Deep space propulsion using spring force and kinetic energy

[vikram_gupta11]

There will be no need of on-board propellant in this technology (Zero Fuel Technology).
MECHANISM:There will be two part of this engine.

The first part will move freely in a cylindrical tube but second part will be stable. 
Two motors will be fixed in this engine as per the diagram. The (1) motor will work to press the first part towards the front side while (2) motor will work to press the second part towards backside. Two lever system will be attached with each motor.These levers will work to press their side springs when both motors will move.
There will be Pull Back system attached in the first part of this engine. This pull back system will work to get back the first part of this engine on its position with the help of a motor and electromagnets. Two magnetic brackets will be attached with first part as per the diagram and springs of first part's will be attached with a magnetic system. This engine will get energy with solar panels.

HOW WILL THIS ENGINE WORK?

When both lever systems will work to press their side springs then a kinetic force will create on both springs.
when the (1) lever will press the spring of first part then the spring get stretch due to pressure and at a point of pressure this part will be detached with its side magnets and will move towards front side due to kinetic force. But in second part of the device when (2) lever will press the spring towards backside then spring will work to push this device towards front side after removing lever pressure.

In this way both parts of this device will help to push forward this device. The magnetic bracket will work to catch this first part so that this part couldn't move with back force, otherwise this engine will move towards backside due to back force.

The pull back system will work to attach this first part with the help of electromagnets.The first part will be detached with magnetic brackets when pull back system will work on this part with electromagnets then the springs of this part will be attached with their side magnets again and pull back system will be detached.

BOTH LEVERS WILL WORK AT THE SAME TIME WITH EQUAL FORCE IN THIS ENGINE.

The first part of this device will get back its position again and both parts' levers systems will be ready to work on their side springs again and again.

The first part will move freely in a cylindrical tube but second part will be stable. 
Two motors will be fixed in this engine as per the diagram. The (1) motor will work to press the first part towards the front side while (2) motor will work to press the second part towards backside. Two lever system will be attached with each motor.These levers will work to press their side springs when both motors will move.
There will be Pull Back system attached in the first part of this engine. This pull back system will work to get back the first part of this engine on its position with the help of a motor and electromagnets. Two magnetic brackets will be attached with first part as per the diagram and springs of first part's will be attached with a magnetic system. This engine will get energy with solar panels.

HOW WILL THIS ENGINE WORK?

When both lever systems will work to press their side springs then a kinetic force will create on both springs.
when the (1) lever will press the spring of first part then the spring get stretch due to pressure and at a point of pressure this part will be detached with its side magnets and will move towards front side due to kinetic force. But in second part of the device when (2) lever will press the spring towards backside then spring will work to push this device towards front side after removing lever pressure.

In this way both parts of this device will help to push forward this device. The magnetic bracket will work to catch this first part so that this part couldn't move with back force, otherwise this engine will move towards backside due to back force.

The pull back system will work to attach this first part with the help of electromagnets.The first part will be detached with magnetic brackets when pull back system will work on this part with electromagnets then the springs of this part will be attached with their side magnets again and pull back system will be detached.

BOTH LEVERS WILL WORK AT THE SAME TIME WITH EQUAL FORCE IN THIS ENGINE.

The first part of this device will get back its position again and both parts' levers systems will be ready to work on their side springs again and again.

In this way this engine will work. This will be a radical step for deep space missions. There will be no need of on-board propellant in this technology (Zero Fuel Technology).

 

[Snark]

Moving to the "science" subforum ("Spacecraft Exchange" is for people exchanging KSP spacecraft to use in the game).

Though you may want to be prepared for a fair number of enthusiastic explanations of some technical difficulties with your proposal.

It's clear that you're earnest, you mean well, and you've put some thought and effort into this, so I trust that the community will be reasonably polite in any technical rebuttals.  (Right, folks?)

[Tex_NL]

It took some Google-Fu but I found the missing diagram at http://contest.techbriefs.com/2016/entries/aerospace-and-defense/6285

We can discuss the physics till the cows come home but there simply is no such thing as free energy. And there is no propulsion without some kind of mass thrown out in the opposite direction or something to push against.

Until you build and show an actual working prototype in an unbiased setting I won't buy it. It simply is not.

[Gaarst]

No. A lot of very well known people that know some stuff about physics say no. Some guy named Newton is in these. He's been wrong before but we're pretty sure that part of physics (that is named after him btw) is accurate

TBH I haven't really read (or understood for that matter) your entire post, but the first sentence combined with the fact you are not a billionaire are enough to tell me that there is something (or many things) wrong with your design.

