New Technology in Propulsion: Vicansel Project.

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Eduard David

Registered Member
Propellant to impulse a spacecraft from inside the spacecraft.

The idea is to create wind equal to that of a hurricane, more or less.

Construction:

It's for aerospace companies, I can not build it.



System Closed Vicansel


Second video of the propellant of the Closed System Vicansel


Explanation in video of the Closed System Vicansel


Invented by: Victor Elias Espinoza Guedez
Phone: +58 (0426) 4478109 Venezuela
My email is: victor.elias.espinoza.guedez@outlook.com
Date of the invention: November 07, 2016
It lacks a perpetual magnet engine without electricity, for perpetual space propulsion.​
 
From the website associated with this:

"I think the planet electrons create gravity and can be used to create human attraction electrons in outer space."

The Dick Tracy comic strip Space Coupe in the 1950s was more a practical (magnetic) means of space propulsion, and was even described in more detail than this.

I wouldn't spend a nickel on the Vicansel propulsion system, or any other propulsion system that claims to break Newton's third law in the vacuum of space.
 
Cesspool please.
It's as ridiculous and ignorant of science as (all) his other claims.
 
danshawen said:
..., or any other propulsion system that claims to break Newton's third law in the vacuum of space.
Click to expand...
So Dan, have you done your darndest to instil some common sense into the evidently deeply deluded folks at Eagleworks? You know, the ones there - and elsewhere around the world - that are so incompetent or devious or both that they persist with 'silly' claims to have in fact measured 'reactionless propulsion'. Which btw would not be breaking Newton's 3rd law.
 
Q-reeus said:
So Dan, have you done your darndest to instil some common sense into the evidently deeply deluded folks at Eagleworks? You know, the ones there - and elsewhere around the world - that are so incompetent or devious or both that they persist with 'silly' claims to have in fact measured 'reactionless propulsion'. Which btw would not be breaking Newton's 3rd law.
Click to expand...

Q-reeus ,

I have no idea what their idea is about .
 
Q-reeus said:
So Dan, have you done your darndest to instil some common sense into the evidently deeply deluded folks at Eagleworks? You know, the ones there - and elsewhere around the world - that are so incompetent or devious or both that they persist with 'silly' claims to have in fact measured 'reactionless propulsion'. Which btw would not be breaking Newton's 3rd law.
Click to expand...

My Dad who was not educated beyond 9th grade had devised a scheme of mechanical propulsion of a flying saucer shaped space vehicle whose insides were basically a centrifuge. The idea was, the rods attached on an incline to outer weights would push upward the faster they spun, lifting the whole vehicle in a preferred direction.

Why doesn't it work? You'd have as much luck using a ladder to climb to the moon (actually possible), or achieve spaceflight using a very tall car jack pushing against the ground to heft a car along the same trajectory. The only thing a centrifuge arrangement will do is to push the top half of the flying saucer further away from its bottom.

Tricks to get ground vehicles or even air propelled vehicles to move in a preferred direction are also common, but this does not work in a spacecraft operating in frictionless space. Any movement of internal weights to propel a spacecraft in one direction will fail unless something is pushed permanently out of the spacecraft in the opposite direction in order to propel it. Rockets work like this by means of action --> reaction, more commonly known as Newton's 3rd. Without Newton's 3rd law, inertia must be ascribed to massless, frictionless space. Except for using the potential energy of gravitation and the kinetic energy motion of planets as a means of propulsion (both possible and very practical), reactionless drives that are self contained aren't going anywhere fast. You'd get more propulsion by thermally insulating one side of a metal container and allowing the radiation from the sun to heat the side facing it until a sufficient flux of infrared photons caused the whole thing to move. Solar sails do the same thing more efficiently, and are quite practical without the necessity of moving weights. Moving weights are great for mechanically stabilizing spacecraft (like a gyroscope), but not as a primary means of propulsion.

If something inside a spacecraft is spinning, the friction of the operation of the bearings will eventually cause differential heating which will once again send infrared photons out from the walls of the spacecraft resulting in an almost negligible amount of thrust by means of Newton's 3rd.
 
Last edited:
danshawen said:
My Dad who was not educated beyond 9th grade had devised a scheme of mechanical propulsion of a flying saucer shaped space vehicle whose insides were basically a centrifuge. The idea was, the rods attached on an incline to outer weights would push upward the faster they spun, lifting the whole vehicle in a preferred direction.

Why doesn't it work? You'd have as much luck using a ladder to climb to the moon (actually possible), or achieve spaceflight using a very tall car jack pushing against the ground to heft a car along the same trajectory. The only thing a centrifuge arrangement will do is to push the top half of the flying saucer further away from its bottom.

