MaiShirunaiispretty
12/20/08 06:59 PM
207.160.205.13
|
I've read his (?) posts too and others' posts also. They don't seem too farfetched as being considered "bull crap" but rather limited in physics explanation. If you can't disprove an object, then at least in theory it's provable. He's done a good job explaining this transit drive design. I'm beginning to wonder if those who can't prove the theoretically proven are just posting to increase their ranks. Helps to explain why or why not an object is theoretically possible.
Wow, those bracing maneuvers sure do come in handy when firing proximity fused precision cluster flak ammo at a Balancer LAM. Unfortunately they make my 'Mech an immobile target for that LAM. Oh well, at least I'm getting partial cover.
|
Lafeel
12/20/08 08:06 PM
157.157.75.183
|
What you haven't done is read all the posts on the matter, but that is hardly surprising, considering that that exchange happened on a different message board.
Suffice it to say that it has been proven, categorically, that this so called miracle drive of his is nothing more than a wet dream, and will remain so for the forseeable future.
Chip, if you want to get this sort of bs accepted, then talk to Catalyst, or go mail your senator to see if he can't repeal Newton's third law of physics. Leave the rest of us, who are perfectly fine with this game as it is, out of it
|
Prince_of_Darkness
12/20/08 10:20 PM
205.202.120.139
|
Heh.
|
Cray
12/20/08 11:13 PM
97.97.243.184
|
Quote:
Chip, if you want to get this sort of bs accepted, then talk to Catalyst
Quite a few of the current Catalyst writers were exposed to this idea in its Bop Drive incarnation and subsequently saw it in this incarnation on HMPro.com, so there's no need to talk to them again about it.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Lafeel
12/20/08 11:16 PM
157.157.75.183
|
Suspected as much, which is why my second suggestion was about as likely..
Personally I don't give a rat's ass what he does, I just want it to be put on record I want nothing to do with his version of BT.
Edited by Lafeel (12/20/08 11:17 PM)
|
Newtype
12/21/08 01:07 PM
75.52.182.110
|
Cray, if you're so convinced that my rerevised resuable fuel transit drive won't work then go ahead and tell why it won't. I've done my share of explaining. Perhaps the real reason why you won't accept that it works is because you're biased in favor of the Clans and don't want this design of mine to be desired by those that are Inner Sphere/Periphery because it would give them a significant advantage over the Clans. Cray and anyone else who believes my design won't work, I'll give you till January 1st to tell why my design won't work in full detail. If you can't do that, then just admit my design can work as I've described.
|
Kovax
12/22/08 11:57 AM
75.146.193.46
|
About this:
"I'm not convinced there is always an opposite and equal reaction to every action. Take for example a brick thrown at a typical brick wall - sure it'll bounce off (opposite and equal reaction), but a brick thrown at a glass window will smash its way through it (no opposite and no equal reaction) due to weak construction. The burnt waste gases placed in the combustion chambers are simply heated again to expand and push (actions) that provide thrust." - Newtype
First, there is the initial action, which is to throw the brick. Imparting energy to the brick causes a backward thrust of the thrower, which needs to be cancelled by expending muscle power in the legs to maintain one's balance, tansferring a small amount of backward motion to the planet upon which you stand, to offset the thrust imparted to the brick.
In case 1, the brick hits the wall, and rebounds. This imparts energy to the wall (and forward thrust to whatever planet the wall is connected to, cancelling the backward thrust applied to the planet when the brick was propelled forward), while some of it is converted into heat, some into sound, and some portion of the remainder is transferred back to the brick, causing it to bounce off in the other direction, which also adds to the accelleration of the wall and planet. This small additional force will again be cancelled by the horizontal vector of the impact of the brick with the ground not far from the wall.
In case 2, the brick hits the glass, transferring some of its energy to the glass, which flys away forward in tiny pieces. The brick, moving at a lower velocity due to the loss of energy upon impact, eventually strikes the ground, again transferring energy to the impacted planetary surface, some of which becomes heat, some sound, etc.
