Propellant Recycling

[Cheif Operations Director]

3 minutes ago, steve_v said:

This has already been answered, but I can't resist a little:

You're still not getting the basic laws of motion, this stuff was written down over 300 years ago.

 

Not possible at all, anywhere anytime. This is not a case of inventing some magic material (or putting magnets on it), it is, to the best of humanity's cumulative knowledge, a basic property of the universe.
If you catch a moving something and bring it to rest relative to you, you must absorb it's kinetic energy somehow. That will impart a force on the catcher. No ifs buts or maybes, will. Anything else is pure fantasy.
 

I'm not at all sure that sentence makes any sense. Who's Andy?

 

Yay! If the tennis ball is expelled from the system at speed, it will move the car. Just like a rocket, and just like I've been trying to explain for hours.

 

Sentence sense make not does.
Are you talking about cheating at physics again? Trying to dodge the "equal" part of Newton's third law? Not going to happen.
 

I’m saying on a theoretical level! I’m talking in an abstract sense. I know the overall energy is equal but if you find a place to dump one of the sides of the equation it is not equal! 

 

Eg

 

10 N = 10 N

your agree right? Now if I add -4 N from one I get 10 N =  6 N and that is wrong! It is 10 N > 6 N. If you use Newton’s first law to act upon the object carrying the equal and opposite reaction, in this case 10 and it causes a -4 Change they are no longer equal. I am not contesting the laws of physics. Suppose you could use magic and cause the exhaust from the rocket to slow down before hitting the tarp. We still have a net positive thrust. My proposal is to use magnets and not magic! 

13 minutes ago, DDE said:

...and that didn’t prevent most of information getting lost in translation. For starters, the word питание refers exclusively to electric current. To which you then baselessly speculated:

Perhaps you, and not the Russian government, are the one who should be kept away from nuclear energy.

I’m sorry I do not speak Russian? I’m not sure what else you want me to say I used the information at the time. 

15 minutes ago, steve_v said:

Sentence sense make not does.

Fair enough

 

15 minutes ago, steve_v said:

Yay! If the tennis ball is expelled from the system at speed, it will move the car. Just like a rocket, and just like I've been trying to explain for hours.

I never disagreed! 

[steve_v]

31 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

I’m saying on a theoretical level!

It's not even possible on a "theoretical level". Perhaps we're using a different definition of the word, because to me "theory" and "abstract level" do not often belong in the same sentence.
A theory is a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle to explain a phenomena, it seems to me that what you have here is conjecture.
 

31 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

if you find a place to dump one of the sides of the equation it is not equal

You can't, and therefore it is. If you could, the universe would probably implode.
 

31 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

I am not contesting the laws of physics.

No, you're trying really hard to ignore or otherwise nullify the ones that don't fit your fantasy, while using other closely related principles to support it. I do believe that's called a fallacy of incomplete evidence.
Sounding very much like a sneaky form of contesting to me.
 

31 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Suppose you could use magic and cause the exhaust from the rocket to slow down before hitting the tarp. We still have a net positive thrust.

Magic =/= theory. Magic == fantasy. If you could make a fraction of the momentum of the propellant vanish completely before it hits the catcher, then presto! thrust! But you can't do that, so why even talk about it?
We might as well talk about pulling rabbits out of thin air, at least there are ways to make that somewhat believable.

 

31 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

My proposal is to use magnets and not magic!

So in one breath you state that it would require magic to make your "theory" work, and in the next you propose using magnets in place of magic... The mind boggles. Why magnets? Why not just use phlebotinum plating and reverse the polarity?


What is it with magnets and magic anyway? Electromagnetism isn't mysterious, yet every second crank "inventor" uses magnets as the secret sauce.
 

Edited August 10, 2019 by steve_v

[Cheif Operations Director]

2 minutes ago, steve_v said:

It's not even possible on a "theoretical level". Perhaps we're using a different definition of the word, because to be "theory" and "abstract level" do not often belong in the same sentence.
A theory is a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle to explain a phenomena, it seems to me that what you have here is conjecture.
 