Edited September 23, 2016 by Gaarst

[Neil1993]

I think simply stating "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" and then PROPERLY applying this within the proposed concept is enough to show that the internal forces cancel out and this concept will get you nowhere.

Remember, while rockets use this same principle (called Newton's third law), THEY LEAVE SOMETHING BEHIND. This is the burned fuel. The rocket pitches out tiny bits of this fuel very quickly and, in return, gains tiny bits of momentum. Because accelerating the particles takes a force, an equal and opposite force MUST act upon the craft.

QED

Edited September 24, 2016 by Neil1993

[YNM]

@OP : What you're doing won't change the momentum. Remember, space travel is always about energy AND momentum change. So unless you're going to throw things off the spring, it's not going to work in any way.

[vikram_gupta11]

1 hour ago, YNM said:

@OP : What you're doing won't change the momentum. Remember, space travel is always about energy AND momentum change. So unless you're going to throw things off the spring, it's not going to work in any way.

Dear Sir,

 

I have done some experiment on this Idea and it will work definitely. if you have some technical sources to develop this tech then try it and you will find out that it will work .I want to ask you that if this idea works on the earth surface then why this should not work in space  even it will work better in space vaccum.If you read carefully then find that momentum is changing.

[vikram_gupta11]

10 hours ago, Tex_NL said:

It took some Google-Fu but I found the missing diagram at http://contest.techbriefs.com/2016/entries/aerospace-and-defense/6285

We can discuss the physics till the cows come home but there simply is no such thing as free energy. And there is no propulsion without some kind of mass thrown out in the opposite direction or something to push against.

Until you build and show an actual working prototype in an unbiased setting I won't buy it. It simply is not.

you can do a very simple experiment to know the feasibility of this design and it will work .

[vikram_gupta11]

Just try this Idea with some rubber bands you will find out your answer but but the front part must go in forward direction . 

[vikram_gupta11]

11 hours ago, Tex_NL said:

It took some Google-Fu but I found the missing diagram at http://contest.techbriefs.com/2016/entries/aerospace-and-defense/6285

We can discuss the physics till the cows come home but there simply is no such thing as free energy. And there is no propulsion without some kind of mass thrown out in the opposite direction or something to push against.

Until you build and show an actual working prototype in an unbiased setting I won't buy it. It simply is not.

I don't have have technical resource to develop a working model but if someone in this forum has technical sources then he can try it and it will work ..

[Snark]

22 minutes ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

Just try this Idea with some rubber bands you will find out your answer but but the front part must go in forward direction .

Sorry, this won't work.

If I pull on something with a rubber band, I can move it, yes.  That's because I'm anchored to the ground and I can exert force on the thing-I'm moving without actually being moved myself by any appreciable amount.

If you're on a spacecraft in space, that doesn't work.  Newton's 3rd Law.  Action and reaction.  If I have a rubber band between parts A and B, and the rubber band pulls part A forward, it will pull part B backwards by the same amount.  There's no way for the rubber band to move the whole ship unless something outside the ship is pulling on it.

[Neil1993]

One great way to determine if this is actually a feasible system is to try the following thought experiment:

1. Imagine how cheap or easy this is to build and test. Is it cheaper and easier than regular rocket motors? Given the diagram, I would say yes. Can it be made very light? I would also guess that it could be. Based on these factors, does it seem that it will be more effective than a traditional engine?
2. If you determined in 1. that it is more effective, then ask yourself why so many space agencies with such considerable resources and so many ideas have yet to try anything resembling it.

Short answer: it doesn't work

Edit: While I understand that some very great and disruptive ideas can come from individuals, remember that for every individual with a great idea, there are a million more with bad ideas. If you ever have an idea which you think has great merit, then I suggest bringing it to experts in the field, rather than posting it on a forum.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Neil1993

[mikegarrison]

This reminds me of the con game played in Paper Moon.

I push on this and I pull on that and I release this magnet and I pull this and ... you make it so complicated that you miss somewhere that you don't account for the balancing forces.

(In the video, he gives her five $1s, she gives him a $5. Then he gives her a $5 and asks for a $10, telling her that she's already got his five $1s. She forgets that she already gave him a $5 for those five $1s. He ends up netting $5, a pretty big sum in the 1930s.)

