What Are the Implications of Reaction Torque Propulsion?

[russ_watters]

I am not an engineer nor a scientist and I have decided not to act in that way.

In that case, I can assure you that you will neer be taken seriously. Further, without bothering to learn the science and engineering behind it, I can assure you that you won't ever really know what your device is doing. Not a good way to approach the issue.

In your video, with all the vibration (you can see the motors shaking in all 3 axes - and quite a bit in the yaw axis), its impossible to show that the effect you are talking about is what is really causing it to move.

 

[HallsofIvy]

I question whether anyone who would say "we have a hard time conceiving that rotary motion can be translated into linear motion" is really an engineer. Converting rotary motion into linear motion is goes back to before Archimedes.

I will also point out that he has a "working model" but don't post any actual pictures of the working model on his website. Also he notes that it can only be tested "in space". If that is the case, how does he know his model works?

 

[Ray Payette]

I recognize that I lack the scientific credibility, but I don't have 3 years to devote to learn it (at a basic level). My strategy is to interest people that are much more qualified than me to do the scientific research.
True my model vibrates, that is the essence of my invention; I could not use reaction wheels that are used in satellites because they cost $50,000 each and they produce very little power, however they do not vibrate. I used eccentric loads that vibrate but that produce the required power for the demo. I invested my money in preparing patent applications and right now I don't have any money or ressources to invest in research. Then I will be able to hire scientists and engineers and to purchase lab equipment to do the proper research.
Most R&D is done the other way around, you get a doctor in physics who devises a concept, who gets the funding for the university lab and who then applies for a patent when this is complete. I did not have that luxury.
I am appealing to engineers and scientists to help me with this project.

 

[Ray Payette]

To HallsofIvy,
You want to look at actual pictures, please look at my videos:
http://www.spacecrab.com/images/FrictionTest.mpg
and others on the Web site.

 

[Ray Payette]

Patent Process
You may ask why didn't I propose my project to obtain R&D funding? First, I didn't have ANY scientific credibility so it is very likely that I would vave been refused however good the idea is. Secondly any disclosure of the invention would automatically forfeit any rights to it; if I talked about it before I filed for a patent I would have lost all my rights.

 

[krab]

By conservation of momentum, you cannot propel anything without propelling something else in the opposite direction. Ray, you don't know physics. You should learn some. It will keep you from wasting your time trying to invent stuff that will never work.

 

[Ray Payette]

krab, the hovercraft advances because because of reaction couple reactions, in other words each motor turns a loads thereby producing couples; the hovercraft turns in the opposite direction. The law of conservation of momentum is strictly followed.
When this is done in succession by two similar torques, the rotation is in essence translated into a linear motion.

Since you claim to be an authority in physics, please explain why the hovercraft advances, given that I have shown in the video that there is no traction or explusion involved.

 

[russ_watters]

Ray, you say you recognize that you lack scientific credibility, then you make claims about how your device works. Don't you see the contradiction there?

You say you hope to hire scientists and engineers to develop this further - here you have scientists and engineers telling you (for free) that this doesn't work. Don't you see the contradiction there? If you want, you can pay me some money and I'll tell you the same thing. Would you believe it then? Is there anything that you could be shown that would convince you?

The engineering math that describes what is going on isn't that complicated, but it'd take me a couple of hours to do it, and I don't want to right now. Any halfway competent engineering sophomore should be able to oblige for $20 or $30 in beer money. My recommendation to you is that you find someone willing to do the math for you (or better yet, build a simple computer model), and then listen to them when they tell you it doesn't work.

Your device is so chaotic that its tough to know exactly what is going on, but I believe I have the answer:

Since you claim to be an authority in physics, please explain why the hovercraft advances, given that I have shown in the video that there is no traction or explusion involved.

Its the pitch. The vibration is causing the hovercraft to pitch, and the pitching motion is lifing the skirt in the back, where air escapes, pushing the hovercraft forward.

Whether its that or another consequence of the vibration, I am confident that if you stiffen the motor mounts to reduce the vibration, the forward motion will disappear.

Several experiments you can do which may help you see what is happening:
-Try turning on one motor at a time.
-Try reversing one or the other.