In either case, energy has been applied from outside the system to create the initial movement, and energy escapes the system in the forms of heat and sound. The sum of all vectors still equals 0, but it is very difficult to figure out all of the various forms of energy inputs and outputs in this case.
If you're re-heating the waste gasses in your combustion chamber, that has to be done by burning FRESH fuel. You're NOT going to get the old gasses to re-burn a second time. Your chemistry knowledge seems to suffer from the same curious affliction as your understanding of physics.
Note: contrary to popular belief, wishing something has no effect on its existence or non-existence in the real world.
|
Newtype
12/22/08 12:08 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Reheated (not reburnt) gases in combustion chambers can be used again for thrust. Think of a hot air balloon that continuously reheats the air gases in it to provide lift. I provided a diagram and total telling of the forces involved for the rerevised resuable fuel transit drive. By the way, this transit drive works every other turn since the panels 5 have to be repositioned to their starting positions during the alternating turns the combustion chambers are not reheating the gases.
Ok, regarding my rerevised reusable fuel transit drive explain to me which forces cancel: forces1, forces2, forces3 (the bottom force 4 is the other force 3), and forces4
Edited by Newtype (12/23/08 12:02 PM)
|
Venom
12/24/08 02:33 PM
173.20.187.162
|
The action that you speak of is YOU THROWING THE BRICK! To make it simpler to understand, imagine that you are in a little red wagon with a pile of bricks on a flat street. Throw a brick. The brick will go one way and the wagon will go the other. This is your equal and opposite reacton. Continue to throw bricks at a decent rate and you will accelerate because you are applying more "thrust" and your mass is decreasing. This is the simplified explanation to rocket motors.
Now attach a board verticaly to the same wagon of bricks. Throw a brick at the board. Watch as it comes back and hits you in the face. The force of you throwing the brick is cancelled by the brick hitting the board(though the impact of the brick to your face may impart some motion). This is the simplified explanation of why your system will not work.
Another way of looking at it is this(I get the feeling you need to be told things multiple times very simply) What happens when you take a tube, closed at one end and fill it with a low explosive? You have a rocket. Now what happens when you take that same tube and cap the other end? You have a bomb!
|
Cray
12/24/08 04:14 PM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
The action that you speak of is YOU THROWING THE BRICK!
Venom, HeroChip was getting explanations of this sort about 9 years ago on rec.games.mecha when he was trying to sell a similar reactionless drive concept. He's received the explanations over and over as he reinvents this "enclosed rocket" (or enclosed sails, or recycling rocket, or Bop Drive).
And Magnet Drives
And then there was his famous declaration on rec.games.mecha, 12.19.1999:
"If the ship was sealed shut (sails and all are inside) and an artificial wind created inside the pushes toward and onto the sail, then the ship can move too." --HEROChip
After 9 years, if he hasn't gotten it, he's not going to get it.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Newtype
12/26/08 11:24 AM
207.160.205.13
|
So if there really is an opposite and equal reaction for every action does this mean that the sun revolves around the Earth everytime the Earth revolves around the sun?
Quote:
In case 2, the brick hits the glass, transferring some of its energy to the glass, which flys away forward in tiny pieces. The brick, moving at a lower velocity due to the loss of energy upon impact, eventually strikes the ground, again transferring energy to the impacted planetary surface, some of which becomes heat, some sound, etc.
Apparently there are multiple reactions (tiny pieces of glass) when the brick strikes the glass rather than an opposite and equal reaction, and there are multiple reactions (heat, sound, etc.) when the brick strikes the ground rather than an opposite and equal reaction.
