I'm just learning about kinetic energy and heat loss.

Here is the thrust of my question:

In a cycle of kinetic action/reaction, if an action takes place against a given mass A, and the equal and opposite reaction produces significant heat loss against mass B, is some of the kinetic energy in the reaction to mass B transfered directly into heat?

To explain this further, I have an osscilating mass in a cylnder. At one end it strikes mass A with a very elastic reaction, producing minimal heat loss, while at the other end of the cylinder, it strikes mass B, where the heat loss is substantial, perhaps in the form of compressing a gas for elasticity. The heat generated by the impact at mass B could be geometrically proportionate to the heat loss at mass A. I see a conversion of kinetic energy into heat. In this case, the reaction is equal and opposite at both ends of the cylinder, but kinetically different. Is this correct?

Here's another gimpy graphic...and the illuminous verbosity of my sophomoric ineptitude.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fluidity
In a cycle of kinetic action/reaction, if an action takes place against a given mass A, and the equal and opposite reaction produces significant heat loss against mass B, is some of the kinetic energy in the reaction to mass B transfered directly into heat?
I can't think of any reaction that would produce movement and not include some heat loss. The amount loss however depends on the type of reaction.

In this case, the reaction is equal and opposite at both ends of the cylinder, but kinetically different. Is this correct?
As far as Newton's laws are concerned, the equal and opposite reactions occur at the same instant. Not sure if that's what the question was about though.

If the kinetic reaction is independent of the heat loss...no go.

But, in compressing a gas, the gas molecules/atoms disperse in every direction, colliding violently; this looks like a 'balance' of kinetic energy. Certainly, the kinetic transfer takes place in the direction of the gas charged reaction mass, but I think with reduced parameters. The return velocity of the inertial mass would be reduced at this end of the resonator, and the mass would be reaccelerated at the other end, again to a higher velocity than it was recieved. The compressible liquid causes very little heat loss; the nearer it is to uncompressible, the less heat loss experienced.

It is impossible to view this as a closed system, when the heat must be dissipated outside the body of the resonator to be stabilized. This is as much a heat engine as it is a kinetic engine.
Without significant heat loss, it would be impossible to generate a difference in reactions or any imaginable propulsion.

Originally posted by Fluidity

The heat generated by the impact at mass B could be geometrically proportionate to the heat loss at mass A. I see a conversion of kinetic energy into heat. In this case, the reaction is equal and opposite at both ends of the cylinder, but kinetically different. Is this correct?

Why would the heat generated by the impact at mass B be geometrically proportionate to the heat loss at Mass A? I can't really tell from the diagram if the object making the impact is actually hitting Mass A and Mass B or some object between it and the object moving. Each Mass will have it's own coefficients of static/kinetic friction. When the mass hits it, the masses will hit the walls of the container. Unless each Mass's coefficients are identical, how would they equal and opposite at each end of the cylinder? Also...if the walls of the container for each Mass (A and B) are sealed...you'll have changes in pressure and volume due to the change in temperature (PV=nRT)

Originally posted by Fluidity
But, in compressing a gas, the gas molecules/atoms disperse in every direction, colliding violently; this looks like a 'balance' of kinetic energy.
It also creates a temperature raise which will cause the gass to give off heat.

Certainly, the kinetic transfer takes place in the direction of the gas charged reaction mass, but I think with reduced parameters. The return velocity of the inertial mass would be reduced at this end of the resonator, and the mass would be reaccelerated at the other end, again to a higher velocity than it was recieved.
Could you rephrase that? I didn't quite follow.

It is impossible to view this as a closed system, when the heat must be dissipated outside the body of the resonator to be stabilized.
It's a exothermic system... it can be viewed aa a closed system with a heat loss.

This is as much a heat engine as it is a kinetic engine.
Most of the heat would probably come from friction if you wanted to use this to generate heat.

Without significant heat loss, it would be impossible to generate a difference in reactions or any imaginable propulsion.
Even with heat loss you will be unable to generate sustained propulsion.

Why would the heat generated by the impact at mass B be geometrically proportionate to the heat loss at Mass A?
<HR>
A compressible liquid does not generate near the heat of a compressible gas under similar forces. Also, the force of the impact at mass B is less than the impact at mass A, because the gas is less resilient than the liquid.

I can't really tell from the diagram if the object making the impact is actually hitting Mass A and Mass B or some object between it and the object moving.
<HR>
Only the inertial mass i, is moving back and forth in the chamber. The gold-colored masses (the transfers) are only there to transfer the impact to the resonant mass. Each transfer does move, but only to the direct proportion of compression.


Each Mass will have it's own coefficients of static/kinetic friction. When the mass hits it, the masses will hit the walls of the container. Unless each Mass's coefficients are identical, how would they equal and opposite at each end of the cylinder?
<HR>
I'm not certain of this question; perhaps the answer above applies.

Also...if the walls of the container for each Mass (A and B) are sealed...you'll have changes in pressure and volume due to the change in temperature (PV=nRT)
<HR>
The resonant mass A, is a gas. Not shown are cooling pumps and equalization reservior. The gas is only under a severe change in pressure during the kinetic cycle. The heat is pumped off, and the pressure is equalized in the compression chamber by opposing poppet valves, which are crudely drawn in the opposing wall.

The resonant mass B is a compressible liquid, and any heat is radiated via the cooling fins in the opposing chamber, where cooliing pumps are not drawn. There should be no need to further cool the liquid, and its pressure will stabilize at a temperature coefficient to the speed of operation.

<b>Certainly, the kinetic transfer takes place in the direction of the gas charged reaction mass, but I think with reduced parameters. The return velocity of the inertial mass would be reduced at this end of the resonator, and the mass would be reaccelerated at the other end, again to a higher velocity than it was recieved. </b>
Could you rephrase that? I didn't quite follow.
<HR>
A larger portion of the kinetic energy at mass A, the gas, is converted to heat, than at mass B, the liquid. Mass A is less resilient, and the inertial mass i, will be returned toward mass B at a reduced velocity. At reaction mass B, during reciprocation, the mass is re-accelerated to a higher velocity than it was recieved.

<b>It is impossible to view this as a closed system, when the heat must be dissipated outside the body of the resonator to be stabilized.</b>
It's an exothermic system... it can be viewed as a closed system with a heat loss.
<HR>
Yes, it is exothermic, but the kinetic energy dissipates in the form of heat, hence, it isn't really closed.



<b>This is as much a heat engine as it is a kinetic engine.</b>
Most of the heat would probably come from friction if you wanted to use this to generate heat.
<HR>
Mechanical friction is irrelevant to the heat loss in question.

<b>Without significant heat loss, it would be impossible to generate a difference in reactions or any imaginable propulsion.</b>
Even with heat loss you will be unable to generate sustained propulsion.
<HR>
If the heat is pumped off, and the cycle is continuous, I am assuming that because more of the kinetic energy is converted to heat at one end than the other, that a sustained force could be created.

Wow, thanks for the detailed reply! :) I haven't studied much in the way of "compressible substances" (just gen and organic chem in my background)...so I can't comment further on how they would be similar or dissimilar in terms of reactions, but I'd still have to stand that my vote is with the reactions being dissimilar. I think I'm having difficulty with the question as it's phrased, but heck, that's probably just me. I'm going to watch this thread from afar and enjoy. :D

but I'd still have to stand that my vote is with the reactions being dissimilar
<HR>
They are dissimilar kinetically. That is what I'm looking for. But, in terms of the 'total' reaction, they are equal and opposite. I am simply looking for a way to produce a thrust by converting kinetic energy into heat at one end, and translating most of the kinetic energy directly into the 'ship' at the other.

Originally posted by Fluidity
Yes, it is exothermic, but the kinetic energy dissipates in the form of heat, hence, it isn't really closed.
Generally when people say 'closed system' it means no mass exchange. Heat loss is always present.

If the heat is pumped off, and the cycle is continuous, I am assuming that because more of the kinetic energy is converted to heat at one end than the other, that a sustained force could be created.
Look at the individual impacts as having equal and opposite forces. In this case one force is on the container, the other on the block. This will push the two in opposite directions, but the center of mass of the entire system (container + block) will stay at the same point.

Heat loss is always present, but in this cycle, a very significant difference in heat loss is created between one reaction and the other.

The question was: Is heat loss a means of 'absorbing' kinetic energy?

If so, the heat is pumped out of the system as a separate energy, and the loss of kinetic energy at mass A results in a net force of kinetic energy at mass B, which is translated to the reciprocator. The resonant mass is struck quite violently at mass B. If the gas reaction mass was sealed, the reaction would stabililze quite suddenly. Enabling the transfer of heat outside the system from mass A, truly converts the kinetic energy stored in the inertial mass by the collision at mass B, into heat.

