I will not deny that there are inarguable points. Angels wear bikinis, idiots are fashionable...etc.

This discussion is about mathematical models and their likelihood of error. The easier something is to study, the better the math model for that physical behavior. We measure the speed of light, the force of gravity, but we cannot go the speed of light, or apparently, quantize gravity. Double Special Relativity...for a double special case we humans will not experience for some time, unless we are in a lab throwing fermions, bosons, and massons at one another.

I keep posting different concepts of an inertial engine that is basically closed, because I believe it is possible. I cannot give you a list of infinite numbers that add up to four, but I can prove that it can be done with two numbers of infinite variety that add up to four. I can also prove there are an infinite number of combinations that do not add up to four. If I want four apples, I pick them up at the store one at a time. If I want four apples every day, and I don't know what they look like, I have to quantize apples. I have to go get four pieces of every fruit at the grocery store, knowing they are there. I will have at least four apples, but probably more. Perhaps two pieces of every fruit would do, knowing they would always have at least two varieties.

I will almost always come home with more than four apples, but I will always come home with at least that many. It's a ridiculous proposition, unless I'm looking at gravity, or particles, or things I can't really see.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It is a truth in a perfect frame of reference. But, in the real world, it doesn't really happen. You could argue that it does, but I can virtually prove that it does not. However, in a million equal actions, the reactions are probably as nearly exactly opposite as could be determined. No argument there.

Motion cannot be generated by a closed inertial system. This one bothers me. I can find an infinite number of cases where this is true. But, because of entropy, I suspect there are almost an infinite number of cases where it is not true. I just want to find one closed system that produces thrust.

How do we define a closed system? If I can put it in a box, and it can move freely in an inertial reference frame, it is a closed system. It would seem that I want to extend this definition a little further. If I can put off heat, the system is not closed. If mass leaves the inertial system, even though it stays in the box, it is not closed.

Philosophically, I would like to argue my case. Mathematically, I cannot prove it. If I could, the equations would probably have the following variables.

H = Heat loss
F = Force
P = Potential Energy
E = Entropy


If, the kinetic energy in the inertial mass, can be converted to heat by being absorbed in an entropic reaction mass, and the heat in the reaction mass can be ventilated outside the 'box,' the force applied to the inertial mass will net an equal and opposite reaction of gained momentum proportional to the heat loss.

The above is my argument for a non-closed system. When a cue ball strikes a rack of solids and stripes, only under very exacting conditions does one ball approach the kinetic force of the cue ball. Some of the balls never touch the bumpers, even though the kinetic energy went right through them, divided by the number of balls, the angle of impact...etc. It is as nearly an equal and opposite reaction as we normally observe.

We could argue whether or not the reaction of the solids and stripes is entropic. It is not. But, the mass of the fifteen balls did a pretty good job of absorbing the impact of the cue ball. I feel the sudden jerk of my cue stick strike the cue ball, and the loud crack of it striking the mass at the other end of the table certainly feels equal and opposite. But, there is some heat loss in the reaction, some friction on the felt, and a lack of perfectly elastic collisions all around. My cue stick experienced a greater force than was applied to the fifteen balls down stream.

I would imagine shooting a cue ball into a mass of water balloons would be much less spectacular. The reaction is far more entropic, and much harder to calculate. We assume it is an equal and opposite reaction, but it isn't. There was more heat loss in the rubbery skin of the balloons, the mass of the balloons undulated, absorbing energy in a dissipating spring action of waves and internal stress, and my cue ball came to a rather slow stop. It isn't hard to imagine that I could strike the cue ball with all my might, and the last row of water balloons wouldn't even budge. It becomes impossible to prove where all the energy went at a certain degree of entropy.

Heat is another metric of measuring potential energy. If I generate heat intentionally, I am doing work. If that work is moved outside my system, I am not working in a closed system.
How I generate momentum or accelerative force depends on how I create the heat and what I do with it.

If I can externally vent part of the energy from a kinetic reaction, I can produce motion from a 'closed' inertial system, because it isn't really closed.

I can't break Newton's laws of Inertia. What I suggest is that we learn how to orient the components of a system to do what I mention above efficiently. I can't see how we could fail to create an accelerative force.

Breaking the rules isn't possible, but bending them just right should produce positive results.

nature is a machine that does not care what you think. You cannot break it. You cannot bend it.

If there were accidental acceleration, the sun or Jupiter would have flown off already since they have tried every combination of movement and rotations you could try in a billion years and they have not gone away.

nature is a machine that does not care what you think. You cannot break it. You cannot bend it.
<HR>
Light doesn't behave in nature the way a laser does. Controlled nuclear reactions do not occur in nature. Men cannot fly, but airplanes do. What do you mean by bending the laws of nature?

