Science Forums

# A hypothesis for a possible reactionless drive

## Recommended Posts

Let me stress upon the fact, that the considerations below are simply only a hypothesis for the present.
=========================

https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/pages_01-12.pdf
https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/figs01-08.pdf
--------------------------------------------
Secondly, our simulation/animation presentation is subdivided into three consecutive separate parts for an easier understanding.
=========================
1) The zigzag device and the straight-line device are put together vertically one to another and are fixed motionless to a horizontal motionless plane.
2) The two blue T-shaped components start free falling together and simultaneously. Friction is negligible.
3) In the straight-line case the T-shaped blue component falls freely without any interruptions and obstacles.
4) In the zigzag case however after the blue balls enter the zigzag channel the blue T-shaped component slows down its vertical downward motion and decreases its downward vertical velocity.
5) In one word, the straight-line modification blue T-shaped component covers the distance between the highest position and the lowest position much faster than the zigzag modification blue T-shaped component.
==========================
1) How to slow down the vertical downward motion (that is, how to decrease the vertical downward velocity) of the straight-line modification blue T-shaped component?
2) The answer is simple. The straight-line segment "s" is made rough (inside the channels) as the related force of friction is chosen in such a manner so that in the lowest position the linear downward velocities of the two blue T-shaped components are one and same and equal one to another.
3) In one word, the zigzags generate mechanical resistance, (a) which is absolutely identical and equivalent to friction and (b) which does not generate heat.
===========================
The last link simply repeats the experiment, described in the two links below.
https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/pages_01-12.pdf
https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/figs01-08.pdf
The zigzags generate again mechanical resistance, (a) which is absolutely identical and equivalent to friction and (b) which does not generate heat.
===========================
In one word, the text above and the related links above unambiguouly show that (a) either the law of conservation of linear momentum is not correct or (b) the law of conservation of mechanical energy is not correct or (c) both the law of conservation of linear momentum and the law of conservation of mechanical energy are not correct simultaneously.

• Replies 39
• Created

#### Popular Posts

1. With motion of any sort, there is friction.  2. If by 'reactionless', you mean that there is no NUCLEAR reaction, then I'll give you that. But a true reactionless drive would have no 2 parts whic

Dubbel, This dude PeterAX, is a flaming crank just ignore his stupid bullshit and move along.

He's not talking to either of us, he is talking to the OP.

