NASA's suicide missions

More
21 years 8 months ago #4902 by MarkVitrone
Replied by MarkVitrone on topic Reply from Mark Vitrone
Isnt that how David killed Goliath? Swing around and around, remove the centripetal force and the object accelerates along the tangent. -MV

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 years 8 months ago #5112 by Mac
Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin
If you spell "Goliath" - Gravity, you bet.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 years 8 months ago #4914 by n/a3
Replied by n/a3 on topic Reply from
When you have a rotating reference frame and a mass on it whose distance from the center of the rotating axis changes, angular momentum J is not conserved. This is because somehow, some place a torque (force x distance) is applied:

J = I x omega. Then J-dot = I-dot x omega + I x omega-dot

The confusion, or even scam, is that you need to either apply a force to change the distance of the mass from the rotating center or split the mass in some way to reduce moment of inertia. When doing that, the torque applied on the rotating frame axis due to a non-conservation of momentum generates a "jerk" due to Coulomb non-linear friction coupling. If you could have a perfectly frictionless ball bearing no such force can be transmitted to the frame and result in a linear momentum. In essense, the ball bearing acts as a converter.

A couple things are tru then:

1. The linear pulse or momentum is due to the coupling of the rotating frame and the enclosure frame caused by non-linear friction. This results in a "knee-jerk" reaction of the frame and when it is placed on a frictionless surface like ice, the frame moves.

2. The constant application of a jerk at the ball bearing connecting the rotating frame shaft with its enclosure causes the bearing to break or lock after some revolutions depending on the magnitude of the torque applied. This is the reason demonstrations of such machinery is not made often and is not reproducible in any way.

3. One cannot control neither the magnitude not the direction of the linear momentum vector for obvious reasons.

4. Everyone talks about a linear momentum vector perpendicular to the angular speed vector of the mass but no one dares to even mention one parallel to it. You need a paralle vector to defy gravity and that is impossible for anyone who took 101 can understand why.

Peace brothers.


Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 years 8 months ago #5160 by Mac
Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin
Mark,

Why do you assume that the momentum force is coupled to the rotating system via a bearing? What happened to releasing the mass (which has momentum - in a specfic vector) and let it smack into the stationary frame?????

Sharpen that pencil.<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 years 8 months ago #5163 by n/a3
Replied by n/a3 on topic Reply from
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Why do you assume that the momentum force is coupled to the rotating system via a bearing? What happened to releasing the mass (which has momentum - in a specfic vector) and let it smack into the stationary frame?????

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Mac,

I'm not here to play with anyone or with my own words. My observations were based on the setup you described above made of a stationary frame and a rotating table. Now you come back talking of smacking a mass into the stationary frame. Just mount a riffle on a table and start shooting bullets on a steel frane welded on it. You're calling that an inertial drive? Come on Mac... let's maintain a certain level here, please.

Mr. Larry made it clear -- I hope you got his point --- you are welcome to try the pendulum test. Anytime, any place. I bet ya one nickel you'll never pass it.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 years 8 months ago #4918 by Mac
Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin
Mark,

Likewise.

And how do you envision firing a rifle (equal and opposite reactions) as having anything to do with a reaction through 360 degrees (which cancles itself - the acceleration force) and the STOP of the accelerated mass converting its momentum into a frame reaction (without any counter force available) which is directed in a given vector??

Perhaps my STOP was not clear but nobody is playing word games here. One day I hope to be able to show you these things but not until we are ready to go public. In the mean time keep your nickle on the table and don't put it in your pocket, because I have 40 years experience with these things and "Some" do work, many more don't.

Finally how is it that you deny the Sandia units performance. Is Sandia prone to distortion of their achievment? They state they can change from a lower orbit to a higher orbit. That is not a wiggle, vibratory locomotion.

There is nothing wrong with the pendulum test. I do have a bit of problem hanging my 3 Hp, 120 pound railroad cart as a pendulum. I have progressed well past toys here. I got a "Steady - Not impulse or vibration" reading of 7 pounds thrust on a spring scale. When released the cart accelerates down the rails in either direction (tracks leveled).

And lastly I have nothing to gain here by trying to embellish something. Nothing personal or deragatory intended I have bigger fish to fry than to try and impress members of this MSB.

I simply thought these developments might be of interest and were relevant to the discussion.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.473 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum