Open question- Test results of propelllentless device.

[metalspider]

Greetings to all,

You have a sheet of level glass 10 ft long. At one end is a small ramp of 1 inch tall. On top of ramp is sled with two sets of roller blade trucks and wheels that have very low friction on glass. On top of sled is x device. Sled is released and it rolls about 3 feet and stops. you repeat this test 3 times with the same result every-time. Now you turn on device with thrust point strait out in front. You release the sled and it rolls down the ramp but this time it keeps going far past the 3 foot mark and almost goes off the table traveling in a strait line. The test is repeated 3 times with the same result each time. With the device still on it is placed at top of ramp, however this time the thrust in pointed up. Sled is released and rolls down to the 3 foot mark and stops. Test is repeated 3 times with same results each time.

What can we conclude from this test.

Device and sled together weight 17 lbs.

Dimensions of sled: 12" x 9"

Thank you,

Metalspider

[Idobox]

The answer you wish for is obviously that your device somehow produces thrust, but a number of other things can happen.

The most likely is that the device moves air, and thus create thrust, without being truly propellant less.

An other possible explanation is that vibrations affect the friction

[Dodgey]

So have you actually done this or are you just being hyperthetical.

[Red Iron Crown]

We can conclude that whatever the device is, it is creating some kind of force to propel the test rig. Either by reacting with the surface of the glass or with the air, there just isn't a way around Newton's Third Law that we know of.

What is the device? Why the mystery?

[jfull]

So long as you are travelling over a surface, it is perfectly possible to propel yourself with vibrations and gyroscopic force (like those little hex-bug nano things!). I assume that is what this device is using.

A "propellantless" drive is not physics breaking at all (anything that moves using electricity), but a "reactionless" drive is. Your device is probably exerting a force on the surface it is traveling on, thus moving it forward.

Such a setup CANNOT produce thrust without a surface to act against.

[metalspider]

It only rotates at 90 rpm too slow for air movement to create thrust.

Metalspider

[metalspider]

I have done this.

Metalspider

[metalspider]

It can't be gyroscopic force the rotor is only spinning 90 rpm. The sled has very very low friction wheels and bearings. It does not wobble back and forth and slowly creep along. It moves slowly at a constant speed until stopping.

[metalspider]

Everyone,

So the answer is. You have no answer. So I have my answer. You believe it can't be doing what it's doing. And since it is doing just that I have all the proof I need to move forward.

Thank you,

Metalspider

[sgt_flyer]

You know, it 's not up to us to prove that your device interacts in any way with it's environment.

Science is not an auction

Especially when something like that goes against fundamental laws of physics.

Doing it on a surface is giving your system a way to interact with something else - no matter how low the surface's friction is, it will still have friction.

Your device has to pass the pendulum test before anything else (suspend it in the air - if it can achieve even a small deflection, then it 's worth investigating further.

It has to be first equilibrated around the average center of mass of your system. Then, with, for example a line drawn on the ground and a laser pointer, you can see if the average position is deflected from vertical while in operation. If that works, then the same test in vacuum is in order. Once you managed to pass these tests, then you'll gather more than sceptic comments

You are not the first one to propose such contraptions, and you'll not be the last.

And 90rpm can be quite fast - depends on the rotor's size

Edited April 29, 2014 by sgt_flyer

[Yasmy]

You have not described your device sufficiently for anyone to say anything at all about it. If you want a real critique of your work, you have to show your work.

Otherwise, what are you doing here? What is the point of your post?

I'm not trying to be hostile. I'm saying that your claim that no one can refute you is meaningless. Of course no one can refute you (or believe you!) if you don't give a full and precise description of your experiment.

The gold standard in experimental science is that you describe your experiment and results sufficient so that other people can recreate and verify the experiment on their own. It is acceptable, and even valuable, to be wrong. People learn as much from null results or failed experiments as from successful ones. Anything less than full and open disclosure is a meaningless waste of time for others to consider.

I think it is great that you are doing experiments. Keep on. Just understand you need to meet a certain standard if you want a meaningful dialog.

[Nuke]

what we got here is a failure of scientific literacy. he could be a physics troll, or worse, someone who actually believes that the machine they built actually does what they claim without understanding any of the phenomena that are going on. what he clearly is not is a scientist.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Nuke

[Z-Man]

Another simple test you can run with the material you already have:

Put the device on the cart so it should produce backward thrust. If it really does produce thrust, it needs to stop now after about 2 feet max.

Even if it does, it still would not be conclusive. Friction is horrifyingly complicated in detail. Your device has a motor, it will vibrate. Vibration modifies friction, and different orientations will produce different vibration modes, influencing friction differently. sgt_flyer is correct. The best test you can perform without a vacuum chamber and microgravity is the pendulum test, with your device in a box to rule out air flow as source of the thrust.

[Nuke]

its entirely possible that vibrations from the motor are causing it to move. sorta like the way bristlebots work. if you are getting this result only at 90rpm, you are probibly hitting your device's resonate frequency.

[Red Iron Crown]

Everyone,

So the answer is. You have no answer. So I have my answer. You believe it can't be doing what it's doing. And since it is doing just that I have all the proof I need to move forward.

Thank you,

Metalspider

Belief doesn't enter into it. We are skeptical, as all people of a scientific mindset should be skeptical. If you think you're on to something new, by all means keep experimenting. Be as rigorous as possible, eliminate as many external factors as possible, and measure and document everything you can. Good luck.

[VirtualCLD]

It can't be gyroscopic force the rotor is only spinning 90 rpm. The sled has very very low friction wheels and bearings. It does not wobble back and forth and slowly creep along. It moves slowly at a constant speed until stopping.

First of all, it doesn't matter what the speed is, all rotations produce a gyroscopic effect. Plus 90RPM is 1.5Hz or cycles per second which is pretty fast compared to 1 rotation per hour or 1 rotation per day... (ad infinitum). You could certainly propel something with gyroscopic forces or air movement with those speeds. Heck, you could do it with less than 1RPM.

Also, I should take my own advice and stop feeding the trolls.

Edited April 29, 2014 by VirtualCLD

[shynung]

Also, I should take my own advise and stop feeding the trolls.

You, sir, has just made my day.

[rkman]

he could be a physics troll, or worse, someone who actually believes that the machine they built actually does what they claim without understanding any of the phenomena that are going on.

I'm not so sure that ignorance is worse than being deliberately misleading.

[jfull]

Everyone,

So the answer is. You have no answer. So I have my answer. You believe it can't be doing what it's doing. And since it is doing just that I have all the proof I need to move forward.

Thank you,

Metalspider

Uhm, no, this is not correct at all.

We DO believe the device can do what you claim, but we are simply pointing out that there are explanations for why it might be doing it that are simple and non-physics-breaking.