If there were accidental acceleration, the sun or Jupiter would have flown off already since they have tried every combination of movement and rotations you could try in a billion years and they have not gone away.
<HR> I am not suggesting accidental acceleration. You apparently did not read my post, or understand it. The latter could be my fault. I have defined a principle in which kinetic energy is off-loaded in the form of heat from an inertial system in order to create an open system that produces acceleration. This would certainly not be an accident. Entropy is not an accident. It has limits. We would have to work within the limits of the entropy of the mass in question.

In the physical sense, anything than can physically happen is "natural."

When we fly in airplanes, or make nuclear reactors, we are not breaking the laws of physics. Nothing we do is "unnatural" in the physical sense.

Most physicists use the terms 'natural' and 'physical' interchangably.

- Warren

I don't mean to say 'bend' the laws of nature to make things happen that can't happen. I'm mean to say: Create a system in which the laws of nature are manipulated to achieve what we currently believe is impossible.

Since the laws of nature currently state that it is impossilbe you would be breaking them.

The laws of nature do not deem it impossible. Humans do.

If you want to be technical then

"Since the laws of nature as we know them currently state that it is impossilbe you would be breaking them."

When we say 'laws of nature' is is assumed that there is always a chance of them being wrong... but nobody's proven it yet.

Due to this, you can not examine a situation with the 'laws of nature' and prove the laws wrong. They are internally consistent.

Due to this, you can not examine a situation with the 'laws of nature' and prove the laws wrong. They are internally consistent.
<HR>
I have no intention of proving the laws of nature wrong.

1) Can kinetic energy be converted into heat?

2) If the heat I generate is dispersed outside my 'system,' do I have a closed system?

I made a mistake saying 'bend' the laws of nature. I hope to inspire people to work with the laws of nature to make something happen we have never witnessed happening before with any degree of efficacy.

The CMB of space is about 2.7 K. There is a substantial resource of energy we ignore, or seem to, in the differential in temperatures available. In Hawaii, there is a thermodynamic powerplant that operates solely on the differential in thermocline temperatures of the ocean. It requires no fuel, only temperature.
It is the most cost effective means of producing electricity on the planet, by far. The fact that few people have heard about it speaks of our economic need to use standardized technologies to uphold the ongoing trend of fuel hungry machines.

If we can harvest the temperature differential in space by efficiently converting kinetic energy into heat, we will be able to move through space much more efficiently. We are not talking about the laws of nature on Earth, we are talking about the laws of nature in space, which we are not accustomed to thinking about.

Please, answer the two questions above without dismissing them as irrelevant.

Originally posted by Fluidity
Due to this, you can not examine a situation with the 'laws of nature' and prove the laws wrong. They are internally consistent.
<HR>
I have no intention of proving the laws of nature wrong.
Just pointing out that movement without mass ejection is deemed impossible by the laws of nature. The whole remain at rest until external force thing again...

1) Can kinetic energy be converted into heat?
Yes. Friction.

2) If the heat I generate is dispersed outside my 'system,' do I have a closed system?
Depends what you mean by closed. Generally closed means that whatever mass is in the system is the mass that will always be in the system. Heat transfer is then just measured as a loss or gain of heat.

The CMB of space is about 2.7 K. There is a substantial resource of energy we ignore, or seem to, in the differential in temperatures available.
I'm pretty sure that we can't actually use this energy except as a heat source/sink. (As they do in Hawaii with the ocean)

It is the most cost effective means of producing electricity on the planet, by far. The fact that few people have heard about it speaks of our economic need to use standardized technologies to uphold the ongoing trend of fuel hungry machines.
It evidently doesn't produce much power, and eviromentalists get up in arms about it.

If we can harvest the temperature differential in space by efficiently converting kinetic energy into heat, we will be able to move through space much more efficiently.
I'm missing something here. We still need to produce the KE somehow. Adding an extra step would seem to just increase the losses.

We are not talking about the laws of nature on Earth, we are talking about the laws of nature in space, which we are not accustomed to thinking about.
no comment:)

Please, answer the two questions above without dismissing them as irrelevant.
ahhh... but dad?

1) Can kinetic energy be converted into heat?
Yes. Friction.
<HR>
OK, this is just ridiculous. When I do work on a gas, and I radiate that heat outside, as in an A/C unit, the removal or transfer of heat is not friction at work.