[Tex_NL]

20 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

[vid snip]

This reminds me of the con game played in Paper Moon.

I push on this and I pull on that and I release this magnet and I pull this and ... you make it so complicated that you miss somewhere that you don't account for the balancing forces.

(In the video, he gives her five $1s, she gives him a $5. Then he gives her a $5 and asks for a $10, telling her that she's already got his five $1s. She forgets that she already gave him a $5 for those five $1s. He ends up netting $5, a pretty big sum in the 1930s.)

Going WAY off-topic here but this reminds me of a different version:

Can I borrow €100? €50 now, €50 tomorrow.
You give me €50.
So I owe you €50 and you owe me €50. That makes us even.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Tex_NL

[steve_v]

8 hours ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

I have done some experiment on this Idea and it will work definitely.

So, share your experimental setup and results showing net force applied. Better yet, write it up properly and submit it for peer-review. If you are right, you will soon be very rich.

8 hours ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

you can do a very simple experiment to know the feasibility of this design and it will work .

7 hours ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

I don't have have technical resource to develop a working model but if someone in this forum has technical sources then he can try it and it will work ..

Oh no no no, you are the one with the extraordinary claim, you get to prove it. The math (and Sir Isaac Newton) says it won't work. Do you have any data that contradicts this?
Show me a prototype performing under properly controlled conditions, and I'll show you a variable you missed some interest in this perpetual-motion machine idea.

[vikram_gupta11]

7 hours ago, Snark said:

Sorry, this won't work.

If I pull on something with a rubber band, I can move it, yes.  That's because I'm anchored to the ground and I can exert force on the thing-I'm moving without actually being moved myself by any appreciable amount.

If you're on a spacecraft in space, that doesn't work.  Newton's 3rd Law.  Action and reaction.  If I have a rubber band between parts A and B, and the rubber band pulls part A forward, it will pull part B backwards by the same amount.  There's no way for the rubber band to move the whole ship unless something outside the ship is pulling on it.

please read it carefully that in first part of this engine the rubber band 's A and B  both parts are moving in forward direction  and  second part of this engine is working also  as a pushing system  and counter opposite force.

Please pay your attention on the work of first part .this engine is not as simple as you are imaging and I also have physics knowledge and after reading Newton's law I posted this Idea on this forum. 

10 minutes ago, steve_v said:

So, share your experimental setup and results showing net force applied. Better yet, write it up properly and submit it for peer-review. If you are right, you will soon be very rich.

Oh no no no, you are the one with the extraordinary claim, you get to prove it. The math (and Sir Isaac Newton) says it won't work. Do you have any data that contradicts this?
Show me a prototype performing under properly controlled conditions, and I'll show you a variable you missed some interest in this perpetual-motion machine idea.

 

11 minutes ago, steve_v said:

So, share your experimental setup and results showing net force applied. Better yet, write it up properly and submit it for peer-review. If you are right, you will soon be very rich.

Oh no no no, you are the one with the extraordinary claim, you get to prove it. The math (and Sir Isaac Newton) says it won't work. Do you have any data that contradicts this?
Show me a prototype performing under properly controlled conditions, and I'll show you a variable you missed some interest in this perpetual-motion machine idea.

Sir,please tell me that why this Idea shouldn't work if you have read it carefully .Both parts in this engine are working separately with same timing but where in first part we are applying force towards front side the spring is going towards front side and in second part we are applying back force and  but spring is  moving towards front side.It is not violating newton's law but even newton's law is supporting this Idea.

Just tell me .

I shall be very grateful to you. 

[Kryten]

Think about the momentum here. Where is the extra momentum supposed to come from?

[Tex_NL]

18 minutes ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

please read it carefully that in first part of this engine the rubber band 's A and B  both parts are moving in forward direction  and  second part of this engine is working also  as a pushing system  and counter opposite force.

Please pay your attention on the work of first part .this engine is not as simple as you are imaging and I also have physics knowledge and after reading Newton's law I posted this Idea on this forum. 

 

Sir,please tell me that why this Idea shouldn't work if you have read it carefully .Both parts in this engine are working separately with same timing but where in first part we are applying force towards front side the spring is going towards front side and in second part we are applying back force and  but spring is  moving towards front side.It is not violating newton's law but even newton's law is supporting this Idea.

Just tell me .

I shall be very grateful to you. 

