Inertial impulse space drive

[Glaucon]

it would resemble a  sinusoidal waveform, but a irregular one, with forward impulses being much higher than backward impulses. so, no, it doesn't equal zero, there is differential that expresses as a unidirectional force.

law of conservation of momentum is why this kind of propulsion is possible in the first place. if momentum wasn't conserved, this inertial differential wouldn't exist due to a impact of a spring against the inner wall of the tube, transfering it's kinetic energy into linear motion of the system.

That is most definitely incorrect.

[vril-ya]

no it's not, there is a net force producing linear accleration. you are most definitely  wrong.

That is most definitely incorrect.

[vril-ya]

not bad. you are thinking in the right direction and using a lighter to release the spring was a great idea. it definetely moves in the direction of the contracting spring. you just need to make it go in a straight line.

Let me see if I'm understanding it right.

If the spring was released from both sides at exactly the same time both halves would move to the centre, resulting in no movement at all.

If the spring is fixed to something that weighs more than the spring itself and is released from, for example, the right side, the mass of the spring moving from right to left would not be enough to compensate the weight (inertia?) of the rest of the "craft", so the spring moves more in the direction of the fixed side (right to left) than the "craft" on the direction from where the spring was released (left to right), but I think both would try to move.

Now that I looked at my first video I saw that it wasn't as big a failure as I thought, as we can see some movement.

First, here's my "craft".


As the spring was held on one side by a sewing thread, I just had to burn it to release instantly the spring with no risk of having something interfering with the spring (like we see on the bottle video).

On my first video we can see that, although the "craft" didn't move as much as it did on my first experiment, it really move on the direction the released side of the spring was moving.

(The video was resized to 200% because the smaller size was the only one allowing for 60 frames per second. This video was slowed down to 2 frames per second)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP20NjliuIw[/youtube]

What I think we can see on the video is that the momentum of the moving spring was bigger than the inertia of the whole "craft", so the "craft" moved in that direction, in the same way a moving billiard ball will make another move when it hits it.

Am I wrong in what I'm thinking?

[Ellirium113]

Now is there any particular reason you need use a spring? I got to thinking that an electric solenoid could achieve the same results with significantly more generated force, especially if the plunger end of the solenoid is attached to a ram. This could be affixed to a wheeled cart for testing. This drive system I don't foresee as being practical for takeoff so I wouldn't waste my efforts with vertical tests as you can't achieve any significant power vs. gravity and atmospheric resistance. The electric solenoid would be spring return vs. applied so a higher wattage coil would likely be used and generate a considerable amount of force.

[Glaucon]

no it's not, there is a net force producing linear accleration. you are most definitely  wrong.

I don't know what to say, you're absolutely incorrect. The terms you're using don't make any sense...

Proof of concept has already been documented on a 'non-propellent' impulse propulsion system utilizing microwaves. It only works because they phase out the microwave before it exerts a force of opposite magnitude.

It is simply impossible using a mechanical design.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive

[vril-ya]

terms make perfect sense, indeed, there is a differential between forward and backward moment, forward moment greatly overcoming the backward one, resulting in linear motion.

it is not "impossible", you have misunderstood classical mechanics. subsequent experiments will further prove you wrong.

I don't know what to say, you're absolutely incorrect. The terms you're using don't make any sense...

Proof of concept has already been documented on a 'non-propellent' impulse propulsion system utilizing microwaves. It only works because they phase out the microwave before it exerts a force of opposite magnitude.

It is simply impossible using a mechanical design.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive

[Pimander]

I don't know what to say, you're absolutely incorrect. The terms you're using don't make any sense...

This is becoming embarrassing.  At the moment I am just trying to understand whether we are being trolled or this is genuinely a denial of basic physics.

It is simply impossible using a mechanical design.

Does anyone else disagree with this point?

terms make perfect sense, indeed, there is a differential between forward and backward moment, forward moment greatly overcoming the backward one, resulting in linear motion.

The difference between "forward" and "backward" is one you will not find in space with this type of design.  The  reason the backward forces would not cause motion is friction.  It is impossible for the spring not to exert an equal and opposite force in a backward direction.

I'll concede this might not be trolling and a genuine misunderstanding of mechanics so I'll ask this simple question.  What could stop the spring from causing a force to be exerted equally in both directions other than friction?   What impact does that have on the design of an impulse drive?

That is what I would ask a 15 year old in a science class. I was hoping it would not come to this. 

it is not "impossible", you have misunderstood classical mechanics. subsequent experiments will further prove you wrong.

I think if you don't believe NASA then you need to take a trip into a frictionless environment to test this design LOL.  You won't be getting to MArs for quite some time. 


There are lots of potential designs with more merit than this.  I'd think along the lines of something without moving parts for an impulse drive.  Some of the inventors on here will be able to help you and the design will not ignore basic physical laws then.

[vril-ya]

This is becoming embarrassing.

indeed, more so longer you claim reactionless propulsion is "Impossible".

here's is an example of an osciallating pendulum on a cart causing unidirectional motion. in this design action is used maximum and reaction is canceled. this would work even better on a frictionless surface.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuTMYgQDUzs[/youtube]

this system is overunity, as small energy is needed to keep the weight oscillating and the rest of the energy is provided by gravity. similar system was patented by robert cook.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4QsDKww5AI[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Ri_HjLWR4[/youtube]

so, before you claim something is "impossible", make sure it really is so, cause you are wrong.