Deep space propulsion using spring force and kinetic energy

[vikram_gupta11]

15 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

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.

Sir,

I will tell you that where I'm confused but please comments on this second concept.

[vikram_gupta11]

Just now, vikram_gupta11 said:

Sir,

I will tell you that where I'm confused but please comments on this second concept.

 Dear Sir,

In this sketch there is a GUN SYSTEM as a propellant chamber and we are using IRON BALLS as a propellant.

An electromagnet is attached on the other side of this engine .When we fire these   IRON balls  with the help of this gun system then these balls will move towards forward side and a back force will be create to propel  this engine .  These iron balls will be piled up on the surface of this electromagnet and we can again reuse these iron balls and send back these iron balls into the propellant chamber or refilling the Gun system again and again with the help of a mechanical system .

In this way this engine will work  and  the propellant will never be reduced.

 

Now please tell me that will this Idea work or not as this time as far as I think no law is violating.

 

Vikram.

[sgt_flyer]

8 minutes ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

 Dear Sir,

In this sketch there is a GUN SYSTEM as a propellant chamber and we are using IRON BALLS as a propellant.

An electromagnet is attached on the other side of this engine .When we fire these   IRON balls  with the help of this gun system then these balls will move towards forward side and a back force will be create to propel  this engine .  These iron balls will be piled up on the surface of this electromagnet and we can again reuse these iron balls and send back these iron balls into the propellant chamber or refilling the Gun system again and again with the help of a mechanical system .

In this way this engine will work  and  the propellant will never be reduced.

 

 

Now please tell me that will this Idea work or not as this time as far as I think no law is violating.

 

Vikram.

'Catching' those balls with electromagnets is going to cancel the momentum - because your magnetic field comes from the ship. The ship magnets will 'attract' it towards the balls at the same time the balls are attracted towards it. You could put a metal plate for catching those balls, it would have the same effect. 

Take one magnet and an iron piece, and move them closer to each other - both will want to move closer to each other.

magnetism isn't magical  momentum conservation laws applys the same way. If you 'accelerate' a ball then slow it down to a stop within the same machine, net momentum = 0. No matter if it's mechanically accelerated and stopped, magnetically, or a combination of both.

[mikegarrison]

33 minutes ago, sgt_flyer said:

magnetism isn't magical

What 'chu talkin' 'bout, Willis? Infomercials tell me otherwise. And if you can't trust a pitchman on a cable channel at 3 am, who can you trust?

[Scotius]

This guy is an endless fountain of ideas One more ridiculous and facepalm worthy than another. Give it a rest vikram_gupta11 - your ideas won't get any traction here.

[vikram_gupta11]

1 hour ago, sgt_flyer said:

'Catching' those balls with electromagnets is going to cancel the momentum - because your magnetic field comes from the ship. The ship magnets will 'attract' it towards the balls at the same time the balls are attracted towards it. You could put a metal plate for catching those balls, it would have the same effect. 

Take one magnet and an iron piece, and move them closer to each other - both will want to move closer to each other.

magnetism isn't magical  momentum conservation laws applys the same way. If you 'accelerate' a ball then slow it down to a stop within the same machine, net momentum = 0. No matter if it's mechanically accelerated and stopped, magnetically, or a combination of both.

[K^2]

Can we please get a blanket ban on anything violating conservation laws in this forum? It's worse than "Moon Hoax" conspiracies.

[DerekL1963]

Is it really necessary to keep replying to this guy?

[Deddly]

@vikram_gupta11, can you please tell me  if you understand my reply here?:

Your gun idea works the same way and doesn't work for the same reasons.

[YNM]

On 9/24/2016 at 9:22 AM, vikram_gupta11 said:

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.

Now, do this simple experiment :

0. Find an electric motor. Attach some blades onto the rotating shaft (propeller, to say).

1. Turn it on with air around it. Does it make thrust ?

2. Turn it on in vacuum. Does it make thrust ?

Or alternatively, connect the shaft to a wheel. Does it "work" while not touching anything ?

- > something which works on Earth (with all the extra-rigid substance and all the working fluid around it to impart force on) may not work in space. I believe your system is relying to the Earth itself to some extent.

 

This is why space travel is hard - you can't impart force on something pertinent to space itself (because there isn't any). You got to carry the things to impart force on - which is what propellant are for. And no, they're not going back to you unless even more force/energy is imparted on them, or you're not going anywhere. The only way to truly make use of space as a "propellant" would be gravity assists, but then there's actually something you stole from / give to.

Edited September 25, 2016 by YNM

[Neil1993]

8 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

Is it really necessary to keep replying to this guy?

No. I think we're just all replying because it's fun

[Nefrums]

8 hours ago, K^2 said:

Can we please get a blanket ban on anything violating conservation laws in this forum? It's worse than "Moon Hoax" conspiracies.

We are 100% certain that momentum conservation laws are valid for any mechanical device like the one in this topic, but we are only 99% certain that they are valid on the quantum mechanics scale.

[Scotius]

9 hours ago, K^2 said:

Can we please get a blanket ban on anything violating conservation laws in this forum? It's worse than "Moon Hoax" conspiracies.

Now, now - new users can learn a bit from such discussions. Maybe someone will see similiar nonsense on YouTube, will Google it to learn more and end here? At least on this forum he or she will find facts and users ready to explain why there is no such thing as free energy, perpetual motion and spring propelled spaceships

[Kryten]

Can you explain how either device is supposed to work in terms of momentum transfer?