Let us shorten our previous explanations by jumping directly to PART 3 (and having a brief glimpse at a small section of PART 2).
----------------------------------------
So let us start our shorter explanations.
----------------------------------------
1) Firstly, please have a look for a while at PART 2 and at the related link https://youtu.be/aVOfWLDrYwA from 00:00 to 00:03. This is only for getting a notion about the limits of the segment "s", that is, how this segment "s" is situated in relation to (relative to) the zigzag section.
----------------------------------------
2) Now let us focus on PART 3 and on the related link https://youtu.be/pPGPktU_kpo . The experiment is carried out in a space station under weightlessness conditions. Friction is negligible as the only exception is the friction inside the two straight-line channels of the segment "s". (The inside surfaces of the straight-line channels of the segment "s" are made rough thus able to generate friction (and heat, respectively).)
----------------------------------------
3) The mass of each blue component is Ma.
-----------------------------------------
4) The mass of each black component is Mb.
-----------------------------------------
5) There are four couples blue ball/blue rod. Each blue ball is firmly attached to the related blue rod thus forming one united whole.
-----------------------------------------
5A) The mass of each blue ball is negligible (if compared to Ma or to Mb), but not equal to zero.
-----------------------------------------
5B) The mass of each blue rod is negligible (if compared to Ma or to Mb), but not equal to zero.
-----------------------------------------
6) From 00:00 to 00:03 the two blue components move simultaneously and uniformly. Each blue component's linear velocity is V' as V' = const. The two black components are at rest.
------------------------------------------
7) At 00:03 the four blue balls enter simultaneously (a) the "upper" black component's smooth zigzag channels and (b) the "lower" black component's rough straight-line channels of the segment "s", respectively.
------------------------------------------
😎 From 00:03 to 00:15 the four blue balls move (a) inside the "upper" black component's smooth zigzag channels and (b) inside the "lower" black component's rough straight-line channels of the segment "s", respectively.
-------------------------------------------
9) At 00:15 the four blue balls exit simultaneously (a) the "upper" black component's smooth zigzag channels and (b) the "lower" black component's rough straight-line channels of the segment "s", respectively.
-------------------------------------------
10) The force of friction inside the two rough channels of the segment "s" is chosen in such a manner (we could use for example a variable roughness and the related variable force of friction, respectively) that:
-------------------------------------------
a) the blue components decelerate in one and same manner, that is, their decelerations are one and same and equal one to another;
-------------------------------------------
b) the black components accelerate in one and same manner, that is, their accelerations are one and same and equal one to another.
-------------------------------------------
11) From 00:15 to 00:17 the two blue components move simultaneously and uniformly. Each blue component's velocity is V" as V" = const.
-------------------------------------------
12) From 00:15 to 00:17 the two black components also move simultaneously and uniformly. Each black component's velocity is V"' as V"' = const.
-------------------------------------------
13) Therefore for the "upper" zigzag modification we can write down that
(Ma) x (V') = ((Ma) x (V'')) + ((Mb) x (V''')) (1)
(1/2) x (Ma) x (V') x (V') = ((1/2) x (Ma) x (V'') x (V'')) + ((1/2) x (Mb) x (V''') x (V''')) (2)
-------------------------------------------
14) And for the "lower" straight-line modification we can write down that
(Ma) x (V') = ((Ma) x (V'')) + ((Mb) x (V''')) (1)
(1/2) x (Ma) x (V') x (V') = ((1/2) x (Ma) x (V'') x (V'')) + ((1/2) x (Mb) x (V''') x (V''')) + Q (3),
where Q is the heat, which is generated while the two blue balls move inside the two rough channels of the segment "s" in the "lower" modification.
------------------------------------------
15) It is evident that (a) the system of equations in item 13 and (b) the system of equations in item 14 cannot be true simultaneously.
------------------------------------------
16) And it directly follows from the previous item 15 that either (a) the law of conservation of linear momentum is not correct or (b) the law of conservation of mechanical energy is not correct or (c) both the law of conservation of linear momentum and the law of conservation of mechanical energy are not correct simultaneously.
------------------------------------------
17) Please refer, if necessary, to our first post of Sat Jul 28, 2018 12:41 and to the two related links
https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/pages_01-12.pdf
https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/figs01-08.pdf

Let me remind again at the end that we are talking only about a (let's say to some extent) non-standard point of view towards the basic axioms of classical mechanics.

##### Share on other sites

Your "non-standard view towards the basic axioms of classical mechanics" is essentially refusing to accept "conservation of energy" or "conservation of momentum"?  What do you say about all of the experiments that have confirmed them?  What experiments do you have that  confirm your view?

##### Share on other sites

To Hallsoflvy.

------------------------------------

1) We are preparing now an YouTube clip which illustrates exactly what experiments confirm the invalidity of the law conservation of MECHANICAL(!) energy and the law of conservation of LINEAR(!) momentum. let me stress upon the fact that any rule/law has its exceptions and there is nothing special, tragic and disturbing in this fact.

3) Which experiments have confirmed the law conservation of MECHANICAL(!) energy and/or the law of conservation of LINEAR(!) momentum? Can you enumerate some?

##### Share on other sites

We keep preparing the YouTube clip, which  illustrates our basic concept. This is not an easy job however. Please have some more patience, if possible.

##### Share on other sites

We keep preparing the YouTube clip, which  illustrates our basic concepts. The clip will contain description of REAL EXPERIMENTS, which you can carry out in your garage as many times as you want.

##### Share on other sites
• 2 weeks later...
Posted (edited)
On 3/16/2021 at 8:46 AM, PeterAX said:

Let me stress upon the fact, that the considerations below are simply only a hypothesis for the present.
=========================

