A hypothesis for a possible reactionless drive

[PeterAX]

The link below describes a few simple experiments, which break the law of conservation of mechanical energy and the law of conservation of linear momentum. You can easily carry out these simple experiments in your garage as many times as you want.
And here is the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY&ab_channel=PeterAxe
---------------------------------------
IMPORTANT NOTE 1. It is highly recommendable that the above mentioned experiments are evaluated and realized by a highly qualified expert (Ph.D.) in theoretical and applied mechanics. Otherwise nothing will come of it (most probably).
----------------------------------------
IMPORTANT NOTE 2. The key question in the above mentioned experiments is how to reduce standard friction (where necessary) to a certain minimum limit, beyond which the experimental error (due to friction) is small enough and can be neglected. The answer is simple. You can use for example permanent magnet slides as shown in the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoW0A8hYs5A . (Permanent magnet slides reduce friction practically to zero and the measuring devices do not register any force of friction.) Aternatively you can use hundreds of other methods for reducing of friction (as much as necessary) as modern technologies allow this feat. We live in 21st century after all.
----------------------------------------
Looking forward to your comments after repeating the above mentioned simple experiments. (Where are the skillful experiment masters here in this forum?:))

[PeterAX]

Why don't you carry out the simple experiments, described in the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY&ab_channel=PeterAxe  ? Are you afraid of truth? 

[Vmedvil2]

13 hours ago, PeterAX said:

Why don't you carry out the simple experiments, described in the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY&ab_channel=PeterAxe  ? Are you afraid of truth? 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2021 by VictorMedvil

[PeterAX]

To VictorMedvil.

------------------------------

The video you have sent has nothing to do with our concept. Your video has nothing to do with our video.

[PeterAX]

Please look again at the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY
--------------------------
1) The violation of the law of conservation of linear momentum, which is described in the link above, can be used for a substantial decreasing of the recoil of any standard firearm as this does not influence in any way this standard firearm's range. (Besides in principle it is possible to use the new mechanical effect several times in a row thus reducing the recoil practically to zero.)
--------------------------
2) The violation of the law of conservation of linear momentum, which is described in the link above, can be used for designing of an entirely new kind of a shock-absorber. The latter can be installed on any vehicle thus saving human lives and/or preventing injuries.
--------------------------
Looking forward to your answer.

[PeterAX]

Please look again at the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY
--------------------------
1) The violation of the law of conservation of linear momentum, which is described in the link above, can be used for a substantial decreasing of the recoil of any standard firearm as this does not influence in any way this standard firearm's range. (Besides in principle it is possible to use the new mechanical effect several times in a row thus reducing the recoil practically to zero.)
--------------------------
2) The violation of the law of conservation of linear momentum, which is described in the link above, can be used for designing of an entirely new kind of a shock-absorber. The latter can be installed on any vehicle thus saving human lives and/or preventing injuries.
--------------------------
3) The violation of the law of conservation of linear momentum, which is described in the link above, can be used for designing of a reactionless drive devices of various kinds.
--------------------------
4) The violation of the law of conservation of mechanical energy, which is described in the link above, can be used for designing of a perpetual motion machines of various kinds. 
--------------------------
Note. Extremely important seems to be item 2. The new mechanical principle (described in the link above), if used in any standard vehicle, CAN SAVE HUMAN LIVES AND/OR PREVENT INJURIES!
--------------------------
Looking forward to your comments.

[PeterAX]

Please have a look again at our first post video and answer two simple questions only.
-------------------------------

1) Question 1. Do you accept the validity of the simple experimental fact that the zigzags generate mechanical resistance, (a) which is absolutely identical and equivalent to friction and (b) which does not generate heat? Yes or no? (Your answer must consist of one word only -- either "yes" or "no".)
2) Question 2. Do you accept the validity of the simple fact that (a) the system of equations (1) and (2) and (b) the system of equations (1) and (3) cannot be true simultaneously? Yes or no? (Your answer must consist of one word only -- either "yes" or "no".) 
---------------------
Note. Please always keep in mind that the masses of the blue rods and the masses of the blue balls are negligible (if compared to Ma), but not equal to zero. (Let me remind only that each couple blue rod-blue ball forms one united whole as shown in the video.) 
---------------------
Looking forward to your two answers. (Only one word -- either "yes" or "no".) 