[Tex_NL]

It will never cease to amaze me how people here on the KSP forum can make 2 dozen posts that basically repeat what was said in the first 2 posts.

[Deddly]

7 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:

It will never cease to amaze me how people here on the KSP forum can make 2 dozen posts that basically repeat what was said in the first 2 posts.

Driving the point home in different ways in the hope that OP will understand at least one of them.

[NFUN]

Once in Model Congress somebody proposed mandating that electric cars have windmills on top to power them. It took a few minutes of patient explanation to inform him why that wouldn't work. He was crestfallen, but at least he listened.

[DerekL1963]

1 hour ago, Deddly said:

Driving the point home in different ways in the hope that OP will understand at least one of them.

Anyone who has been on the 'net more than a week could tell you, given the tenor of his replies, that's not going to happen.

[Vanamonde]

We can disagree without each other without being demeaning about it, so please don't resort to insulting terms no matter how wrong you believe the other person to be. 

[razark]

On 9/23/2016 at 10:02 PM, 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 ..

Simply put, once you publish your idea, you can fund the testing of it yourself out of the money you get winning the Nobel Prize.

Once you have a working demonstration, let us know.

Edited September 26, 2016 by razark

[Diche Bach]

On 9/24/2016 at 7:03 AM, Kryten said:

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

Dark Energy!?

[K^2]

9 hours ago, Nefrums said:

We are 100% certain that momentum conservation laws are valid for any mechanical device like the one in this topic, but we are only 99% certain that they are valid on the quantum mechanics scale.

To be mathematically precise, we are 99.9999999999% certain that they are valid in Quantum Mechanics. This is precision to which modern field theory is tested with experiments. To put it into perspective, odds that there will be another sunrise tomorrow are nowhere near as certain. You have better odds to win a lottery, yes, even without buying a ticket, and then get struck by lightning on the clear day while on your way to pick up the winnings than for conservation laws to fail. There is a higher probability that there is a lost island somewhere in the pacific with real life unicorn than for symmetry relations being a fluke.

There are caveats. There are ways to achieve propulsion with no exhaust and without violation of conservation laws. But these are very fine details. If you see a device that is claimed to be capable of operation in an empty vacuum of space, it is safe to simply say it's baloney. Whether it is mechanical or employs QM trickery makes no difference. Later just makes it harder to spot the specific flaw in logic, but conservation laws are only stronger in Field Theory.

The only cases where some slack can be cut is if device claims to operate only in orbit. But even then, typical energy densities required for known configurations are comparable to warp drives. In other words, the grain of salt should be rather considerable in diameter.

As for educational value of lettings posts like this be, valid point, however, we always have exactly the same explanation. Maybe we should have a pinned topic on conservation and thermodynamics laws that mods can link to and lock the offending thread. There is no reason to have the same material repeated over and over again. I mean, I might have used leprechauns instead of unicorns last time I explained this, but otherwise, there has been no significant breakthroughs in field theory for the past fifty years that would even suggest that there is flexibility on these laws. If anything, we managed to gain stronger and stronger confirmation.

We already have a  thread on EM Drive. I'm happy with that. We don't need one every time a new person shows up with zero understanding of even classical mechanics claiming to have invented an amazing device that violates all known laws of physics. Yes, I'm saying all laws, because every single principle can be derived from conservation laws as a consequence of underlying symmetries. The EM Drive, at least, is interesting in that the flaw isn't obvious. But the moment someone says "springs" or "magnets", or worse, both, we really don't need to hear the rest. A boilerplate response thread is all we need.

[Diche Bach]

14 minutes ago, K^2 said:

. . . snip . . .

We already have a  thread on EM Drive. I'm happy with that. We don't need one every time a new person shows up with zero understanding of even classical mechanics claiming to have invented an amazing device that violates all known laws of physics. Yes, I'm saying all laws, because every single principle can be derived from conservation laws as a consequence of underlying symmetries. The EM Drive, at least, is interesting in that the flaw isn't obvious. But the moment someone says "springs" or "magnets", or worse, both, we really don't need to hear the rest. A boilerplate response thread is all we need.

But what about dark matter/energy? Those don't seem to have received Newton's memo, eh?

Please educate me on how the 96% of the universe that these mysterious things comprise can be derived from conservation laws.

[K^2]

3 minutes ago, Diche Bach said:

But what about dark matter/energy? Those don't seem to have received Newton's memo, eh?

Please educate me on how the 96% of the universe that these mysterious things comprise can be derived from conservation laws.

Dark energy is a pressure term in the stress-energy. It's completely conservative. And dark matter is just matter. It's not radiating, so we can't tell what it is, but otherwise, it's just matter. It follows ordinary, Newtonian physics as far as all the forces go. So yeah, all of these things fall under umbrella of Field Theory. Other than the fact that we still have not pin-pointed the sources for these, there is nothing special about them whatsoever. That's why scientists talk about them with such confidence despite having not actually seen any.

Edited September 26, 2016 by K^2

[Diche Bach]

14 minutes ago, K^2 said:

Dark energy is a pressure term in the stress-energy. It's completely conservative. And dark matter is just matter. It's not radiating, so we can't tell what it is, but otherwise, it's just matter. It follows ordinary, Newtonian physics as far as all the forces go. So yeah, all of these things fall under umbrella of Field Theory. Other than the fact that we still have not pin-pointed the sources for these, there is nothing special about them whatsoever. That's why scientists talk about them with such confidence having not actually seen any.

I think Dr. Hooper would disagree with you. Watch it to at least 20:28 if you really want to see what I mean