You can't, and therefore it is. If you could, the universe would probably implode.
 

No, you're trying really hard to ignore or otherwise nullify the ones that don't fit your fantasy, while using other closely related principles to support it. I do believe that's called a fallacy of incomplete evidence.
Sounding very much like a sneaky form of contesting to me.
 

Magic =/= theory. Magic == fantasy. If you could make a fraction of the momentum of the propellant vanish completely before it hits the catcher, then presto! thrust! But you can't do that, so why even talk about it?
We might as well talk about pulling rabbits out of thin air, at least there are ways to make that somewhat believable.

 

So in one breath you state that it would require magic to make your "theory" work, and in the next you propose using magnets in place of magic... The mind boggles. Why magnets? Why not just use phlebotinum plating and reverse the polarity?


What is it with magnets and magic anyway? Electromagnetism isn't mysterious, yet every second crank "inventor" uses magnets as the secret sauce.
 

Word Games Intensifies...

 

[steve_v]

1 minute ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Word Games Intensifies...

Not much else is left, it's rather difficult to rebut an illogical argument based on a flawed premise. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

29 minutes ago, DDE said:

Somehow the discussion of the Dean Drive mechanical rocket is a step up from the NTR speculation.

Much impressed you picked the origin of that picture. As for how it came to this, you'll have to ask @Cheif Operations Director why he keeps pressing my "somebody is wrong on the internet" buttons.

[Cheif Operations Director]

3 minutes ago, steve_v said:

It's not even possible on a "theoretical level". Perhaps we're using a different definition of the word, because to be "theory" and "abstract level" do not often belong in the same sentence.
A theory is a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle to explain a phenomena, it seems to me that what you have here is conjecture.

Fine

3 minutes ago, steve_v said:

You can't, and therefore it is. If you could, the universe would probably implode.

So the universe will explode if I transfer energy to another object?

4 minutes ago, steve_v said:

No, you're trying really hard to ignore or otherwise nullify the ones that don't fit your fantasy, while using other closely related principles to support it. I do believe that's called a fallacy of incomplete evidence.
Sounding very much like a sneaky form of contesting to me.

I’m not contesting the laws of physics. I’m asking you for your explanation as to why I am wrong. (I will elaborate later) 

 

5 minutes ago, steve_v said:

Magic =/= theory. Magic == fantasy. If you could make a fraction of the momentum of the propellant vanish completely before it hits the catcher, then presto! thrust! But you can't do that, so why even talk about it?
We might as well talk about pulling rabbits out of thin air, at least there are ways to make that somewhat believable.

Yes that is why I said it! The question is how do we transfer the energy out of the cloud of thrust AFTER to ha left the nozzle! If this can be done then it is not magic. 

 

6 minutes ago, steve_v said:

So in one breath you state that it would require magic to make your "theory" work, and in the next you propose using magnets in place of magic... The mind boggles. Why magnets? Why not just use phlebotinum plating and reverse the polarity?

When did I say I needed magic? I’m using it to get across a point, one that you do not even disagree with. 

 

7 minutes ago, steve_v said:

What is it with magnets and magic anyway? Electromagnetism isn't mysterious, yet every second crank "inventor" uses magnets as the secret sauce.

Fair point, it was the first thing that came to mind I’m sure something else could be done other than magnets. Either way I’m using it as an example for now. 

2 minutes ago, steve_v said:

Not much else is left, it's rather difficult to rebut an illogical argument based on a flawed premise. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Much impressed you picked the origin of that picture. As for how it came to this, you'll have to ask @Cheif Operations Director why he keeps pressing my "somebody is wrong on the internet" buttons.

What? You have yet to explain why I can not transfer energy out of the exhaust plume (via slowing it down) and then recycle the material in the exhaust plume for a positive thrust. 