2) If the heat I generate is dispersed outside my 'system,' do I have a closed system?
Depends what you mean by closed. Generally closed means that whatever mass is in the system is the mass that will always be in the system. Heat transfer is then just measured as a loss or gain of heat.
<HR>
The gas/liquid in a cooling system is ported beyond a physical barrier to interact with the ambient temperature surrounding the enclosure it cools. The heat from a car engine is generated by the burning of fuel, which is a kinetic event created by converting matter from one state to another, releasing the kinetic energy in a liquid fuel for example, by turning it into CO gas and water. That heat is transmitted into the cooling system of your car, and dispersed into the atmosphere. This is an exchange of kinetic energy that has little or nothing to do with friction. (Though friction in car engines is rather high) The cooling system is closed, but the transfer of kinetic energy is not, or it wouldn't work at all.

Originally posted by Fluidity
1) Can kinetic energy be converted into heat?
Yes. Friction.
<HR>
OK, this is just ridiculous.
If you insist... but it's true. Friction converts KE to heat. You know this, so what call it ridiculous?

When I do work on a gas, and I radiate that heat outside, as in an A/C unit, the removal or transfer of heat is not friction at work.
You didn't ask for every single method of changing KE into heat... and I'm not going to try and list eery single method because I'd miss one.

Depends what you mean by closed. Generally closed means that whatever mass is in the system is the mass that will always be in the system. Heat transfer is then just measured as a loss or gain of heat.
<HR>
The gas/liquid in a cooling system is ported beyond a physical barrier to interact with the ambient temperature surrounding the enclosure it cools.
If you include the coolant tubes the system is closed mass. It's all how you define the boundary, and it's just easier to include the tube.

The heat from a car engine is generated by the burning of fuel, which is a kinetic event created by converting matter from one state to another, releasing the kinetic energy in a liquid fuel for example, by turning it into CO gas and water.
I'm not an IC expert, but I thought that the explosion released heat which then expanded the gases.

That heat is transmitted into the cooling system of your car, and dispersed into the atmosphere. This is an exchange of kinetic energy that has little or nothing to do with friction.
ok

The cooling system is closed, but the transfer of kinetic energy is not, or it wouldn't work at all.
You're just debating semantics again. You can have a closed system with heat transfer. However, a car is not closed because the gases are expeled, but if the gases were contained in ballon the system would be closed, and work perfectly fine.

Fluidity,

The group refuses to believe you since it does appear Newton miswrote his law.

I can say this because what you want to do is not only achievable but has been done by myself (3 time) and many others.

The fact that it hasn't worked well enough to be practical it is not general practice yet. But does it work. It damn well does.

The fact is the law should be re-written:

"For every force there is an equal counter-force"

"Opposite" is not correct.

This is a short paraphrase of a discussion in UniKEF at Vol2,Lines 3,240 - 3,310.

In some case systems can be designed wherein power in is applied as torque through 360 degrees with no net force on the frame (you have to use two (preferrable counter rotating) units.

The output is a linear force, times distance of frame motion over time equals power out.

END OF STORY

They don't have to like it that is the way it is.

Originally posted by MacM
They don't have to like it that is the way it is. You must realize that if this were true every scientist would be jumping at the chance to perform this 'experiment'.

Persol,

I can't answer your question other than like I said it hasn't worked well. If it did I can assure you the shuttle would be scrapped and the aviation industry would be entirely different.

But the fact that it does work at all makes Newtons statement
marginally in error and in need of refinement.

PS: We not only recently held a public demonstration of my ROPE engine but my son is now currently completing another design of my AMDATA units which I also hope to demonstrate publically soon.

So just hang on an you may get to see it. Just don't form an opinion before the fact.

The inevitable problem with the system I propose isn't whether or not it is feasible, it is simply that heat cannot be transferred in space by convection or similar means. All of the heat would have to leave the system as infrared light. I damn well haven't figured that out, yet.

Thanks for your input MacM. The term 'opposite' certainly applies in systems like piston engines, tennis, basketball, and hockey. But, I do believe it is more correct to say equal counterforce, especially if the reaction mass is entropic or highly angular.

I can only imagine what the members will think after I agree with that.

Fluidity,

:D

If heat goes into the box and stays there then the box is a closed system. If heat goes out of the box then it is an open system, and you haven't invented anything new. Even chemical energy has mass - this can be seen because, for example, water has less mass than the sum of the masses for two hydrogen and one oxygen atom - the difference in mass is the energy used to bond them together. If you are arguing that the box is a closed system (I'm not clear if that is what you are saying, but if..) because only heat is exiting and heat has no mass then you are wrong, all energy is equivalent to mass. Again, I'm not sure that is what you are claiming. And MacM, I will go see UniKEF and see what it says. I will have an open mind. But I don't see how a zero-emission drive could possibly work. Your other ideas I like, but this one strikes me as being too similar to some of the attempts at perpetual motion I've seen. But I will maintain an open mind, at first. I probably won't be on here for a week or so, so see you all later:D
Aaron