Tricks to get ground vehicles or even air propelled vehicles to move in a preferred direction are also common, but this does not work in a spacecraft operating in frictionless space. Any movement of internal weights to propel a spacecraft in one direction will fail unless something is pushed permanently out of the spacecraft in the opposite direction in order to propel it. Rockets work like this by means of action --> reaction, more commonly known as Newton's 3rd. Without Newton's 3rd law, inertia must be ascribed to massless, frictionless space. Except for using the potential energy of gravitation and the kinetic energy motion of planets as a means of propulsion (both possible and very practical), reactionless drives that are self contained aren't going anywhere fast. You'd get more propulsion by thermally insulating one side of a metal container and allowing the radiation from the sun to heat the side facing it until a sufficient flux of infrared photons caused the whole thing to move. Solar sails do the same thing more efficiently, and are quite practical without the necessity of moving weights. Moving weights are great for mechanically stabilizing spacecraft (like a gyroscope), but not as a primary means of propulsion.
Click to expand...
Your dad was an imaginative type then, and not alone in trying that sort of thing. It got serious attention from US defense bods back in the 50's, and we have discussed the topic before:
http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3319113/
Look, I agree that if it's up to purely mechanical whirly stuff, Newton's 3rd law is a show-stopper, and in fact made that point here:
http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3348948/
It was a shock to me when first realizing that valid solutions to Maxwell's equations, long there in the literature, unambiguously predict thrust in a closed system. Hidden in plain sight.
[edit: crossed wires with the links - now fixed!]
 
Last edited:
Q-reeus said:
Your dad was an imaginative type then, and not alone in trying that sort of thing. It got serious attention from US defense bods back in the 50's, and we have discussed the topic before:
http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3348948/
Look, I agree that if it's up to purely mechanical whirly stuff, Newton's 3rd law is a show-stopper, and in fact made that point here:
http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3319113/
It was a shock to me when first realizing that valid solutions to Maxwell's equations, long there in the literature, unambiguously predict thrust in a closed system. Hidden in plain sight.
Click to expand...
Even pair creation of photons (virtual or real) yield no net thrust against the vacuum.

If the Casimir effect could succeed in pumping energy out of the vacuum, that too would be a reactionless drive, wouldn't it? That's why it's a non-starter as well.
 
danshawen said:
Even pair creation of photons (virtual or real) yield no net thrust against the vacuum.

If the Casimir effect could succeed in pumping energy out of the vacuum, that too would be a reactionless drive, wouldn't it? That's why it's a non-starter as well.
Click to expand...
No arguments there, Dan. And see - I've given you a like back!
 
---------------------------------------
VICANSEL PROJECT 3
---------------------------------------
The expanded polystyrene weighs very little and what ejects the propeller produces the movement. My idea is to use a propeller enclosed in a tray, but larger than the spacecraft.

See movement in closed system:

​
 
Eduard David said:
---------------------------------------
VICANSEL PROJECT 3
---------------------------------------
The expanded polystyrene weighs very little and what ejects the propeller produces the movement. My idea is to use a propeller enclosed in a tray, but larger than the spacecraft.

See movement in closed system:​
Click to expand...
You so remind of another character thinhinghiem that occasionally plagues this site. To convince yourself it can't work, what you need to do is enclose the thing via an airtight dome, then float the whole arrangement in a bathtub or other still body of water. To your sad dismay, it WILL be found there is no movement that an actual net thrust would generate. Only then will it be clear your fan is blowing just as hard against the 'spaceship' one way, as it is against the rest of your sytem the other way.
Do it, accept the result, then get on with your life in a more constructive direction.
 
Watched your newer version at https://www.youtube'dot'com/watch?v=paNE_Fe4bDM (so change 'dot' to .)
Which seems to answer what I suggested last post. The really noticeable movement comes when switching power on or off. Which is when the fan motor is spinning up or down. Which is when there is both a reaction torque owing to changing motor angular momentum, and a thrust impulse owing to changing wind speed.
Both these are just temporary effects that redistribute mass internally and cannot be sustained. A *careful* test will show the net effect balances to zero.

There is a further possible source. If the motor & fan vibrates unevenly, that may in turn generate slightly directional water waves that will provide a feeble thrust in one direction. No chance of that happening in space!
 
Last edited:
Eduard David said:
---------------------------------------
VICANSEL PROJECT 3
---------------------------------------
The expanded polystyrene weighs very little and what ejects the propeller produces the movement. My idea is to use a propeller enclosed in a tray, but larger than the spacecraft.

See movement in closed system:

​
Click to expand...
A ladder longer than the combined diameters of the Earth and moon and their respective orbits will of course allow the traversal of the distance between them without means of propulsion other than legwork. So would a space elevator (or a cascaded space slingshot) system. It doesn't make them any more practical to realize than trying to expand the size of a spacecraft to the point that Newton's 3rd no longer comes into play. Give it up.

In this, Newton's 3rd is as venerable and unbeatable as Einstein.
 
origin said:
He is back as a sock puppet. This is not quite as funny as his wood burning space shuttle - but at least he is still trying on his 'stand up' comedy routines.
Click to expand...
I particularly liked his nuclear powered water cannon that would shoot water into a lake.
 
Reported him as well, but I wouldn't mind if he stayed around a bit. He could teach some of our resident un-banned cranks how to make people laugh.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top