[Ultimate Steve]

33 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

What? You have yet to explain why I can not transfer energy out of the exhaust plume (via slowing it down) and then recycle the material in the exhaust plume for a positive thrust. 

If you slow the exhaust plume down, it has to speed something else up in the same direction that the exhaust was moving. It takes an equal amount of energy to speed it up as it does to slow it down. If the thing that slows the propellant down is connected to the craft, then the craft will accelerate backwards the same amount it accelerated forwards when it expelled the propellant.

Magnets as a catching mechanism are not immune from this rule, momentum is transferred to and from magnets the same as momentum is transferred to and from normal objects, just from far away instead of through direct contact.

[steve_v]

42 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

So the universe will explode if I transfer energy to another object?

Maybe. The universe is the way it is in part because the laws of motion and conservation of energy are inviolable. If they weren't, very strange things would happen - very strange things that would probably make life extremely unpleasant for you and I.
 

42 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

I’m not contesting the laws of physics. I’m asking you for your explanation as to why I am wrong.

You're wrong because your theory requires that natural laws which have been accepted for hundreds of years and tested innumerable times be wrong. They are at the very foundation of much of our physics knowledge, and if they are wrong, so is most of the rest.
If you can disprove those laws in a repeatable, verifiable manner, you get a Nobel. If you can't, your theory is dead in the water.
300 years and the entire scientific community vs. you. The odds don't look good.
Hell, even sci-fi authors shy away from disputing this stuff, and that's meant to be fiction.
 

42 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

The question is how do we transfer the energy out of the cloud of thrust AFTER to ha left the nozzle!

If you find a way to do that, hit me up. 50/50 split on those billions sounds fair. I'm not going to waste time speculating on something that is almost certainly impossible.
 

42 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

If this can be done then it is not magic.

So explain how it can be done, then design a theoretical engine around the principle. Doing it the other way around is madness.
 

42 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

When did I say I needed magic?

Ahem:

1 hour ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Suppose you could use magic and cause the exhaust from the rocket to slow down before hitting the tarp.

Since your reactionless rocket doesn't work without this supposition, and the only answer to the supposition you can offer is magic (I believe we covered magnets already)... I guess you need magic.
 

42 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

I’m sure something else could be done other than magnets.

Okay then, shoot. What else? What makes you so sure it can be done at all? If you can't offer any plausible explanations for an assumption that critical to your theory, I have to say you're just blowing smoke.

 

42 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

You have yet to explain why I can not transfer energy out of the exhaust plume (via slowing it down) and then recycle the material in the exhaust plume for a positive thrust.

It has been explained at least 10 times already in this thread. I'm not doing it again.

Anyway, my free-energy troll detector is going nuts right now and it's usually a pretty good indicator of a race to the bottom type debate, so I'd better leave now before I get dragged any further in.

Edited August 10, 2019 by steve_v

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, steve_v said:

4 hours ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

I in tow have a small tarp above 200 feet away from the craft
... Do you agree that you can still have forward thrust?
...faring like structure do you still agree I can have thrust?
...the idea of a closed rocket could work (with those restrictions)

No, no, and definitely not. Absolutely, utterly, and unequivocally no.

A-ha, so you're not sure!

1 hour ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

1 hour ago, DDE said:

...and that didn’t prevent most of information getting lost in translation. For starters, the word питание refers exclusively to electric current. To which you then baselessly speculated:

Perhaps you, and not the Russian government, are the one who should be kept away from nuclear energy.

I’m sorry I do not speak Russian? I’m not sure what else you want me to say I used the information at the time. 

He says that the word питание ("food or power supply") refers exclusively to electric current...
Probably, @DDE is a robot, as humans usually refer with it  to something to eat.

Spoiler

1 hour ago, DDE said:

autonomous launch container

Impossible, due to another treaty. No bottom silos, afaik.

53 minutes ago, steve_v said:

What is it with magnets and magic anyway?

If so, then why do they call them magnets?