Quote:
"If the ship was sealed shut (sails and all are inside) and an artificial wind created inside the pushes toward and onto the sail, then the ship can move too." --HEROChip
One artificial wind will bounce off the midship bulkhead and hit the aft bulkhead resulting net movement of zero. But why does MaiShirunaiispretty's plastic covred raft work? It uses two electric fans that's rotor shafts are positioned in opposite and equal directions, two curved pipes in which one curved pipe is curved towards the left and one is curved to the right, and a wooden board facing both ends of those two pipes (all components covered up). The fans cancel out each other's opposite and equal reaction the curves' actions cancel out the curves' opposite and equal reactions but the wooden block has actions that provide forward movement that are not cancelled out.
What cancels out forces 1, 2, 3, and 4 of my rerevised reusable fuel transit drive?
Edited by Newtype (12/26/08 12:12 PM)
|
MaiShirunaiispretty
12/29/08 11:26 AM
207.160.205.13
|
If every action has an opposite and equal reaction, then Hurricane Katrina would not have knocked over the levees in New Orleans and the airplanes that attacked the U.S. on 9/11 would not have crashed into the World Trade Center towers. Face it, Newton was wrong when he said that every action has an opposite and equal reaction.
Wow, those bracing maneuvers sure do come in handy when firing proximity fused precision cluster flak ammo at a Balancer LAM. Unfortunately they make my 'Mech an immobile target for that LAM. Oh well, at least I'm getting partial cover.
|
Fang
12/29/08 12:31 PM
12.54.128.7
|
You guys are so freakin stupid. nuff said.
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
Cray
12/29/08 02:23 PM
68.205.198.74
|
Quote:
You guys are so freakin stupid. nuff said.
There's only one guy at work here - MaiShirunaiispretty is a NewType/HeroChip sock puppet.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Fang
12/29/08 02:28 PM
12.54.128.7
|
And how does a hot air ballon continually reheat those gases? BY EXPENDING MORE FUEL! what do you think powers the flame in the basket that reheats the air? Like I said, You are just being stubborn and stupid. Let it go, it doesn't work. Buh Bye.
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
Newtype
12/29/08 02:46 PM
207.160.205.13
|
I've noticed that only "babble" replies are being replies now by Cray and other doubters. Obviously these doubters don't have the intelligence to understand actions and reactions.
|
MacLeod
12/29/08 04:07 PM
76.126.19.26
|
Let's put it this way, Newtype/Maiwhateverthehell.
Action: You troll. Poorly, I might add - a 4/10 at best.
Reaction: We rage. Rather rationally, but we've always been a relatively well-tempered, clean-spoken board.
But even this isn't even "opposite and equal," because if all things were equal, one of us would have banned your ass for trolling about a month ago.
Drugs don't kill people, pancreatic cancer kills people.
... and whoever heard of a drug that causes pancreatic cancer?
|
Lafeel
12/29/08 05:58 PM
157.157.75.183
|
Mac, remember, attack the post, not the poster, therein lies the difference between a discussion and a flame war.
To be honest I'm not sure what can be said. Chip's clearly shown a complete and utter unwillingness to listen to our points on the matter..And if this was another messageboard I'm a member of (NationStates) he would be waking up in a dumpster right about now wondering why the board refuses to recognize his ip as valid..
|
MacLeod
12/29/08 08:06 PM
12.116.26.222
|
My apologies for sinking low with that last post. I've been a member here for over six years - admittedly, not contributing for much of that - and in all that time I have never seen someone like Chip show up and rain on everyone's parade like this. I agree, Lafeel - any other forum I frequent would have kicked him out a long time ago, some with tact and decorum and others with quite the entertaining public execution. Asshattery, in my opinion, just shouldn't be tolerated.
Hm. I guess my finally succumbing to his bait makes him a pretty decent troll. I guess I'd give him a 6/10, maybe a 6.5. I'd prefer it not to continue, though.
Drugs don't kill people, pancreatic cancer kills people.