* It * Will * Not * Work * !!! * PERIOD! *

Take your idea and your experiments to your physics professor. Take it to any high school, university or anywhere else that teaches physics. Have them take a look at it. I guarantee you they will say the same thing as we''re saying right here: It will not work!

[steve_v]

1 hour ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

Sir,please tell me that why this Idea shouldn't work if you have read it carefully .

Because conservation of momentum. To make something move without a fixed reference (i.e. something to push against) you must apply an external force. Rockets do this by ejecting mass from the craft. Momentum is transferred to the ejected propellant and the equation is balanced by the rocket moving in the opposite direction. As others (and NASA) have said, Newtons 3rd law.
Moving mass around within the craft will do nothing, no matter how cunning your spring mechanism, as it's essentially a closed system. You are just transferring kinetic energy from one moving part to another and back again. 
All this machine will do is convert electrical energy to kinetic, and kinetic energy into heat through mechanical losses. It might move back and forward a little in the process, but it certainly won't go anywhere.

All this is somewhat irrelevant anyway, I'll say it again: It's not up to others to show why it won't work. It's your theory, so you have to provide the evidence.
To convince anyone, you'll have to describe the mathematics behind it too.

You do have an equation describing its operation (and net transfer of momentum to the craft), right?

1 hour ago, Tex_NL said:

Take your idea and your experiments to your physics professor.

Also, this^.

[mikegarrison]

3 hours ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

Sir,please tell me that why this Idea shouldn't work if you have read it carefully .Both parts in this engine are working separately with same timing but where in first part we are applying force towards front side the spring is going towards front side and in second part we are applying back force and  but spring is  moving towards front side.It is not violating newton's law but even newton's law is supporting this Idea.

Just tell me .

I shall be very grateful to you. 

OK, if you want to be grateful to us, listen up.

When you release your spring, it pushes forward on the machine. But every time you compress your spring, you have to push back on the the machine. The net total force has to be zero.

[Nibb31]

Guys, this gentleman has been posting his perpetual-motion devices all over the Internet for ages. He's been told by pretty much everyone about the laws of conservation of momentum, but he just won't listen. It's a lost cause.

[Robotengineer]

This is just troll physics. Free-energy people are the flat-earthers of mechanisms and machines. 

Edited September 24, 2016 by Robotengineer

[Neil1993]

15 minutes ago, Robotengineer said:

This is just troll physics. Free-energy people are the flat-earthers of mechanisms and machines. 

But aren't Flat-Earthers the Flat-Earthers of mechanisms and machines too?

[steve_v]

27 minutes ago, Robotengineer said:

This is just troll physics.

Indeed, complete with some standard crackpot argument markers. In no particular order:

Fancy name already coined (Zero Fuel Technology).
No math.
Terrible grammar and punctuation, repeated text, mostly unintelligible description.
Vague, hand-drawn diagrams.
No references to existing research.
Claims of radical or revolutionary potential.
No math.
Overly complicated mechanism.
Repeated insinuation that you are "not reading it carefully enough".
Repeated entreaties to "Just try it for yourself".
Repeated appeals to "Just prove me wrong".
No experimental data.
No prototype.
No math.

Verdict: Troll, or very gullible person sucked in by troll.*
Relevance to real-world space propulsion: Zero.

*This possibility is the only reason for my attempt to explain why this won't work, And that pretty much evaporated at the boilerplate "Sir,please tell me that why this Idea shouldn't work if you have read it carefully ." response. Troll.

Edited September 24, 2016 by steve_v

[Deddly]

@vikram_gupta11, if I understand you properly, your device is basically moving some parts back and forth at certain speeds and at certain times. I like the way you are thinking, and it's good to use your mind like that. But there's a problem with this design, and I'll try and explain what that problem is:

If I am in space and I push a big, heavy weight away from me slowly, I'll be pushed away (Fuel-free propulsion!). But what happens when my arms are straight? I have two choices: 1) let go or 2) hold on.

1) I let go of the weight and because I'm in space, I keep moving away, but the weight keeps moving away too, so I lost the weight forever. I just used the weight as fuel. This is how rocket engines work.

2) I hold on to the weight and it stops moving, but so do I. That means I didn't actually go anywhere. No matter how quickly or slowly I move that weight backwards and forwards, I'm not going to go anywhere at all.

Number 2 is basically what your device is doing. It's more complicated than my example, of course, but it's still just moving weights backwards and forwards. I'm sorry but your device isn't going to work