Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?

Started by George1, July 21, 2018, 08:11:37 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

George1

Hi smOky2,
Thank you for your reply.
Well, we are talking again about different things. I would like to ask you again to focus on the target and not to consider things which are true by themselves but which are not related to the present discussion.
I will repeat again. I am writing again (especially for you!) the most important abstract of the third link. And here is this MOST IMPORTANT abstract:
"It is evident that we can always choose a suitable combination of (a) magnitude of force of friction, (b) length of segments s and (c) number and shape of zigzags, for which Fc = F'c, Fc > 0, F'c > 0, d = d', d > 0 and d' > 0."
Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against this last claim? YES OR NO?


nix85

Why are you discussing irrelevant things. It all comes down to a FACT that if unbalanced mass is oscillating within 180 degrees and it is curbed from going beyond 180 degrees


>>>>>>>>> BY ACTING ON THE AXIS, NOT THE MASS ITSELF <<<<<<<<<


then AND ONLY THEN, you will get unidirectional acceleration.

For example if you are floating in space and you swing your arms in front and then stop them when they are fully stretched to each side, you are stopping them by acting on your shoulder ''axis'', and therefore, there is no backward trust, only forward acceleration due to the swing.

IN OTHER WORDS, MOMENTUM THAT WOULD BE TURNED INTO BACKWARD TRUST IF WE STOPPED THE MASS DIRECTLY FROM GOING BEYOND 180 DEGREES IS SPENT AS COUNTERTORQUE AT THE SHAFT - AXIS OF ROTATION.

To further clear it up, imagine two big pendulums on a shaft floating in space and they are pushed at great speed from position in the front where they overlapped backward in opposite directions...

Now, if you who are sitting at the shaft and therefore are also part of the system, grabbed the pendulums by your hands to stop them from going beyond 180 degrees they would impart their momentum to your hands and system would be given backward acceleration.

But if you instead created great friction that prevented the shaft from turning that momentum would be consumed at the shaft as friction and no backward momentum would be imparted to the system, leaving pure forward acceleration due to centrifugal force.

Remember Thronson, he did not use a clutch but he did act on the axis of rotation instead of decelerating the masses by acting directly on them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIt661hfr9c

nix85

No rocket fuel has ever been needed, simple rotation of unbalanced mass could allow 1G or more acceleration with minimal expenditure of energy.

nix85

Travel time at 1G from here https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/840/how-fast-will-1g-get-you-there

Not assuming any time taken for orbital maneuvering, turning halfway 180° to decelerate, assuming closest distance of planets (and Luna) to the Earth, and not accounting for fuel burn (i.e. literal constant 1g acceleration):

The Moon / Luna:
Closest to Earth (Supermoon): 356,577 km
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, no deceleration): 2h 22m 12s
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, decelerating halfway): 3h 20m 24s

Mercury:
Closest to Earth: 77.3 million km
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, no deceleration): 1d 10h 52m 48s
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, decelerating halfway): 2d 1h 19m 12s

Venus:
Closest to Earth: 40 million km
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, no deceleration): 1d 1h 5m 2s
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, decelerating halfway): 1d 11h 28m 48s

Mars:
Closest to Earth: 65 million km
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, no deceleration): 1d 7h 58m 5s
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, decelerating halfway): 1d 21h 13m 1s

Jupiter:
Closest to Earth: 588 million km
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, no deceleration): 4d 0h 11m 2s
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, decelerating halfway): 5d 16h 2m 2s

Saturn:
Closest to Earth: 1.2 billion km
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, no deceleration): 5d 17h 25m 1s
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, decelerating halfway): 8d 2h 20m 24s

Uranus:
Closest to Earth: 2.57 billion km
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, no deceleration): 8d 9h 6m 0s
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, decelerating halfway): 11d 20h 24m 0s

Neptune:
Closest to Earth: 4.3 billion km
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, no deceleration): 10d 20h 7m 48s
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, decelerating halfway): 15d 7h 52m 48s

Pluto:
Closest to Earth: 4.28 billion km
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, no deceleration): 10d 19h 31m 12s
Travel time (at 9.80665 m/s2, decelerating halfway): 15d 7h 1m 12s

nix85

Of course craft with such primitive mechanical drive could never leave Earth's magnetic barrier which is 5 MOON DIAMETERS BEYOND OUR MOON, that would mean instant death to everyone on board, no one leaves the CHINVAT BRIDGE ALIVE without his own REF.

But for voyages to the Moon and back, piece of cake.