https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/pages_01-12.pdf
https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/figs01-08.pdf
--------------------------------------------
Secondly, our simulation/animation presentation is subdivided into three consecutive separate parts for an easier understanding.
=========================
1) The zigzag device and the straight-line device are put together vertically one to another and are fixed motionless to a horizontal motionless plane.
2) The two blue T-shaped components start free falling together and simultaneously. Friction is negligible.
3) In the straight-line case the T-shaped blue component falls freely without any interruptions and obstacles.
4) In the zigzag case however after the blue balls enter the zigzag channel the blue T-shaped component slows down its vertical downward motion and decreases its downward vertical velocity.
5) In one word, the straight-line modification blue T-shaped component covers the distance between the highest position and the lowest position much faster than the zigzag modification blue T-shaped component.
==========================
1) How to slow down the vertical downward motion (that is, how to decrease the vertical downward velocity) of the straight-line modification blue T-shaped component?
2) The answer is simple. The straight-line segment "s" is made rough (inside the channels) as the related force of friction is chosen in such a manner so that in the lowest position the linear downward velocities of the two blue T-shaped components are one and same and equal one to another.
3) In one word, the zigzags generate mechanical resistance, (a) which is absolutely identical and equivalent to friction and (b) which does not generate heat.
===========================
The last link simply repeats the experiment, described in the two links below.
https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/pages_01-12.pdf
https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/figs01-08.pdf
The zigzags generate again mechanical resistance, (a) which is absolutely identical and equivalent to friction and (b) which does not generate heat.
===========================
In one word, the text above and the related links above unambiguouly show that (a) either the law of conservation of linear momentum is not correct or (b) the law of conservation of mechanical energy is not correct or (c) both the law of conservation of linear momentum and the law of conservation of mechanical energy are not correct simultaneously.

Crank Please, do you know how many times on this forums reactionless drives and perpetual motion devices have been disproven? I am just going to say one thing... Laws Of Thermodynamics. You and your crank theories aren't ever going to change the physical fact that friction happens.

Edited by VictorMedvil
##### Share on other sites

Dear colleagues,
We (our multinational team) have created 11 (eleven) technology breakthroughs.
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
2) The link above describes our first technology breakthrough.
---------------------------
3) The link above describes some simple experiments, which break (a) the law of conservation of mechanical energy and (b) the law of conservation of linear momentum. You can easily carry out these simple experiments in your garage as many times as you want. Any rule/law has its exceptions and there is nothing special, tragic and disturbing in this fact.
---------------------------
4) We (our multinational team) are open to collaboration of mutual benefit (a) for a further perfection and development of our technology breakthroughs and/or (b) for a production of our technology breakthroughs on a large industrial scale.
---------------------------
5) We would like to ask you to popularize the link above as much as possible in internet (and anywhere else and in any possible way).
---------------------------
Let us push forward together the technology progress!
---------------------------
Sincerely yours,

Peter Axe

##### Share on other sites

To VictorMedvil and to Rc3D.

-----------------------------------------

Simply consider and study carefully and thoroughly the link below:

And then simply carry out the simple experiments described in the link above in your garage as many times as you want. Because otherwise you reject something which you are not familiar with.

Regards,

##### Share on other sites

----------------------------
The link above clearly shows how a few simple experiments, carried out in your garage, (1) can be the basis for designing of a simple mechanical reactionless drive machine and (2) can solve your personal energy problems (as well as the energy problems of the world as whole).
-----------------------------
Let us popularize the link above as much as possible in internet (and anywhere else and in any other way).
LET US PUSH FORWARD TOGETHER THE TECHNOLOGY PROGRESS!

##### Share on other sites

Dear colleagues,

----------------------------
The link above clearly shows how a few simple experiments, carried out in your garage, can be the basis for designing of a simple mechanical reactionless drive device.
-----------------------------
Let us popularize the link above as much as possible in internet (and anywhere else and in any other way).
LET US PUSH FORWARD TOGETHER THE TECHNOLOGY PROGRESS!

##### Share on other sites

EXPERIMENTALLY PROVED reactionless drive and perpetual motion are described in the link below:
The link above describes a few simple reactionless drive and perpetual motion experiments. You can easily carry out these simple experiments in your garage as many times as you want.
Looking forward to your opinions, recommendations, questions.

##### Share on other sites

EXPERIMENTALLY PROVED reactionless drive and perpetual motion are described in the link below:
The link above describes a few simple reactionless drive and perpetual motion experiments. You can easily carry out these simple experiments in your garage as many times as you want.
Looking forward to your opinions, recommendations, questions.

##### Share on other sites

What is a reactionless drive? How can you drive something without a reaction? If is reactionless, how can something be "driven?"

##### Share on other sites

Perpetual motion simply doesn't exist...  I'd normally be quick to say this has no place in science, rather a science fiction. Will you expand on why we should ignore fundamentals for this, in any clear way for readers?

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Dubbelosix said:

Perpetual motion simply doesn't exist...  I'd normally be quick to say this has no place in science, rather a science fiction. Will you expand on why we should ignore fundamentals for this, in any clear way for readers?

Dubbel, This dude PeterAX, is a flaming crank just ignore his stupid bullshit and move along.

Edited by VictorMedvil

Np viktor

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.