[PeterAX]

Here are our last REAL experimental results.
1) Please look again at the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY&t=330s
2) From 3:45 to 3:48 we have Ma = 1 kg, Mb = 4 kg and V1 = 0.1 m/s. (Please consider only the "upper" zigzag device.)
3) From 3:59 to 4:01 we have Ma = 1 kg, Mb = 4 kg, V2 = 0.06 m/s and V3 = 0.01 m/s. (Please consider only the "upper" zigzag device.)
4) (1 kg) x (0.1 m/s) = ((1kg) x (0.06 m/s)) + ((4kg) x (0.01 m/s)). The last equality unambiguously shows the validity of the law of conservation of linear momentum in this particular case.
5) (0.5) x (1 kg) x (0.1 m/s) x (0.1 m/s) > ((0.5) x (1 kg) x (0.06 m/s) x (0.06 m/s)) + ((0.5) x (4 kg) x (0.01 m/s) x (0.01 m/s)). The last inequality unambiguously shows the invalidity of the law of conservation of mechanical energy in this particular case.
6) How to reduce friction inside the zigzag channels? The answer is simple -- by using permanent magnet slides. (There are literally hundreds of permanent magnet slide designs in YouTube and in Google.) Please look at the links below for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQH2UhHss6c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXQqfIb-NXc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ4VGJCZUYE
7) The permanent magnet slide design:
a) reduces friction (and the related generated heat) practically to zero;
b) reduces the experimental error (due to friction and to the related generated heat) practically to zero.
😎 And if the above mentioned experimental error is practically equal to zero, then this experimental error can be neglected (as it is much smaller than 1 %).
9) Alternatively you can use electrostatic levitation, rolling friction instead of sliding friction, etc. Besides modern tribology (this is the science, which focuses on sliding/friction phenomena) suggests a great variety of high-tech materials and/or lubricants' which are also able to reduce sliding friction (and the related generated heat) practically to zero.
10) In one word, you can carry out easily the above mentioned experiments in your garage or in any standard school laboratory (or by using any other simple DIY (DoItYourself) methods).
-------------------------------
Looking forward to your comments.

Edited May 12, 2021 by PeterAX

[PeterAX]

The yellow head with the black spectacles from our last post must be read as number 8. (The system generates some permanent defect.)

Edited May 12, 2021 by PeterAX

[PeterAX]

Still no comments? Still nobody here in this forum has carried out any experiment?

[PeterAX]

Please look again at our post of 05/12/2021 04:34 PM.
----------------------------------------
1) 0.1 kg.m/s = 0.1 kg.m/s. The last equality shows the validity of the law of conservation of linear momentum in this particular case.
2) 0.005 J > 0.002 J. The last inequality shows the invalidity of the law of conservation of mechanical energy in this particular case.
3) Modern (and even not so modern) technologies allow reducing of friction to a certain value/limit, beyond which the experimental error (due to friction) becomes negligible (less than 1 %).
----------------------------------------
Looking forward to your comments.

[PeterAX]

But why don't you carry out the simple mechanical experiments as descrbed in PART 3 of our video? The experimental results are 0.1 kg.m/s = 0.1 kg.m/s and 0.005 J > 0.002 J. And friction is reduced to a certain value/limit, beyond which the experimental error (due to friction) becomes negligible (less than 1 %). Simple, clear and understandable.

Looking forward to your comments.

[Vmedvil2]

19 minutes ago, PeterAX said:

But why don't you carry out the simple mechanical experiments as descrbed in PART 3 of our video? The experimental results are 0.1 kg.m/s = 0.1 kg.m/s and 0.005 J > 0.002 J. And friction is reduced to a certain value/limit, beyond which the experimental error (due to friction) becomes negligible (less than 1 %). Simple, clear and understandable.

Looking forward to your comments.

Crank Please

[PeterAX]

To VictorMedvil.