 

[Ray Payette]

I do not have the scientific credibility doesn't mean I know nothing about physics. It means that I don't have official degrees that can attest to it. Historically that has been a trait of many inventors, starting with Edison.
I don't rely on scientists and engineers to tell me it doesn't work. I rely on the physical evidence to prove that it works. When they will be able to explain correctly why it works, then I will be convinced. Until then the facts are amply sufficient.

So far everyone is trying to prove that it doesn't work. Please explain why it does work, because it does. That is a fact.

 

[Ba]

The problem is there is no scientific model except for the "friction" walkers to show that an invention like this does work. We have given several suggestions and you may have considered them briefly but then tossed them aside. And also without actually bieng able to put it through some tests we can't prove it either way. We can suggest ways for you to test it, but other than that we can't do anything.

 

[Ray Payette]

I do agree that more testing is in order, however I do not have the ressources nor the funding to do serious research.
Thanks anyhow!

 

[Chronos]

Actually, I think it would be easy to test. Set up a test where the device must lift itself off the ground [including it's entire power system] and remain suspended indefinitey without need for refueling.

 

[Ray Payette]

This is not an anti-gravity device!

 

[russ_watters]

So far everyone is trying to prove that it doesn't work. Please explain why it does work, because it does. That is a fact.

Many of us have done both, and you won't listen to either. I don't think there is anything more we can do here for you. Sorry.

 

[Entropy]

This is not an anti-gravity device!

The point is that it would be creating constant energy from nothing, that's the whole basis around a PPM. It doesn't have to "remove" the pull of gravity.

Please explain why it does work.

It doesn't work. Your machine is pushing against the ground and expeling air, although it is a very small amount its still happening.

 

[Ray Payette]

I never claimed that it doesn't require energy. Where did that notion come from? The model uses a 9 volt battery and it creates no energy whatsoever.

The model is a hovercraft that floats on a cushion of air. That is not what propels it.

 

[russ_watters]

I never claimed that it doesn't require energy. Where did that notion come from? The model uses a 9 volt battery and it creates no energy whatsoever.

You misunderstand: anything that moves has to obey conservation laws: either action-reaction (the hovercraft moves in one direction, another mass, like air, moves in the other) or it must exert a force on a stationary object like the ground. Your device, the way you describe it, exerts no force on the ground or air, so it doesn't obey conservation laws.

The propellers on your hovercraft should make it shake back and forth - when the propellers move forward, the hovercraft should move backwards and when the propellers move backwards, the hovercraft should move forward. You can see this vibration occurring in your video. The vibration is quite clearly the primary effect of your device. The secondary effect is what is making it move forward. Remember, since its a hovercraft, it takes very little energy to move it forward, but clearly there is a lot of energy in the vibration. If only a tiny fraction of the energy goes into unbalancing the hovercraft, its going to move. And that's what's happening.

The model is a hovercraft that floats on a cushion of air. That is not what propels it.

It is clear from the video that it tilts forward due to the flexible motor mounts. That very well may lift the back enough for the lifter fan to propel it forward.

Here is a math problem that hopefully you can do: assuming no friction, how much force (and then work and energy) does it take to move a 2kg hovercraft forward 2 feet in 5 seconds?

Compare that to the power output of those motors and see if you get a significant fraction of the motor power output.

 

[Entropy]

The model is a hovercraft that floats on a cushion of air. That is not what propels it.

You do know that hovercrafts can still drift in a specific direction due to an imbalance in the pressure of the air under it, don't you? In fact this is pretty much inevidable seeing how you can get exactly even pressure. How do you know this isn't the cause of the movement?

 

[russ_watters]

Lemme clean that up for you, Entropy...

You do know that hovercrafts can still drift in a specific direction due to an imbalance in the pressure of the air under it, don't you? In fact this is pretty much inevitable seeing as how you can't get exactly even pressure. How do you know this isn't the cause of the movement?

Indeed, it is difficult enough to get a hovercraft stable when it is flat - when it its shaking, rolling, and pitching, its just not possible.

 

[russ_watters]

Let me characterize this in another way. There are two ways to describe what is going on here:

First, take the hovercraft as a whole and find the action and reaction. If the hovercraft moves forward on a frictionless surface, something (air) must go in the other. This is the easy way - its just high-school Newtonian physics. Action:reaction.

