## Re: So, sails don't work in this universe?

Expand Messages
• Phil, Here s an answer to a query I had regarding my last post. I thought of a very simple reply that explains it pretty well. I hope it helps. Eric wrote:
Message 1 of 13 , Jul 31, 2004
Phil,

Here's an answer to a query I had regarding my last post.  I thought of a very simple reply that explains it pretty well.  I hope it helps.

Eric wrote:

What the heck are you talking about here?  I never said it would go anywhere.  I said it would stop rotating.  It's not a motive device.  It's just designed to be a way to dump momentum in a closed system (actually, cancel out angular momentum by converting first to linear momentum).

If the angle of attack to the wheel is trying to push it around clockwise, but the angle of attack to the vanes is trying to push it around counter-clockwise, then logically, it cannot move.

That would be like telling Siamese twins, "You go that way (--->)  and you go that way
(<---)."  Which way would they go?  Here is a diagram. (imagine the "O's" are attached Siamese twins):  <---OO--->

Eric

Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
• ... Sorry, but you can no more destroy angular momentum in a closed system than you can create linear momentum in a closed system. For the last time, the only,
Message 2 of 13 , Aug 1, 2004
UbaVonTuba wrote:

> Phil,
>
> Here's an answer to a query I had regarding my last post. I thought of
> a very simple reply that explains it pretty well. I hope it helps.
>
> Eric wrote:
>
> What the heck are you talking about here? I never said it would go
> anywhere. I said it would stop rotating. It's not a motive device.
> It's just designed to be a way to dump momentum in a closed system
> (actually, cancel out angular momentum by converting first to linear
> momentum).

Sorry, but you can no more destroy angular momentum in a closed system
than you can create linear momentum in a closed system.

For the last time, the only, repeat ONLY way you can get rid of unwanted
angular momentum in a structure like a spacecraft is to transfer it to
something else. You can then jettison it if you want. Examples include
ordinary spacecraft thrusters (which dump the unwanted momentum into the
rocket exhaust), the Delta launcher trick of reeling out lead weights
and cutting them free, and solar sails.

If you think you might want the momentum back, you can transfer it into
a mass and retain it. That's what a momentum wheel does. If you can make
efficient bearings that don't require a lot of power to sustain a
constant speed, this is a good way to go.

The one thing you simply *can't* do is to make that unwanted momentum
disappear. You can waste the rest of your life trying if you want.

--Phil
• Phil, You are always accusing me of hand-waving away things I don t want to consider. Well, I m accusing you of hand-waving this time. You are quoting the
Message 3 of 13 , Aug 1, 2004

Phil,

You are always accusing me of "hand-waving" away things I don't want to consider.  Well, I'm accusing you of hand-waving this time.

You are quoting the "law" as if it was a legal defense.  You aren't using your own intellect to examine cause and effect.  If the laws can be bent to our will as I claim, then a new examination of the laws is required.  Using the laws blindly in this circumstance will only blind you to the possibility of a new paradigm.

Instead, why don't you do your "examination of all the little forces" and tell me where I'm wrong?  Or, model it as I suggested.  Repeat my experiments.  See for your own eyes if what I say is true or not.

Anyway, let me try a different tack (pardon the pun).

Linear momentum can be split and be caused to turn.  For instance, placing a wedge on a wall and spraying water at it will cause the water to split and go in two opposing directions.

If you made that wall into a square room, mounted it on bearings, and sprayed that same wedge, the force is still split and the room won't rotate.  Other than various motion and collisions within the room, exactly nothing will happen except vibrations and such (to an outside observer's standpoint).  That's because the pressure on either side of the wedge is equal and opposite.

If you sprayed only one side of the wedge, the force is still split, only between the room and the water.  The water is turned in one direction, the room is turned with an equal and opposite force in the other direction.

Basically, that's all I'm doing.  I'm splitting the force.  The liquid wants to go forward and is turned by my vanes.  The sphere, via pressure from the vanes, wants to turn counter revolutionary to the liquid flow and moves oppositely to the direction the water has been turned to.  The force is evenly split and therefore you have no net force.

Don't look to the laws for an answer if the laws are incomplete.  Instead, make your examinations and understand just how incomplete the laws are.  Only then can new knowledge be gained.

It is a common assumption in physics that our knowledge is incomplete.  In fact, new discoveries happen all the time that drive learned men back to their drawing boards.