All of Newton's laws are in order. We can account for the changes in inertia and momentum as a change in temperature.
You have to answer the question posed with an authoritative 'no' in order to present a valid argument against the feasiblity of this proposition. I suggest you provide some proof that kinetic energy cannot be converted to heat if you expect me to back down. In fact, I believe heat is a form of kinetic energy, which further supports the feasibility of this claim.

Your comment about the block doesn't make any sense to me.
Can you rephrase that?

Newton dealt with kinetic energy and gases, which lead to the ideal gas law and many others.

The kinetic temperature of a gas is increased when work on that gas is done through pressurization. The heat, which is the work done on that gas, can be extracted via conduit to a radiator of some kind.

As the work done on mass A is extracted via the cooling system, the transfer of kinetic energy from the inertial mass in this reaction is equal and opposite, but the opposite reaction takes place within the gas itself, as the molecules/atoms collide with one another and the walls of the container in every direction. This ongoing kinetic reaction is then removed by heat transfer, occuring each and every cycle of the engine.

It is not questionable whether or not there is an accelerative force developed by this model. The efficiency of this engine is entirely dependent on the difference in heat loss at each end, and the efficiency of heat/work removal from the gas reaction mass A.

I am not far from being able to calculate the theoretical force generated by a model of this type, at a single speed, under ideal conditions, etc...

Originally posted by Fluidity
In fact, I believe heat is a form of kinetic energy, which further supports the feasibility of this claim.


Heat is a form of energy - not just kinetic (at least at the macroscale); most (all?) forms of energy can be and will eventually be converted into heat. That's essentially what the thermo laws say.

At the microscale, then yes, heat is to do with the kinetic energy of the molecules.

Cheers,

Ron.

At the microscale, then yes, heat is to do with the kinetic energy of the molecules.
<HR>
I'll have to put something like this together as a challenge.
I do wonder that it could produce any usable force, though.

The rate of heat transfer and heat loss is critical to efficiency, and the choice of materials is of highest regard.

Originally posted by Fluidity
The question was: Is heat loss a means of 'absorbing' kinetic energy?
It can be looked at that way.

All of Newton's laws are in order. We can account for the changes in inertia and momentum as a change in temperature.
No you can't. If you wish to continue this please shown me how.

You have to answer the question posed with an authoritative 'no' in order to present a valid argument against the feasiblity of this proposition.
Well no, I don't. You have 2 events; impact left and impact right. At each event the center of mass will be at the same location. Therefore no sustained motion. The fact that the two events are different in magnitude is irrelavent.

I suggest you provide some proof that kinetic energy cannot be converted to heat if you expect me to back down.
I have no problem with this... that's what friction does.

In fact, I believe heat is a form of kinetic energy, which further supports the feasibility of this claim.
It can be looked at that way, although heat is unusable kinetic energy.

Your comment about the block doesn't make any sense to me.
Can you rephrase that?
Any object balances around a point alled the center of mass. In an internal reaction this center of mass will not move. You can only move one half of the system by movng the other half in the opposite direction.

Originally posted by Fluidity
It is not questionable whether or not there is an accelerative force developed by this model.
It's an accelerative force on the block because it is oscillating back and forth. The center of mass however will not move.

I am not far from being able to calculate the theoretical force generated by a model of this type, at a single speed, under ideal conditions, etc...
See ya then

<b>All of Newton's laws are in order. We can account for the changes in inertia and momentum as a change in temperature.</b>
No you can't. If you wish to continue this please shown me how.
<HR>
The increase in temperature at mass A, the gas, is a direct measure of the kinetic energy converted into heat. This has been studied in depth long ago.

link here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/kintem.html

This application of these laws results in a more efficient transfer of kinetic energy to the 'ship', or recipricator, than occurs at mass A, the compressible gas.

You really don't have an argument left, Persol. The system is not closed, not nearly, because the work being done on the gas is radiated outside the ship in the form of heat. Energy within the ship leaves the ship in the form of heat. The efficiency of the engine is determined by its heat coefficient, which is directly proportional to the kinetic work transfered to the reciprocator...hence, linear motion.

Damn, you really hat eto listen.

Originally posted by Fluidity
The increase in temperature at mass A, the gas, is a direct measure of the kinetic energy converted into heat. This has been studied in depth long ago.
Like I said above... I could care less about the heat transfer.

This application of these laws results in a more efficient transfer of kinetic energy to the 'ship', or recipricator, than occurs at mass A, the compressible gas.
Fine, you are transfering heat, whatever.

