle repeats, and a net forward thrust is achieved. 
By varying the relative frequencies and phase relationship of the two vibrators, one can fine-tune the behavior of the craft.

If the thing really produces a unidirectional force internally, then it should be possible to lower its weight or make it float, simply by pointing it "up".  I somehow doubt that's what we have here.

A heavy, rigid pendulum mount with good tight bearings would be a more convincing test-rig for the "tomorrow motor" than what is shown in the videos.  If it can deflect itself up, and just hang there -- ... now, that would be something.

[LarryC]

@All,

I  threw together this replication based on the toy truck motor, to get a better sense of the physical forces involved. The rubber bands are at a strong tensional position before the hammer is cocked.

The force to co#k the hammer and the force of the rubber bands to slams the triangle forward all seem to be self-contained within the unit.

It is release by burning the line. The short forward motion of the lightweight triangle before hitting the strike plate would have little backwards effect, since the majority of the impact energy is coming from the rubber bands.

The actual striking of the plate has a huge external effect.

It also seems that this device would not require any frictional back resistance to work.

Please let me know if you notice any difference in this device design and the original. It was a little hard to figure it out from the vid.

There seems to be much room for improvement, while retaining the same basic concept. The new smaller unit in the cup appears improved, but no way to see the design. Any ideas?

Regards, Larry