For instance, Dark Energy.  It didn't make any sense as we knew the law before its effects were discovered.  Even now, we don't understand it but rather merely accept it is some strange anti-gravity type of force possibly caused by the vacuum of space itself.  Conservation of Energy says it shouldn't occur.  Does that mean that the space-vacuum is misbehaving, or that the laws are incomplete?

Recently, there has been evidence that neutrinos have mass and behave differently than the Standard Model dictates.  Does that mean that the neutrinos are misbehaving, or that the Standard Model is incomplete?

A new paradigm requires a new examination.

Eric

Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
• let s hope the controversy is a sign of the kettle brewing
Message 4 of 13 , Aug 1, 2004
let's hope the controversy is a sign of the kettle brewing

UbaVonTuba wrote:

Phil,

You are always accusing me of "hand-waving" away things I don't want to consider.  Well, I'm accusing you of hand-waving this time.

You are quoting the "law" as if it was a legal defense.  You aren't using your own intellect to examine cause and effect.  If the laws can be bent to our will as I claim, then a new examination of the laws is required.  Using the laws blindly in this circumstance will only blind you to the possibility of a new paradigm.

Instead, why don't you do your "examination of all the little forces" and tell me where I'm wrong?  Or, model it as I suggested.  Repeat my experiments.  See for your own eyes if what I say is true or not.

Anyway, let me try a different tack (pardon the pun).

Linear momentum can be split and be caused to turn.  For instance, placing a wedge on a wall and spraying water at it will cause the water to split and go in two opposing directions.

If you made that wall into a square room, mounted it on bearings, and sprayed that same wedge, the force is still split and the room won't rotate.  Other than various motion and collisions within the room, exactly nothing will happen except vibrations and such (to an outside observer's standpoint).  That's because the pressure on either side of the wedge is equal and opposite.

If you sprayed only one side of the wedge, the force is still split, only between the room and the water.  The water is turned in one direction, the room is turned with an equal and opposite force in the other direction.

Basically, that's all I'm doing.  I'm splitting the force.  The liquid wants to go forward and is turned by my vanes.  The sphere, via pressure from the vanes, wants to turn counter revolutionary to the liquid flow and moves oppositely to the direction the water has been turned to.  The force is evenly split and therefore you have no net force.

Don't look to the laws for an answer if the laws are incomplete.  Instead, make your examinations and understand just how incomplete the laws are.  Only then can new knowledge be gained.

It is a common assumption in physics that our knowledge is incomplete.  In fact, new discoveries happen all the time that drive learned men back to their drawing boards.

For instance, Dark Energy.  It didn't make any sense as we knew the law before its effects were discovered.  Even now, we don't understand it but rather merely accept it is some strange anti-gravity type of force possibly caused by the vacuum of space itself.  Conservation of Energy says it shouldn't occur.  Does that mean that the space-vacuum is misbehaving, or that the laws are incomplete?

Recently, there has been evidence that neutrinos have mass and behave differently than the Standard Model dictates.  Does that mean that the neutrinos are misbehaving, or that the Standard Model is incomplete?

A new paradigm requires a new examination.

Eric

Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.

To drop of the list, send email to:
free_energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

• ... I m quoting something far more powerful than a mere legal defense . I m quoting a fundamental law of nature. I am using my own intellectual understanding
Message 5 of 13 , Aug 2, 2004
UbaVonTuba wrote:

> You are quoting the "law" as if it was a legal defense. You aren't
> using your own intellect to examine cause and effect.

I'm quoting something far more powerful than a mere "legal defense". I'm
quoting a fundamental law of nature. I am using my own intellectual
understanding of that fundamental principle to draw conclusions about

> If the laws can
> be bent to our will as I claim, then a new examination of the laws is
> required. Using the laws blindly in this circumstance will only blind
> you to the possibility of a new paradigm.

And exactly what evidence do you have for your claim that these
fundamental laws can be "bent"? Your desire to bend it?

> Instead, why don't you do your "examination of all the little forces"
> and tell me where I'm wrong? Or, model it as I suggested. Repeat my
> experiments. See for your own eyes if what I say is true or not.

I fully admit to not modeling all the forces in your design and summing
them up. That was an exercise for you, not for me.

I don't *have* to sum up those forces to know what their sum will be:
exactly zero. That's the power of a fundamental physical law like the
conservation of momentum: to make general conclusions without having to
go through the specific details in each and every case.

You see, physics is not based only on observations. It is also based on
mathematics and logic. And the power of mathematics lies in its ability
to make general conclusions from specific pieces of information.