You really don't have an argument left, Persol.
My argument lays in that you are breaking the 'equal and opposite' law of Newton.

The system is not closed, not nearly, because the work being done on the gas is radiated outside the ship in the form of heat.
Like I said before: closed system with heat loss.

Energy within the ship leaves the ship in the form of heat. The efficiency of the engine is determined by its heat coefficient, which is directly proportional to the kinetic work transfered to the reciprocator...hence, linear motion.
My problem lays with the "hence, linear motion". There is no linear motion. I proved it in the other thread and you finally agreed. I'm not going to try and prove it again. You mechanism for absorbing energy and creating 'impact' doesn't matter. It's a closed massed system with no external force acting on it. It will just oscillate.

You agreed that the kinetic energy at mass A is converted to heat. Newton's study of gasses (and many others) supports this. Work done on the gas is radiated as heat. The reaction at mass A is equal and opposite, but it converts kinetic energy into heat. This creates an inequality of momentum in the cycle, because mass B is resistant to heat loss.

You are the one being hard of hearing now, Persol. There is a LOT of documentation to support the concepts in this engine. It isn't some blind theory based on the 'hunch' of a crackpot. It makes sense scientifically.

You cannot compare this idea to the others I have presented.

1) The motion itself is linear.
2) I have explained the inequality of momentum in both reactions clearly.
3) The feasibility of this model is backed by experimentation and proven physical law.

I'm confused. Is this supposed to create propulsion without adding new energy to the system? What keeps the oscillator moving? And if you are adding energy and removing heat to cause propulsion, how is that better than superconducting magnetic trains and such? It just doesn't seem very efficient.
On another note, the center of mass WILL change and I don't see the relevance.
For space propulsion, you just can't beat ramjets, solar sails, and black-hole-induced fusion (thank you sci.fi.). Really, though, I hope in all your mechanical meandering you keep an eye out for thought experiments of a more theoretical nature - even patent clerks have been known to come up with something useful... :bugeye:

I'm confused. Is this supposed to create propulsion without adding new energy to the system? What keeps the oscillator moving?
<HR>
No, the energy to reciprocate the body of the resonator is external to the resonator. A high energy solenoid could be used to 'hammer' the mass back and forth, being partially recharged by capacitors on the return stroke.


And if you are adding energy and removing heat to cause propulsion, how is that better than superconducting magnetic trains and such? It just doesn't seem very efficient.
<HR>
It is better than monorails and superboats because it requires no external friction to translate the mass of the 'ship.'

Stay tuned for a more efficient model. The effieciency of propulsion is dependent upon the efficency of heat transfer from the work gas to the exterior space. It could be quite efficient, actually.

Originally posted by synergy
On another note, the center of mass WILL change and I don't see the relevance. Why will it change though? The force is internal.

Why do you see this as a closed system?
The heat generated MUST be put off board, and the heat generated is caused by converting kinetic energy into heat.

Have you ever seen that diver that lands in 12 inches of water from like, 65 feet? Air bags save lives because the air absorbs the energy of impact. If a person in a 40mph collision landed on an equal surface area of hardpan dirt, it would shatter their bones.

Kinetic energy can be converted and dissipated, Persol. I'm taking that energy out of the system, out of the ship. This engine is feasible. I have no idea how efficient it would be, but it isn't like slapping the mass between two like springs, or against two like surfaces. The reactions are different in the direction of kinetic transfer. In the gas, the direction is every direction, and the heat created is dissipated outside the ship. (We're talking about at least 900 F temps using air as the gas).

In the first stroke of a cold start, the gas temp will rise above 900 F. By design, the majority of gas is exhausted just before the critical inertial moment. The inertial mass lands on a soft pillow, creates heat in that process, and that heat is moved off almost immediately.

This system is not closed.

Originally posted by Fluidity
Why do you see this as a closed system?
The heat generated MUST be put off board, and the heat generated is caused by converting kinetic energy into heat.
No mass is being exchanged, so it is a closed mass system. Everything I've seen considers this to be a closed system. Heat transfer is allowed in a closed system.

Have you ever seen that diver that lands in 12 inches of water from like, 65 feet? Air bags save lives because the air absorbs the energy of impact. If a person in a 40mph collision landed on an equal surface area of hardpan dirt, it would shatter their bones.
I'm sure there is a point in there somewhere... I mean other then the obvious "don't jump off a cliff".

Kinetic energy can be converted and dissipated, Persol.
I agred with this at the start.

I'm taking that energy out of the system, out of the ship.
Good for you.