[Cheif Operations Director]

2 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

A-ha, so you're not sure

Whom are you talking about?

[kerbiloid]

Just now, Cheif Operations Director said:

Whom are you talking about?

@steve_v

[steve_v]

1 minute ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Whom are you talking about?

Why, I do believe that's sarcasm, you naughty @kerbiloid

[Cheif Operations Director]

9 minutes ago, steve_v said:

Maybe. The universe is the way it is in part because the laws of motion and conservation of energy are inviolable. If they weren't, very strange things would happen - very strange things that would probably make life extremely unpleasant for you and I.

What? Again I’m not denying the laws of physics! 

 

11 minutes ago, steve_v said:

You're wrong because your theory requires that natural laws which have been accepted for hundreds of years and tested innumerable times be wrong. They are at the very foundation of much of our physics knowledge, and if they are wrong, so is most of the rest.
If you can disprove those laws in a repeatable, verifiable manner, you get a Nobel. If you can't, your theory is dead in the water.
300 years and the entire scientific community vs. you. The odds don't look good.
Hell, even sci-fi authors shy away from disputing this stuff, and that's meant to be fiction.

What exactly do you think I am proposing? 

 

13 minutes ago, steve_v said:

It has been explained at least 10 times already in this thread. I'm not doing it again.

Anyway, my free-energy troll detector is going nuts right now and it's usually a pretty good indicator of a race to the bottom type debate, so I'd better leave now before I get dragged any further in

No you have not. You have cited the 3rd law of motion and attacked a straw man! 

18 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

If you slow the exhaust plume down, it has to speed something else up in the same direction that the exhaust was moving. It takes an equal amount of energy to speed it up as it does to slow it down. If the thing that slows the propellant down is connected to the craft, then the craft will accelerate backwards the same amount it accelerated forwards when it expelled the propellant.

Magnets as a catching mechanism are not immune from this rule, momentum is transferred to and from magnets the same as momentum is transferred to and from normal objects, just from far away instead of through direct contact.

I have already dealt with this problem I push the energy out like an RCS thruster on pitch and yaw. The magnets are at 90* to the main nozzle. If all of your RCS thrusters in the Apollo craft fire at once their is no net change since the angles of the nozzles on the RCS cancel out the thrust

[Cheif Operations Director]

@steve_v I’m not diehard in this idea, I just have yet to see a convincing counter argument. Sure the how do you slow down the particles is the main problem with this. But it seems that you have a problem with the idea of slowing the exhaust down in itself and I m wondering why?

Although @sevenperforce got pretty close with that tennis ball example. 

[Ultimate Steve]

5 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

I have already dealt with this problem I push the energy out like an RCS thruster on pitch and yaw. The magnets are at 90* to the main nozzle. If all of your RCS thrusters in the Apollo craft fire at once their is no net change since the angles of the nozzles on the RCS cancel out the thrust

Redirecting the force to the x axis still requires absorbing its y axis momentum.

So if I'm correct, it's sort of like this:

 

Propellant, heated by reactor
|
|
|
|
|
\____________ -> out sideways

^Magnet/deflector

But mirrored on both sides, with one deflector going left.

 

That would be a 45 degree angle though and you said 90. If it was a 90 degree angle you would push the propellant sideways a bit but you wouldn't change its y axis velocity.

 

So talking about 45, when you redirect the propellant sideways, you are still absorbing its y-axis momentum. It would be like firing a bullet at a 45 degree wedge and expecting the wedge to not move backwards.

What you've basically done here, if I'm right, is created a rocket engine which diverts its exhaust so it cancels itself out, even if you then expel it instead of recapturing it.

[Cheif Operations Director]

Just now, Ultimate Steve said:

Redirecting the force to the x axis still requires absorbing its y axis momentum.

So if I'm correct, it's sort of like this:

 

Propellant, heated by reactor
|
|
|
|
|
\____________ -> out sideways

^Magnet/deflector

But mirrored on both sides, with one deflector going left.