... and whoever heard of a drug that causes pancreatic cancer?
|
Kovax
12/30/08 09:54 AM
75.146.193.46
|
I'll give him one positive point: he does keep this otherwise rather lifeless board somewhat active with his continuous barrage of absolutely loony ideas, and with the rebuttals of those who actually have more than an occasional passing glance at reality.
That said, I'm not going to argue any more of these points, because it's painfully obvious that you can't argue logic with someone to whom logic is "irrelevant".
I'm sharply reminded of the one remark that Adolph Hitler is supposed to have made, when the shattered German army was in full retreat from a massive Soviet offensive, and his generals were trying to get permission to fall back to a more defensible position. Hitler ordered a full counter-attack, using a number of forces and assets which no longer existed. When his generals tried to explain that the order was impossible to carry out under the circumstances, Hitler exclaimed "You don't understand the spirit of my idea".
The same delusional thinking seems to be at work here, and arguing the point goes nowhere, since physics (and reality in general) are all "secondary" to the self-proclaimed "genius" of the inventor.
|
KitK
12/30/08 10:54 AM
216.197.183.253
|
That is an interesting and appropriate WWII story. So, having this matter finally settled, I will blatantly put in a plug for the 2008 Battlemech Trade and Armaments Show thread, and optimistically expect that everyone who posted in this thread will post up some mechs for the show.
KK
|
GiovanniBlasini
12/31/08 12:50 AM
64.183.4.46
|
Quote:
I edited my message again indicating what forces cancel each other out and which ones aren't cancelled. Explain why my design won't work.
Your understanding of physics and, well, pretty much everything else, combined with an absolute inability to accept when you're wrong?
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
Newtype
01/02/09 11:29 AM
207.160.205.13
|
Quote:
To be honest I'm not sure what can be said. Chip's clearly shown a complete and utter unwillingness to listen to our points on the matter..And if this was another messageboard I'm a member of (NationStates) he would be waking up in a dumpster right about now wondering why the board refuses to recognize his ip as valid..
I haven't been utterly and unwilling to listen. I did recognize that my first and second reusable fuel transit drive designs were overcomplicated and so I simplified them into the third design (the rerevised fuel transit drive design) that is. I explained in full detail how that third design is suposed to work. Did I see an explanation that explains in full detail how my design couldn't work. No, there wasn't such an explanation. Kovak, and many others on this website (who dislike LAMs I'll point out) dislike my designs because they can give the IS a significant advantage over the Clans. They refuse to explain why a brick thrown at a glass window doesn't bounce off, why the sun doesn't revolve around Earth, why the wingstubes didn't bounce off the WTC towers on 9/11, and why the water from Hurricane Katrina didn't bounce of the levees. Obviously beyond a shadow of a doubt there is not always an opposite and equal reaction for every action. Once the Federation takes control, they'll change their minds.
|
Prince_of_Darkness
01/10/09 01:32 AM
205.202.120.139
|
Quote:
I haven't been utterly and unwilling to listen. I did recognize that my first and second reusable fuel transit drive designs were overcomplicated and so I simplified them into the third design (the rerevised fuel transit drive design) that is. I explained in full detail how that third design is suposed to work. Did I see an explanation that explains in full detail how my design couldn't work. No, there wasn't such an explanation. Kovak, and many others on this website (who dislike LAMs I'll point out) dislike my designs because they can give the IS a significant advantage over the Clans. They refuse to explain why a brick thrown at a glass window doesn't bounce off, why the sun doesn't revolve around Earth, why the wingstubes didn't bounce off the WTC towers on 9/11, and why the water from Hurricane Katrina didn't bounce of the levees. Obviously beyond a shadow of a doubt there is not always an opposite and equal reaction for every action. Once the Federation takes control, they'll change their minds.
I wonder how long it will take for you to get banned.
|
Kovax
01/12/09 10:31 AM
75.146.193.46
|
To clarify a couple of (probably pointless) points, the sun and the earth revolve around a common axis, based on the centerpoint of their masses. Since the earth's mass is almost (but not entirely) irrelevant in comparison, the balance point is still well inside the sun, but not at its center.