This engine is feasible.
No it's not. There is no external force, the ship won't move.

I have no idea how efficient it would be, but it isn't like slapping the mass between two like springs, or against two like surfaces.
No matter the 'impact' cause the reaction is equal and opposite.

The reactions are different in the direction of kinetic transfer. In the gas, the direction is every direction, and the heat created is dissipated outside the ship. (We're talking about at least 900 F temps using air as the gas).
The gas will transfer this force to the container walls, which will push the container away. Equal and opposite.

In the first stroke of a cold start, the gas temp will rise above 900 F.
Calculations please.

By design, the majority of gas is exhausted just before the critical inertial moment.
The exhaust could provide propulsion... but otherwise...

The inertial mass lands on a soft pillow, creates heat in that process, and that heat is moved off almost immediately.
Fine, but this will not allow you to violate Newton's laws. I quote once again Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
This system is not closed.
It's a closed mass system... the word mass is usually left out because there is no such thing as a totally closed system.

Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
<HR>
This statement is absolutely true. The reason this engine works is because gas is extremely entropic in a kinetic reaction. The external force is the gas itself. The molecules of gas are already in a highly kinetic state, bouncing off the walls of the cylinder in random order and direction. The applied work to the gas increases the temperature and kinetic energy of the gas, but its order is still entropic. Every wall of the cylinder is under a balanced pressure. The equal and opposite reaction from the inertial mass changes place within the entropy of the gas, in every direction. The heat created by the work, which is in direct correlation with the transfer of kinetic energy, is immediately exahausted into the cooling system. The kinetic energy, which is now in the form of heat in the entropic reaction of the gas, leaves the system.

You are not following the terms, Persol. In a 250cc chamber with a 12:1 compression stroke, with an initial absolute pressure of 2 atmospheres at an initial temperature of 85 F. The final pressure will be roughly 400 lb in, and the temperature will be 822 F. The heat loss is very efficient in this kinetic reaction. Normally, heat loss is considered a bad thing. In this engine, heat loss is the source of acceleration at the opposite end of the cycle.

Study the entropy of gas, the conversion of kinetic energy into heat, and apply Newton's laws to the ideal gas law, and you will see this as an open kinetic system. The kinetic energy stored in the gas from the reaction with the inertial mass is exhausted off-ship. My first estimate of efficiency is around 25% based on the work done on the gas that is exhausted from the system, and the delta in kinetic transfer to the body of the ship.

I should have working model much superior to the model represented in the sketch within a month or so. I'll keep you posted.

Originally posted by Fluidity
Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
<HR>
This statement is absolutely true.
::nods::

The reason this engine works is because gas is extremely entropic in a kinetic reaction. The external force is the gas itself.
The gas is inside the ship, and by definition inside does not mean external.

The molecules of gas are already in a highly kinetic state, bouncing off the walls of the cylinder in random order and direction. The applied work to the gas increases the temperature and kinetic energy of the gas, but its order is still entropic. Every wall of the cylinder is under a balanced pressure. The equal and opposite reaction from the inertial mass changes place within the entropy of the gas, in every direction.
No... the reaction between the gas and the cylinder is still directionalized.

The heat created by the work, which is in direct correlation with the transfer of kinetic energy, is immediately exahausted into the cooling system. The kinetic energy, which is now in the form of heat in the entropic reaction of the gas, leaves the system.
If the gas is leaving the system that would provide propulsion. This does not appear to be the case.

You are not following the terms, Persol.
Lol... if you say so

In a 250cc....
In this engine, heat loss is the source of acceleration at the opposite end of the cycle.
Heat loss is not an external force.

Study the entropy of gas, the conversion of kinetic energy into heat, and apply Newton's laws to the ideal gas law, and you will see this as an open kinetic system.
I have studied this, it's basic fluid dynamics. However what does 'open kinetic system' mean exactly? I've never heard this before. Please stop making terms up.

The kinetic energy stored in the gas from the reaction with the inertial mass is exhausted off-ship.
So you've now decided to start exhausting stuff outside the ship? Even if you do this the only propulsion will come from shooting gas out the back at a certain velocity.

I have studied this, it's basic fluid dynamics. However what does 'open kinetic system' mean exactly? I've never heard this before. Please stop making terms up.

The kinetic energy stored in the gas from the reaction with the inertial mass is exhausted off-ship.
So you've now decided to start exhausting stuff outside the ship? Even if you do this the only propulsion will come from shooting gas out the back at a certain velocity.
<HR>
making terms up. I didn't make up any terms. The system is not closed.

