Internal Propulsion

[Cloxxki]

I have been pondering this vary concept myself recently. I dismissed it at the time, thinking that the diverted air would bounce of the size of the enclosure, and everything be brought in balance.
If you are right though, it should as seaid be pretty easy to build a proof of concept.

Large donut enclosure. 2 propellors placed inside. One or 2 wings placed at 90 degrees. The whole thing on a sensitive scale, and turn it on!

If your theory holds true, it should even be easy to make a flying saucer.

[broli]

Any news on this?

[IntProp]

Any news on this?

Please, see also electromagnetic internal propulsion: http://internalpropulsion.awardspace.co.uk/Electromagnetic_propulsion.htm (Internet Explorer users, please, follow this link - http://internalpropulsion.awardspace.co.uk/Electromagnetic_propulsion.mht - temporary problem with images in IE).

[v71]

I ma sorry to say that both of your ideas , cannot work, in the first, the air conatained in the sealed container will bounce back with the exact opposite force, cancelling each other.
In the electromagnetic propulsion, the same concept will cancel the forces, you can't beat the third law so easily.

[exnihiloest]

...
I have proved, that internal propulsion violates conservation of energy.
...

This is false. For example you state that "we need different amount of energy depending on from which point of view we regard the car". This is a well known fact also asserted by the mainstream science: energy is frame depending. It doesn't contradict energy conservation which applies to a closed system viewed from an inertial frame of reference.
It is obvious with kinetic energy. Ek=1/2*m*v², v depends on the frame of reference therefore Ek too. Kinetic energy is not localized in an objet (kinetic energy is always zero relative to the frame of reference of the object itself).

Other mistake. You say "But jet engines use the same amount of energy to produce equal thrust at all speeds â€" thrust depends only on speed of exhausted gases relative to engine". It is true relative to the jet engines itself but you forgot that the jet engine accelerates: it is not an inertial frame of reference! So your point is meaningless.

In the device with the fly wheel and the bullet, you suppose their is a momentum m*v to the right. This is true only during the short period when the bullet flies and carries an opposed momentum (leaving at rest the center of mass of the whole device). It is false when the bullet strikes the paddle of flywheel because at this moment the whole systems begins to  rotate on itself in order to maintain both linear and circular momentum of the whole device.

What is conserved is the energy of a closed system. Energy is not conserved from your viewpoint because of your basic errors. Either you don't apply the physics laws to the whole system but only to parts, or your treat the problem in non inertial frames of reference, or you add together intermediate results calculated in different reference frames when they are frame dependent.