Second, take the component parts of the hovercraft and model exactly what they are doing. This is the hard way as it requires college level engineering to describe (which isn't to say with some reading-up you can't figure it out without taking the courses: search for some info on Engineering Statics and Engineering Dynamics courses).

The problem is you think you know what the hard way will show and as a result, you're ignoring the obviousness of what the easy way says.

 

[Ray Payette]

The actions are rotating loads. A motor that turns a load produces a rotating force, in other words a couple. This has to be compensated by an equal and opposite reaction, in this case a couple that turns the hovercraft in the opposite direction. That is the essence of the device. A motor turns a load; that makes the hovercraft turn in the opposite direction.

If there were a strong imbalance caused by the vibration that would push the hovercraft forward, then it wouldn’t pass the traction test. But it did.

The facts are that the hovercraft moves forward and it passed the traction test. Another fact is that there are many vibrations, but how can you explain that these vibrations propel the hovercraft forward? Old propeller planes really shake around also, but that isn’t what propels them.

 

[Alkatran]

The actions are rotating loads. A motor that turns a load produces a rotating force, in other words a couple. This has to be compensated by an equal and opposite reaction, in this case a couple that turns the hovercraft in the opposite direction.

Ever take a physics class? The reaction happens at the same time as the action, not later.

 

[Ray Payette]

Exactly, at the same time the motor turns the load the hovercraft turns in the opposite direction.

 

[Alkatran]

Exactly, at the same time the motor turns the load the hovercraft turns in the opposite direction.

It takes energy to start this turning. It takes energy to stop it. It takes energy to keep it going because of friction. Cars are faster and more efficient.

 

[Ray Payette]

Perhaps cars are faster and more efficient here on earth, but they don't work in space. This form of propulsion is an alternative to rockets.

 

[Alkatran]

It won't work in space, momentum is conserved. If momentum is not conserved then Newton's third law is false, everything we know about collisions is false, etc etc etc...

Basically, physics changes completely.

So... until you do it in space I don't believe it.

 

[Ray Payette]

That's a new one, the physics in space are different. Since you are well versed in that subject, could tou please give me a reference that would state that.

 

[enigma]

That's a new one, the physics in space are different. Since you are well versed in that subject, could tou please give me a reference that would state that.

No, physics is space are the same.

The environment in space is different.

Your craft is getting propelled somehow... most likely aerodynamic forces from the propellers or non-uniform pressure distributions along the skirt. You don't have air to move it in space, therefore it won't work in space. You can't get energy from nothing.

Why don't you try to suspend the thing from a string and run it then.

If you truly have something, the device will oscillate about some non-plumb equilibrium position.

 

[Ray Payette]

There are no propellers, only wooden rods that don't displace much air; they cannot possibly provide the hovercraft's propulsion.

The energy from the battery is converted to kinetic energy. Energy is used up from the battery.

I suspended the device on a cushion of air that provides more degrees of freedom than a pendulum. Since there are rotational forces involved (reaction couple) and the vehicle needs to stay on the same plane, 3 wires would be required to stabilize it. This in turn would pose tortional questions. The hovercraft is a better experiment.

 

[mapper]

Next time I am in space ill do your experiment. Sounds like fun.

btw what video codecs do we need to view this video? I've dl like 10 different ones and nothing works still.

 

[Ray Payette]

It should work in space because it doen't interact with the environment at all; it needs no air to move or surgace to push in order to work.

Try the latest Microsoft Media Player. There are 23 megs .mpg files so you might need to delete your temporary internet files as the TIP suggests.

 

[enigma]

It should work in space because it doen't interact with the environment at all; it needs no air to move or surgace to push in order to work.

This is an unsubstantiated assertion, and quite frankly, incorrect.

You cannot get kinetic energy without pushing against something. Sorry... that's just the rules of this universe.

Without measuring it, you have no justification to just write off the aerodynamic effects of the rotating beams. Without measuring it, you have no justification to just write off the potential for a pressure difference across the edge of the skirt caused by the vibrations.

Satellites use reaction torque NOW! All the torque wheels do is adjust orientation. No free energy. No fuel-less motion. What's more, after a while, they need to be de-spun by firing the attitude control rockets while they torque the wheels in the opposite direction.