 

That would be a 45 degree angle though and you said 90. If it was a 90 degree angle you would push the propellant sideways a bit but you wouldn't change its y axis velocity.

 

So talking about 45, when you redirect the propellant sideways, you are still absorbing its y-axis momentum. It would be like firing a bullet at a 45 degree wedge and expecting the wedge to not move backwards.

What you've basically done here, if I'm right, is created a rocket engine which diverts its exhaust so it cancels itself out, even if you then expel it instead of recapturing it.

Look back on page 3 or 4 for a picture of the design with the magnetic fields, I am on mobile so I can not repost it right now.

Yes it is page 3

About the center or so

[Cheif Operations Director]

12 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Redirecting the force to the x axis still requires absorbing its y axis momentum.

So if I'm correct, it's sort of like this:

 

Propellant, heated by reactor
|
|
|
|
|
\____________ -> out sideways

^Magnet/deflector

But mirrored on both sides, with one deflector going left.

 

That would be a 45 degree angle though and you said 90. If it was a 90 degree angle you would push the propellant sideways a bit but you wouldn't change its y axis velocity.

 

So talking about 45, when you redirect the propellant sideways, you are still absorbing its y-axis momentum. It would be like firing a bullet at a 45 degree wedge and expecting the wedge to not move backwards.

What you've basically done here, if I'm right, is created a rocket engine which diverts its exhaust so it cancels itself out, even if you then expel it instead of recapturing it.

The magnetic field isn’t just supposed to stop it just slow it Down I just need to take energy out of the system. 

@steve_v, here is a way of thinking about it. Not the actual figures, 60% of he thrust is canceled out by reflecting and going back into the  tubes 40% is taken out by the magnets ( or something)

Edited August 10, 2019 by Cheif Operations Director

[Ultimate Steve]

14 hours ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Forgive me, I am unsure what any of this means. Some labels would help.

14 hours ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Going back to your earlier drawing, assuming you were decelerating the propellant to a speed of 0 in order to pipe it back up to the reactor/fuel tank to re-use it, the momentum of the fuel would be transferred into the magnets into the ship, canceling out the thrust gained from the engine in the first place, like having two engines firing in opposite directions pretty much.

If you just slow down the exhaust, say by 90%, but any number works, and then expel it, then you do get a net thrust. However, because you absorbed 90% of the momentum of the fuel, you in effect have an engine opposite the main engine at 90% power, meaning your effective output is 10% of your input.

Just now saw your next quote, but I'm on page 3 so I can't quote it, so here it is.

"The magnetic field isn’t just supposed to stop it just slow it Down I just need to take energy out of the system."

Okay. So we slow the propellant down, taking energy out of the propellant. This energy then goes into whatever you used to slow it down. If the propellant is then expelled at a reduced velocity/energy you have effectively eaten some percentage of your engine's efficiency/thrust. If it is then recaptured, you have to slow it down the rest of the way to zero, and that energy goes into your craft.

[Cheif Operations Director]

2 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Forgive me, I am unsure what any of this means. Some labels would help.

Going back to your earlier drawing, assuming you were decelerating the propellant to a speed of 0 in order to pipe it back up to the reactor/fuel tank to re-use it, the momentum of the fuel would be transferred into the magnets into the ship, canceling out the thrust gained from the engine in the first place, like having two engines firing in opposite directions pretty much.

If you just slow down the exhaust, say by 90%, but any number works, and then expel it, then you do get a net thrust. However, because you absorbed 90% of the momentum of the fuel, you in effect have an engine opposite the main engine at 90% power, meaning your effective output is 10% of your input.

Just now saw your next quote, but I'm on page 3 so I can't quote it, so here it is.

"The magnetic field isn’t just supposed to stop it just slow it Down I just need to take energy out of the system."

