Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dark Jedi · 09-29-2002, 04:34 PM

What is your take on this engine?
It claims to use a breakthrough that violates Conservation of Angular Momentum.

I don't see how it works, or the flaw in his charlitanism, whichever applies. Some of the over-educated in the forum care to pick it apart?

<a href="http://www.forceborne.com/index2.htm" target="_blank">Robert Cook's homepage</a>

<a href="http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='4238968'.WKU.&OS=PN/4238968&RS=PN/4238968" target="_blank">Link to his patent</a>

Deimos · 09-29-2002, 05:41 PM

Call me when there's a demonstrable prototype.

OK, second attempt at an explanation

As far as I can make out (from the little animation at the bottom of the page - best viewed frame by frame

) he is claiming that the rotary arm is always imbalanced in one 'direction' because it deposits and picks up the 'propulsion mass' (blue cuboids) from the frame every half revolution thereby generating a unidirectional impulse.

He then claims that the 'splitting and recombining' of the mass produces no negative impulses (which would otherwise counter the impulse from the half rotation thingy

).

It appears from the animation that the reaction masses (blue things) are picked up at the top of the frame and deposited at the bottom of the frame with zero velocity (due to the rotation of the little 'pickeruppers' at the both ends of the arm. This would seem to eliminate an impulse on the frame at these points.... but no, no and thrice no.

It boils down to this. These little blue things need to be accelerated (when they get picked up) and decelerated (when they get deposited) to and from the rotational speed of the arm. The complexity of the motion caused by the pickeruppers clouds the issue but it's really that simple - the acceleration and deceleration create two negative impulses on the rotating arm and this is transfered to the frame via the axle.

[ September 29, 2002: Message edited by: Deimos ]

Feather · 09-29-2002, 05:42 PM

He was on the Art Bell show. That's flaw enough.

Beyond that, I'll apply my meagre and embarrassingly small talents to the "studies" posted on his site and see what (if anything) I turn up.

enigma555 · 09-29-2002, 10:42 PM

Well, I can't make heads or tails of what it is actually supposed to _do_. Nowhere in the "technical parametric" section do they declare what any of their variables are representing.

Just a quick glance to find a mistake didn't take long. Fourth line of this chickenscratched "technical report" has an incorrect integration.

<a href="http://www.forceborne.com/parametric/parametric2-04.htm" target="_blank">http://www.forceborne.com/parametric/parametric2-04.htm</a>

First off, you cannot have a definite integral WRT a variable w and use that variable as an upper limit of integration. (I don't have the slightest clue what w is supposed to represent).

Second, the solution for the right hand side of the equation is not only just a little wrong... it's rediculously wrong. I can't even hazard a guess what they were trying to do there.

They also claim to have "debunked Newton". Well. Ahem. Sorry guys. The rate of change of velocity is acceleration. You haven't debunked a damn thing.

That's as far as I care to dig into this. Do notice, that every page says: "If you want to make a donation, send your $ to us!" If they were legitimate, they'd have no problem getting some venture capital to get started.

[ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: enigma555 ]

Dark Jedi · 09-30-2002, 05:17 PM

I actually heard him first on Art Bell. I listen to that show on the way home at night (2am 1.5 hour commute) for amusement and incredulity. it helps me stay awake.

I was curious of his engine, as I am a bit of a buff of alternative energy sources, but suspected fraud or simple self deception. I just didn't know where to start. Physical sciences are easy to me, but I don't have the math to debunk this.

Deimos, your explaination was along the lines of what I was thinking. Even if he can extract this energy from a rotating mass, he cannot extract more energy than was put in to the rotation!

Sidian · 09-30-2002, 07:37 PM

i don't buy the machines ability to power itself, but i was looking around in the forum there and saw something else i'd never heard of...

"A curious scientific anomaly:

Take two masses... two pinballs for example.

Spin one up to thousands of RPM's, keep the other stationary.

Launch both into the air from the same platform.

Both go up.. reach the apex of their travel at the same time. They also come back down and hit the ground at the same time.

The kicker?

The mass that was spinning goes much higher. It accellerates significantly faster. It travels much faster going up.. and also going back down.

"

is that true?

what causes that?

enigma555 · 09-30-2002, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidian:

is that true?

I'll shoot from the cuff and say: no.

I'll know the whole skinny about it by the end of the semester (working up to Gyroscopes by the end of November... woe is me), but after my class tomorrow, I'll corner my professor to find the quick answer in the meantime.

echidna · 10-01-2002, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Deimos:
[QB]It boils down to this. These little blue things need to be accelerated (when they get picked up) and decelerated (when they get deposited) to and from the rotational speed of the arm. The complexity of the motion caused by the pickeruppers clouds the issue but it's really that simple - the acceleration and deceleration create two negative impulses on the rotating arm and this is transfered to the frame via the axle.

That�s pretty well how I�d look at it. It�s been a shit-long time since I�ve done any of this, but my spin

on it would be that after the main arm releases the 2 linear blue thingys, it continues to rotate unladen, while the other travels in the opposite direction still carrying its 2 blue thingys. The linear momentum of the system is simply balanced between the 180 degree arc swept by the unladen arm, and the 2 linearly moving square thingys. Net linear momentum = zippo.

Some complicated mathematics of course, but conceptually surely it�s not that simple ?

Cute but I reckon bio-resonant t-shirts are a better investment.

Don�t ask me about the math though, after 64 pages of gibberish I reckon I�d be ready to believe the moon was made of cheese.

echidna · 10-01-2002, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidian:
is that true?

what causes that?