The HEAT is radiated off ship, not the gas. The heat is the kinetic energy stored in the reaction. It's incredibly simple.

As far as the reaction being directionalized, yes, at a certain point. But, it takes time for this to occur. Before the reaction is allowed to complete, while the inertial mass is still in motion, the heated gas is exausted into the cooling coils, where the heat is radiated off ship.

We do not have to eject mass to make the ship move. We do not have to push against an external surface to make the ship move.

What we have to do is convert one cycle of an ongoing cyclic reaction into heat and remove that heat from the system. Heat, mass, energy...it's all involved in the same reactions, Persol. What's the problem?

Argue this:

<b>Newton's laws are built upon a perfectly uniform motion. There is no such thing in the real world. Reactions are almost exactly equal and opposite, but never exactly so.</b>

This was the foundation of this entire concept. To produce significant heat loss in an ongoing cycle, resulting in an inequality in the DIRECTION of the kinetic energy. A rocket engine works on heat loss, if you care to look at it simplistically. The inertial mass is merely a conveyor in a kinetic reaction that completes when the heat loss is radiated off ship.

Originally posted by Fluidity
I didn't make up any terms.
Please show me where someone uses 'open kinetic system'

The system is not closed.
If you choose to use a different definition of 'closed then everyone else then so be it. If you want people to understand you however this is a closed system with heat loss.

As far as the reaction being directionalized, yes, at a certain point. But, it takes time for this to occur.
It happens at the speed of sound.

We do not have to eject mass to make the ship move. We do not have to push against an external surface to make the ship move.
You need an external force... you agreed that newton's law was correct, and then ignored it. Where's the external force?

What we have to do is convert one cycle of an ongoing cyclic reaction into heat and remove that heat from the system.
This will not move the ship

Heat, mass, energy...it's all involved in the same reactions, Persol. What's the problem?
The problem is in the way you are assuming this translates into motion.

Argue this:
Newton's laws are built upon a perfectly uniform motion. There is no such thing in the real world. Reactions are almost exactly equal and opposite, but never exactly so.
God damn, there is no reason to argue this. No, it's not exact, but which reaction is stronger is luck and the difference is so miniscule as to not matter. One time the force will be stronger left, the next stronger right. It won't produce sustained motion.

This was the foundation of this entire concept. To produce significant heat loss in an ongoing cycle, resulting in an inequality in the DIRECTION of the kinetic energy.
Kinetic energy is not always conserved... momentum is, and you are totally ignoring this. Just do a simple momentum calc and you'll be able to get rid of this theory.

A rocket engine works on heat loss, if you care to look at it simplistically.
NO! A rocket engine works by shooting mass out the back at a high rate of speed.

The inertial mass is merely a conveyor in a kinetic reaction that completes when the heat loss is radiated off ship.
The rocket is only generating heat to push mass out the back. If you used a mass driver to throw the same mass off the back of the rocket at the same speed you'd get the same propulsion.

I understand your argument, Persol. I will not argue with you any further.

I appreciate your attempt to 'teach' me, but I see something beyond the simple argument of momentum.

RTD2, and yourself, admitted that the gas absorbs a significant amount of the kinetic energy of the inertial mass in the form of heat. This is thrust of this thread, and because of that, I am not easily convinced the engine is not feasible.

We are at an empass, and I respect your input. I only ask that you do the same for me, as I have (however misguided) reasons to believe what I believe to be true, until proven otherwise experimentally.

The argument of momentum does not follow in any direction outside the range of the discussion we have already had. Kinetic energy, potential energy, and momentum are inexorably tied. They are measured differently, but they are at the root, the same thing; the energy of mass in motion.

Regardless of the knowledge I posses, however educated I become, I will look for this solution. I believe it must be done, and if the whole damn world thinks it is impossible, all the more reason to look for it.

I refuse to believe a zero mass ejection drive is impossible, when energy and mass are essentially the same thing in a different state of composition. THIS is why I believe it is possible. I would urge everyone to think about it if I had any clout.

Thanks,

Clay

Originally posted by Fluidity
The argument of momentum does not follow in any direction outside the range of the discussion we have already had. Kinetic energy, potential energy, and momentum are inexorably tied. They are measured differently, but they are at the root, the same thing; the energy of mass in motion. Ok... you've heard my argument, so it's up to you to decide. As one last note, ke, pe, and momentum are not measuring the same thing, as some of these must stay constant while others must balance out.

Enjoy.