Okay. So we slow the propellant down, taking energy out of the propellant. This energy then goes into whatever you used to slow it down. If the propellant is then expelled at a reduced velocity/energy you have effectively eaten some percentage of your engine's efficiency/thrust. If it is then recaptured, you have to slow it down the rest of the way to zero, and that energy goes into your craft.

Think in KSP, if I have two of the same engines back to back it goes nowhere right? If I have two engines opposite if each other AND one perpendicular to the two so it forms a T shape it travels in the direction of the tangent of the 3rd engine right? 

Same principle

I take the forward thrust and push it to the sides. I recapture the propellant after the energy has been transferred to the engines that cancel each other out. 

I’m not sure why people think I am proposing a free energy machine here, nothing is free in this since it is a mono prop system at takes heat from a nuclear reactor and converts that heat into a deep space probe propulsion system. 

[Ultimate Steve]

1 minute ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Think in KSP, if I have two of the same engines back to back it goes nowhere right? If I have two engines opposite if each other AND one perpendicular to the two so it forms a T shape it travels in the direction of the tangent of the 3rd engine right? 

Same principle

Like

 E1 ^

<E2 E3>

 

You are correct. If you have three engines firing in a T shape like that, it will produce thrust.

However, if you get that configuration by taking the exhaust from engine 1 and redirecting it into two nozzles (2 and 3), which is what I believe you are getting at, you will not produce forward thrust. That is like having a jet engine, set vertically, blow its exhaust out of two horizontal holes. It will not produce vertical thrust because the thrust has been redirected sideways. That redirection cancels out the propellant's vertical momentum, which goes back into the craft.

 

[steve_v]

One more time, since it's still raining.

47 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

What exactly do you think I am proposing?

You are proposing a rocket engine that expels no reaction mass, one that violates the laws of physics. You are insisting that it could work anyway, and therefore :
 

47 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

What? Again I’m not denying the laws of physics! 

Yes, you are. Insisting that a mechanism which denies the laws of physics would work is as close to denying the laws themselves as to make no difference.
 

47 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

You have cited the 3rd law of motion and attacked a straw man!

I and many others have used various laws of physics to show why your design won't work. Repeatedly. Ad-nauseam.
A straw man argument deflects attention to an unrelated or unnecessary argument, this is not that. This is people explaining the problems with your proposition from physics 101 principles that are critical to it's validity.
 

37 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

I just have yet to see a convincing counter argument.

Well if accepted physics isn't going to convince you, you're just going to have to test it. Design and conduct an experiment.

 

37 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Sure the how do you slow down the particles is the main problem with this.

The problem with this is propulsion without reaction. Slowing the particles down without counteracting the engine is your solution to that, and it has serious problems of it's own.

 

37 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

But it seems that you have a problem with the idea of slowing the exhaust down in itself and I m wondering why?

Sigh. Because if you use something attached to the engine to slow, stop, or redirect the exhaust to the side, you also counteract it's forward thrust. Action and reaction, Newton, middle-school physics, conservation of momentum and elementary logic.

 

 

33 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

So if I'm correct, it's sort of like this:

For the record, that's design #2, apparently an attempt to reason-away the problems with design #1, which recovered the propellant by slowing it with magnets then feeding it into U shaped tubes leading back to the engine.

 

33 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

That would be a 45 degree angle though and you said 90.

Actually I think it was me with the 90° bit, referring to the arc the gas-stream is turned through rather than the reflector angle. Same difference though.

 

 

17 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Going back to your earlier drawing, assuming you were decelerating the propellant to a speed of 0 in order to pipe it back up to the reactor/fuel tank to re-use it, the momentum of the fuel would be transferred into the magnets into the ship, canceling out the thrust gained from the engine in the first place, like having two engines firing in opposite directions pretty much.

If you just slow down the exhaust, say by 90%, but any number works, and then expel it, then you do get a net thrust. However, because you absorbed 90% of the momentum of the fuel, you in effect have an engine opposite the main engine at 90% power, meaning your effective output is 10% of your input.

...