Are you referring to ballistics where a spinning projectile sets up laminar air flow patterns which serve to dramatically reduce air resistance over a non-rotating one ?

Deimos · 10-01-2002, 05:46 AM

Haha!

Just to confuse you further, have a look at this <a href="http://www.open.org/~davidc/index.htm" target="_blank">site</a>

The Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster (GIT - aptly named) community is alive and well on the net. The videos of these things are quite funny.

The only inertial propulsion concept that has any roots in theory is based on <a href="http://www.inetarena.com/~noetic/pls/woodward.html" target="_blank">Mach's Principle</a> - part of relativity I think.

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: Deimos ]

09-29-2002, 04:34 PM	#1
Dark Jedi Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Afghanistan Posts: 4,666	Question for physics folks: Robert Cook's engine? What is your take on this engine? It claims to use a breakthrough that violates Conservation of Angular Momentum. I don't see how it works, or the flaw in his charlitanism, whichever applies. Some of the over-educated in the forum care to pick it apart? <a href="http://www.forceborne.com/index2.htm" target="_blank">Robert Cook's homepage</a> <a href="http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='4238968'.WKU.&OS=PN/4238968&RS=PN/4238968" target="_blank">Link to his patent</a>

09-29-2002, 05:41 PM	#2
Deimos Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Posts: 97	Call me when there's a demonstrable prototype. OK, second attempt at an explanation As far as I can make out (from the little animation at the bottom of the page - best viewed frame by frame ) he is claiming that the rotary arm is always imbalanced in one 'direction' because it deposits and picks up the 'propulsion mass' (blue cuboids) from the frame every half revolution thereby generating a unidirectional impulse. He then claims that the 'splitting and recombining' of the mass produces no negative impulses (which would otherwise counter the impulse from the half rotation thingy ). It appears from the animation that the reaction masses (blue things) are picked up at the top of the frame and deposited at the bottom of the frame with zero velocity (due to the rotation of the little 'pickeruppers' at the both ends of the arm. This would seem to eliminate an impulse on the frame at these points.... but no, no and thrice no. It boils down to this. These little blue things need to be accelerated (when they get picked up) and decelerated (when they get deposited) to and from the rotational speed of the arm. The complexity of the motion caused by the pickeruppers clouds the issue but it's really that simple - the acceleration and deceleration create two negative impulses on the rotating arm and this is transfered to the frame via the axle. [ September 29, 2002: Message edited by: Deimos ]</p>

09-29-2002, 10:42 PM	#4
enigma555 Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 282	Well, I can't make heads or tails of what it is actually supposed to _do_. Nowhere in the "technical parametric" section do they declare what any of their variables are representing. Just a quick glance to find a mistake didn't take long. Fourth line of this chickenscratched "technical report" has an incorrect integration. <a href="http://www.forceborne.com/parametric/parametric2-04.htm" target="_blank">http://www.forceborne.com/parametric/parametric2-04.htm</a> First off, you cannot have a definite integral WRT a variable w and use that variable as an upper limit of integration. (I don't have the slightest clue what w is supposed to represent). Second, the solution for the right hand side of the equation is not only just a little wrong... it's rediculously wrong. I can't even hazard a guess what they were trying to do there. They also claim to have "debunked Newton". Well. Ahem. Sorry guys. The rate of change of velocity is acceleration. You haven't debunked a damn thing. That's as far as I care to dig into this. Do notice, that every page says: "If you want to make a donation, send your $ to us!" If they were legitimate, they'd have no problem getting some venture capital to get started. [ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: enigma555 ]</p>

10-01-2002, 05:46 AM	#10
Deimos Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Posts: 97	Haha! Just to confuse you further, have a look at this <a href="http://www.open.org/~davidc/index.htm" target="_blank">site</a> The Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster (GIT - aptly named) community is alive and well on the net. The videos of these things are quite funny. The only inertial propulsion concept that has any roots in theory is based on <a href="http://www.inetarena.com/~noetic/pls/woodward.html" target="_blank">Mach's Principle</a> - part of relativity I think. [ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: Deimos ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-29-2002, 05:42 PM	#3
Feather Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Gainesville, FL Posts: 1,827	He was on the Art Bell show. That's flaw enough. Beyond that, I'll apply my meagre and embarrassingly small talents to the "studies" posted on his site and see what (if anything) I turn up.

09-30-2002, 05:17 PM	#5
Dark Jedi Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Afghanistan Posts: 4,666	I actually heard him first on Art Bell. I listen to that show on the way home at night (2am 1.5 hour commute) for amusement and incredulity. it helps me stay awake. I was curious of his engine, as I am a bit of a buff of alternative energy sources, but suspected fraud or simple self deception. I just didn't know where to start. Physical sciences are easy to me, but I don't have the math to debunk this. Deimos, your explaination was along the lines of what I was thinking. Even if he can extract this energy from a rotating mass, he cannot extract more energy than was put in to the rotation!

09-30-2002, 07:37 PM	#6
Sidian Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Colorado Posts: 39	i don't buy the machines ability to power itself, but i was looking around in the forum there and saw something else i'd never heard of... "A curious scientific anomaly: Take two masses... two pinballs for example. Spin one up to thousands of RPM's, keep the other stationary. Launch both into the air from the same platform. Both go up.. reach the apex of their travel at the same time. They also come back down and hit the ground at the same time. The kicker? The mass that was spinning goes much higher. It accellerates significantly faster. It travels much faster going up.. and also going back down. " is that true? what causes that?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.