--------------------------------------------

1) Crank please?:) Good! Appreciate your sense of humour!:)

2) But have a look again at our previous posts, if you like. If friction is negligible, then what would be the values of V2 an V3 (according to you)? Simply carry out the experiments as described in our video and in our additional posts here. Looking forward to your answer.If friction is negligible, then what would be the values of V2 and V3 (according to you)? V2 = ? V3 = ? Simply carry out the experiments as described in our video and in our additional comments here! Looking forward to your answer.friction is negligible, then what would be the values of V2 and V3 (according to you)? V2 = ? V3 = ? Simply carry out the experiments as described in our video and in our additional comments here! Looking forward to your answer.f friction is negligible, then what would be the values of V2 and V3 (according to you)? V2 = ? V3 = ? Simply carry out the experiments as described in our video and in our additional comments here! Looking forward to your answer.ffriction If friction is negligible, then what would be the values of V2 and V3 (according to you)? V2 = ? V3 = ? Simply carry out the experiments as described in our video and in our additional comments here! Looking forward to your answer.is negligible, then what would be the values of V2 and V3 (according to you)? V2 = ? V3 = ? Simply carry out the experiments as described in our video and in our additional comments here! Looking forward to your answer.

 

[PeterAX]

1) Please have a look at the two links below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPqEEZa2Gis&ab_channel=IthacaCollegePhysicsIthacaCollegePhysics
2) The second link suggests another possible method (among many others) for reducing of friction (inside the zigzag channels in the first link above) practically to zero. The key component of this method is liquid nitrogen. The latter however proved to be extremely cheap -- only $ 2.00 per liter.
------------------------------------
Looking forward to your comments. 

[PeterAX]

To those members of this forum who would like to carry out the experiments as described in the link  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY  and in the related posts of ours in this forum.
-----------------------------------
Let me share with you some experimental experience of ours.
-----------------------------------
1) Disadvantages of the experiment in PART 1 and in PART 2.
1A) Comparatively short time intervals due to g = 9.81 m/s2. These comparatively short time intervals are not easy to be measured experimentally.
1B) Comparatively high downward variable velocities due to g = 9.81 m/s2. These comparatively high downward variable velocities are not easy to be measured experimentally.
1C) Comparatively large sizes of the experimental device. The blue component's free fall initial height has to be at least 2 meters long as a minimum. Otherwise it is comparatively difficult to measure experimentally the time intervals and the downward variable velocities mentioned in the above items 1A and 1B. (The bigger the initial free fall height, the easier the experimental measurement of the related time intervals and downward velocities.)
-----------------------------------
2) Advantages of the experiment in PART 1 and in PART 2.
2A) A comparatively small number of moving objects. These are only three in number -- the two couples blue rod-blue ball and the T-shaped blue component. (The Π-shaped black component is motionless.)
2B) A comparatively easy practical realization of the experimental device due to previous item 2A.
-------------------------------
3) Advantages of the experiment in PART 3.
3A) Comparatively long time intervals in the absence of g = 9.81 m/s2. These comparatively long time intervals are comparatively easy to be measured experimentally.
3B) Comparatively low horizontal constant velocities in the absence of g = 9.81 m/s2. These comparatively low horizontal constant velocities are comparatively easy to be measured experimentally.
3C) Comparatively small sizes of the experimental device.
----------------------------------- 
4) Disadvantages of the experiment in PART 3.
4A) A comparatively large number of moving objects. These are four in number -- the two couples blue rod-blue ball, the T-shaped blue component and the Π-shaped black component.
4B) A comparatively difficult practical realization of the experimental device due to previous item 4A.
-----------------------------------
5) Taking into considerations all pros and cons of the experimental situation we (our team) tend to conclude that it is much better to focus on the experiment described in PART 3 of the video. Because longer time intervals and lower horizontal constant velocities (if compared to shorter time intervals and higher downward variable velocities) are much easier to be registered and measured experimentally.
-----------------------------------
Looking forward to your comments.   

[PeterAX]

Has anybody here in this forum carried out the experiments described in PART 3? It is comparatively quite easy to reduce friction to a certain value/limit, beyond which experimental values of V2 and V3 practically coincide with their theoretical values. 

Looking forward to your comments.