If you think you've found something new, then you MUST quantify it or else you have no way to justify spending millions of dollars to design, build, launch, and test a device in space. If you can't quantify it yourself, then find someone to do it for you. You can either pay someone or actually listen to what people here are telling you... either way you'll get the same response. Torques cannot increase linear momentum without pushing against something.

Do the string experiment. I'm willing to wager whatever you can afford that you'll find you have no equilibrium offset.

 

[Ray Payette]

You contradict yourself. First of all you state that satellites use reaction torque now. Yes they do, they use reaction wheels to maintain their attitude. They don’t have to push against anything to do this. So you implicitly agree that a rotary means of propulsion is not only feasible, it is in fact used in space. In fact my invention refers to US patent 5,723,923 concerning a reaction wheel. In one version of my patent I use that same reaction wheel to produce the rotations on a satellite. The sum of these rotations result in a linear momentum, but they originate as rotational torques.

BTW it is an erroneous notion that propulsion has to push against something. When in space rockets simply throw away their burnt fuel in space against nothing. All you need is an action to get a reaction. Get your notions correctly!

If you examine my website well enough you will see that it also solves the momentum build-up problem by a momentum unloading procedure.

I was a chartered accountant for decades so I know that I could discuss numbers for years without achieving a conclusion. That is a quagmire I do not wish to go into.

 

[russ_watters]

You contradict yourself. First of all you state that satellites use reaction torque now. Yes they do, they use reaction wheels to maintain their attitude. They don’t have to push against anything to do this. So you implicitly agree that a rotary means of propulsion is not only feasible, it is in fact used in space. In fact my invention refers to US patent 5,723,923 concerning a reaction wheel. In one version of my patent I use that same reaction wheel to produce the rotations on a satellite. The sum of these rotations result in a linear momentum, but they originate as rotational torques.

Again, rotational motion is not the same as translational: the contradiction is in your own understanding of the subject, not in enigma's. You do not use the same reaction wheel as the satellite, you use an unbalanced "wheel." If you think that's trivial, try using two balaced wheels in place of the rotating sticks. You'll end up with a quite stable (vibration free) and motionless object - like a dual-rotor helicoptor sitting on the ground. The similarity between your device and a satellite w/reaction control is that neither can produce translational motion, only rotational.

If you do the math, you will find that what you have constructed, if working correctly, makes the hovercraft oscillate like an orbital sander due to the unbalanced rotation.

The energy from the battery is converted to kinetic energy. Energy is used up from the battery.

That's true, but you're still missing where that energy is going: an electric motor obeys conservation law. The motor produces a torque on the shaft and the shaft produces an equal an opposite torque on the motor. This cannot be mechanically converted into translational motion without coming into contact with the environment.

Conservation law does not say that consuming electrical energy can result in unbalanced mechanical energy. Both the mechanical and electrical systems obey conservation law separately and collectively.

 

[russ_watters]

The actions are rotating loads. A motor that turns a load produces a rotating force, in other words a couple. This has to be compensated by an equal and opposite reaction, in this case a couple that turns the hovercraft in the opposite direction. That is the essence of the device. A motor turns a load; that makes the hovercraft turn in the opposite direction.

Right - and the part that you're missing, the part that requires a little math or engineering work to show, is that the two couples cancel each other out, resulting in no forward motion.

If there were a strong imbalance caused by the vibration that would push the hovercraft forward, then it wouldn’t pass the traction test. But it did.

That has nothing to do with traction, that's the fan pushing the hovercraft forward.

Another fact is that there are many vibrations, but how can you explain that these vibrations propel the hovercraft forward? Old propeller planes really shake around also, but that isn’t what propels them.

I did explain it, you just won't accept it. Speaking of old planes, did you know that if the pilot of a WWII fighter didn't counter the torque of the motor, the plane would flip over? Action-reaction is obeyed there as well. Also, the vibration of your device far exceeds its propulsion, unlike with an old plane. In fact, I'd wager that if you ever chose to do the calculation I laid out above, you'd find upwards of 90% of the mechanical energy produced by those motors is going into making it shake back and forth, and another 9% or so is lost to friction.