Okay. So we slow the propellant down, taking energy out of the propellant. This energy then goes into whatever you used to slow it down. If the propellant is then expelled at a reduced velocity/energy you have effectively eaten some percentage of your engine's efficiency/thrust. If it is then recaptured, you have to slow it down the rest of the way to zero, and that energy goes into your craft.

That's probably the 20th post explaining the same thing. It's good though.
The saga continues, around and around we go...

 

5 minutes ago, ThatGuyWithALongUsername said:

extremely basic physics and conservation of mass/energy

I don't get how this basic physics can be so hard to explain to someone, I really don't.

Edited August 10, 2019 by steve_v

[Ultimate Steve]

2 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

The difference is that’s I am  preemptively  slowing the velocity down before that force can cause the equal and opposite reaction of canceling it out. 

So you are slowing the exhaust down before you deflect it sideways.

If you slow the exhaust down by 50 percent with the slow down device and then redirect it later, that energy (50 percent) would be absorbed by the slow down device and transferred to the craft. The other 50 percent of the energy in the y axis will be absorbed by the redirection device, and then transferred to the craft.

[Cheif Operations Director]

8 minutes ago, steve_v said:

That's probably the 20th post explaining the same thing. It's good though.
The saga continues, around and around we go...

 

8 minutes ago, steve_v said:

I don't get how this basic physics can be so hard to explain to someone, I really don't.

I am not arguing with the physics of it, I fact this design would not be possible without the three laws of physics.

4 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

So you are slowing the exhaust down before you deflect it sideways.

If you slow the exhaust down by 50 percent with the slow down device and then redirect it later, that energy (50 percent) would be absorbed by the slow down device and transferred to the craft. The other 50 percent of the energy in the y axis will be absorbed by the redirection device, and then transferred to the craft.

Are you saying the overall thrust would just be reduced by 50%?

[Ultimate Steve]

3 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Are you saying the overall thrust would just be reduced by 50%?

Well, because the exhaust is slowed down before the redirection, there would be half as much thrust coming out if the side exhausts than without slowing it down by half before the redirection.

But what I was saying is that it doesn't matter how many stages you use to show down/redirect/remove y axis velocity from the exhaust, it will always add up to 100 percent if you slow it's y axis velocity to zero, and that energy goes into the craft.

[steve_v]

10 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

What from an engineering perspective am I proposing?

You drew a picture of it earlier. Magic infinite reaction mass thingamagig. I'm not rehashing all that, it's been done to death.

11 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Stop with the sarcastic comments, I am asking in good faith.

I don't see any sarcasm in that quote, and frankly I don't believe the good faith bit any longer. This has gone on beyond the point of inanity.

 

1 minute ago, KeranoKerman said:

No matter how many newtons you waste on trying to beat Newton, you can’t win.

Indeed. Enough of the head -> wall. I'm out of here, for real this time. And I'm adding @Cheif Operations Director to the list.

[Cheif Operations Director]

1 minute ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Well, because the exhaust is slowed down before the redirection, there would be half as much thrust coming out if the side exhausts than without slowing it down by half before the redirection.

But what I was saying is that it doesn't matter how many stages you use to show down/redirect/remove y axis velocity from the exhaust, it will always add up to 100 percent if you slow it's y axis velocity to zero, and that energy goes into the craft.

1. The thrust still reaches 100% at one point though so it would get some speed on that axis (I think) 

2. Sure it will always add up to 100% but as long at one axis has a surplus of energy it will travel in that direction. I juts need the propellant not the energy. 

1 minute ago, steve_v said:

You drew a picture of it earlier. Magic infinite reaction mass thingamagig. I'm not rehashing all that, it's been done to death.

I don't see any sarcasm in that quote, and frankly I don't believe the good faith bit any longer. This has gone on beyond the point of inanity.

 

Indeed. Enough of the head -> wall. I'm out of here, for real this time. And I'm adding @Cheif Operations Director to the list.

The list?

Interesting