For example, I don't have to try every possible value of X in the equation

3*X - 3*X = 0

to know that it is indeed true for any X. But while you admit that the
equation is true for all the values of X you have tried so far, you keep
coming up with new values of X for which the equation *surely* must be
false! And you tell me that I have to try every value of X, which is of
course impossible since there are an infinite number of them.

Think this is irrelevant? No, it is *exactly* what you have been trying
to do. The law of the conservation of momentum follows directly from
Newton's third law of motion. (It also follows from observed symmetries
in the universe, as Chaim Pippick observed earlier.) Unless you are
prepared to argue that Newton's third law is invalid under at least some
circumstances which you can create in your system, then the conservation
law follows directly from Newton's third law, and your system is bound
by it.

Since Newton's third law applies for any arbitrary pair of objects in
the universe, it applies to any arbitrary grouping of those objects as
well. You simply can't keep on coming up with clever new groupings in
your attempt to circumvent it, although you're certainly free to waste
the rest of your life trying if you wish.

--Phil
• ... No dice. In the example you just gave, the room would indeed turn because it is transferring its momentum to the stream of water. The room goes one way and
Message 6 of 13 , Aug 2, 2004
UbaVonTuba wrote:

> If you sprayed only one side of the wedge, the force is still split,
> only between the room and the water. The water is turned in one
> direction, the room is turned with an equal and opposite force in the
> other direction.
>
> Basically, that's all I'm doing. I'm splitting the force. The liquid
> wants to go forward and is turned by my vanes. The sphere, via pressure
> from the vanes, wants to turn counter revolutionary to the liquid flow
> and moves oppositely to the direction the water has been turned to. The
> force is evenly split and therefore you have no net force.

No dice. In the example you just gave, the room would indeed turn
because it is transferring its momentum to the stream of water. The room
goes one way and the water stream goes in the other; sum up the two
momentum vectors and you'll get zero.

But the deflected stream of water never interacts with the room again.
That's absolutely critical.

There is an additional force parallel to the original water stream, but
I assume you have bearings that prevent the wall from moving in that
direction. In this case you have equal and opposite forces being
transmitted through the earth to whoever is holding the hose while
standing on it.

Your stream of water serves two purposes: it carries energy to move the
wall, and it carries away the wall's momentum. This is analogous to the
two functions of the propellant in a chemical rocket: a source of energy
and a source of reaction mass to carry momentum. Both are needed to make
any rocket work, though they do not have to be provided by the same
material.

Even a gasoline engine or electric motor needs these two things: a
source of energy and a mounting platform to which the motor can transfer
the momentum of the load. Try running a motor into a load without
bolting it down and you'll see what I mean.

Your situation with the wedge is also similar to that of a reaching
sailboat; despite a strong sideways force from the wind on the sail that
rolls the boat away from it, the underwater keel keeps the boat from
sliding sideways (much). But because the sail also deflects the wind
rearward, there's a large forward component to the overall reaction
force. The keel allows the boat to move in that direction, so it does.

In your closed spaceship, though, the stream of water will hit the walls
again and impart its momentum to it, unless you do as I suggest and cut
a hole so the fluid can escape and carry the unwanted momentum with it.

> Don't look to the laws for an answer if the laws are incomplete.
> laws are. Only then can new knowledge be gained.

On this particular subject, the existing laws *ARE* complete. I need no
that it is a closed system. Because I know that the angular momentum of
a closed system cannot change, I know that you cannot possibly do
anything to change it. Internal details are wholly unimportant. Full stop.

Phil
• Look, it s easy. Step by step... 1. You have a spinning hollow sphere with some stuff in it. 2. You spin up a wheel in it with a motor, the bearings of the
Message 7 of 13 , Aug 2, 2004
Look, it's easy. Step by step...

1. You have a spinning hollow sphere with some stuff in it.

2. You spin up a wheel in it with a motor, the bearings of the motor
are mounted along the sphere's spin axis and you stop accelerating the
wheel when the sphere stops spinning.

3. You disintegrate the wheel (inside the sphere), either as liquid
droplets or small pieces.

4. Those droplets or pieces, no matter how small, no matter how
carefully released, will never fly radially away from the former
wheel's shaft, they will be on a tangent.

5. If they hit the inside of the sphere, friction will transfer the
tangential movement (linear momentum) to the sphere, causing it to
start rotating again.

5a. If you put vanes inside to have the pieces hit, they can deflect
the pieces onto a new path.

5a1. What are the vanes mounted on? If the sphere, they will act just
like the inside of the sphere itself. In other words, hitting either
the inside skin of the sphere or some stuff mounted to it's inside
surface is the same thing. You're in effect only changing the surface
details, that won't make a difference.

5a2. If you want to mount the vanes onto it's own free-to-rotate
frame, that's fine, but that frame will rotate once the pieces have
hit it. The total momentum of rotating vanes-frame and pieces will
still be the same as the original sphere's rotating momentum.

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, UbaVonTuba <ubavontuba@y...> wrote:
>
> Phil,
>
> You are always accusing me of "hand-waving" away things I don't want
to consider. Well, I'm accusing you of hand-waving this time.
>
> You are quoting the "law" as if it was a legal defense. You aren't
using your own intellect to examine cause and effect. If the laws can
be bent to our will as I claim, then a new examination of the laws is
required. Using the laws blindly in this circumstance will only blind
you to the possibility of a new paradigm.
>
> Instead, why don't you do your "examination of all the little
forces" and tell me where I'm wrong? Or, model it as I suggested.
Repeat my experiments. See for your own eyes if what I say is true or
not.
>
> Anyway, let me try a different tack (pardon the pun).
>
> Linear momentum can be split and be caused to turn. For instance,
placing a wedge on a wall and spraying water at it will cause the
water to split and go in two opposing directions.
>
> If you made that wall into a square room, mounted it on bearings,
and sprayed that same wedge, the force is still split and the room
won't rotate. Other than various motion and collisions within the
room, exactly nothing will happen except vibrations and such (to an
outside observer's standpoint). That's because the pressure on either
side of the wedge is equal and opposite.
>
> If you sprayed only one side of the wedge, the force is still split,
only between the room and the water. The water is turned in one
direction, the room is turned with an equal and opposite force in the
other direction.
>
> Basically, that's all I'm doing. I'm splitting the force. The
liquid wants to go forward and is turned by my vanes. The sphere, via
pressure from the vanes, wants to turn counter revolutionary to the
liquid flow and moves oppositely to the direction the water has been
turned to. The force is evenly split and therefore you have no net force.
>
> Don't look to the laws for an answer if the laws are incomplete.
laws are. Only then can new knowledge be gained.
>
> It is a common assumption in physics that our knowledge is
incomplete. In fact, new discoveries happen all the time that drive
learned men back to their drawing boards.
>
> For instance, Dark Energy. It didn't make any sense as we knew the
law before its effects were discovered. Even now, we don't understand
it but rather merely accept it is some strange anti-gravity type of
force possibly caused by the vacuum of space itself. Conservation of
Energy says it shouldn't occur. Does that mean that the space-vacuum
is misbehaving, or that the laws are incomplete?
>
> Recently, there has been evidence that neutrinos have mass and
behave differently than the Standard Model dictates. Does that mean
that the neutrinos are misbehaving, or that the Standard Model is
incomplete?
>
> A new paradigm requires a new examination.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
• BIG, HUGE difference. These were uneducated men who took the time to understand what they were doing. Oh, they had many failures, but they used reason and
Message 8 of 13 , Aug 3, 2004
BIG, HUGE difference. These were uneducated men who took the time to
understand what they were doing. Oh, they had many failures, but they used
reason and logic to work towards their goal. They used previously tested
laws of mathematics and physics to arrive at their desired solution. Edison
didn't use 'wood' conductors just because it flew in the face of convention,
and he thought it might be fashionable to be a rebel. The Wright's didn't
construct their flying surfaces out of concrete; they used materials that
had been proven to provide the greatest lift with the lightest weight. These
people broke ground, but they didn't break laws.

You on the other hand, are throwing out ill conceived notions without the
most basic understanding of physics. You are not providing any information
that shows your proposal will work, in fact you are showing a great deal of
ignorance. In order break new ground, you must at least have an
understanding of the basics, and you don't.

>From: UbaVonTuba <ubavontuba@...>
>To: Amy <amylittledove@...>
>Subject: Re: Un-conserved angular momentum (End game)
>Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 23:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>Amy,
>
>Lest you forget, Edison wasn't formally educated and neither were the
>Wright brothers.
>
>Eric
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

_________________________________________________________________
Overwhelmed by debt? Find out how to �Dig Yourself Out of Debt� from MSN
Money. http://special.msn.com/money/0407debt.armx
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.