Objects may or may not bounce off what they hit, but ultimately they impart energy to whatever it is that they contact, which is equal and opposite to the change in kinetic energy of the striking object. Those flying glass shards take on some of the energy of the brick, and the brick reduces speed as an equal and opposite reaction. There are many forms that the imparted energy can take (heat, sound), only one of which is motion.
It is impossible to offer an explanation to someone who doesn't believe in the laws of physics, by using those same laws of physics.
The whole point behind the "reusable fuel" idea is silly. Once you've burned the fuel, you can't return it to the fuel tank and then re-burn it. It isn't fuel anymore. Newtype's cop-out answer was to re-heat the spent fuel back into gasses. Using what? You need fresh fuel or energy input of some sort to re-heat the spent fuel, so in effect you haven't saved anything. Also, once the burned gasses expand and completely fill the enclosed space, all you are doing by burning more is increasing the pressure in the system, since there's nowhere for it to go. The gasses won't readily turn back into a liquid unless you cool them, which requires a net loss of energy from the system somehow. When Newtype reaches the moon by lifting himself off the ground by his own shoelaces (and not in one of his "out of body" experiences), then I'll admit I have to reconsider this goofy fuel thing.
BTW - isn't there something in the forum rules about people like Newtype/Maisomethingorotherispretty or whoever posting under an alias with the intent to mislead other forum readers?
|
Prince_of_Darkness
01/12/09 11:10 AM
205.202.120.139
|
The moderator has been slacking off.
|
Fang
01/12/09 12:44 PM
12.54.128.7
|
Please please PLEASE stop responding this thread. maybe it will die out if left unfed.
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
Newtype
01/12/09 08:32 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Energy of an object equals the mass of that object multiplied by the square of the speed of light. Since a brick that bashes its way through a window doesn't bounce off that window it's obvious that glass has insufficient energy to make that brick bounce off that glass. Therefore the potential energy of that glass doesn't exert an "opposite and equal reaction" on that brick.
I do beilieve in Newton's first and second laws because I currently can't find any way to disprove those two laws.
As for gasses going back into the combustion chambers I've explained that: the curved return pipes and push panels have sufficient resiliency to make those gasses return. Once they return they are reheated again like air gasses in a hot air balloon. Just as the hot air gasses in a hot air balloon push the balloon upwards the hot gasses in the combustion chamber push the ship forwards but the gasses that go out the combustion chambers through the exhaust nozzles push the ship backwards. Initially that's a net movement of zero but when the gasses that go out the exhaust nozzles get move through the return pipes towards the midship bulkhead and that's when they push the ship forwards again. After that, the gasses are pushed by panels (5) back into the combustion chambers and the process repeats itself.
As I've said earlier there's been a large amount of Clan bias amongst the CBT community. I'd say that explains why my designs (the rerevised reusable fuel transit drive and dark matter cloaking device) are responded to with such disdain. Why is there so much disdain? Because these two designs provide Inner Sphere and Periphery units with a unique advantage over Clan units. Go ahead, Clan players, call me "dishonorable". Have your Clan units when they fight mine issue dezgra points, Clan units when they fight mine will still be defeated.
Edited by Newtype (01/12/09 08:51 PM)
|
Zandel_Corrin
01/13/09 05:57 PM
123.2.140.247
|
Quote:
As for gasses going back into the combustion chambers I've explained that: the curved return pipes and push panels have sufficient resiliency to make those gasses return. Once they return they are reheated again like air gasses in a hot air balloon. Just as the hot air gasses in a hot air balloon push the balloon upwards the hot gasses in the combustion chamber push the ship forwards
ok here are your main two problems.....
1} hot gasses ONLY provide movement to a hot air baloon because it's IN atmosphere.... AND because it's adding extra hot air from outside the balloon all the time... this cannot work outside of an atmosphere.
2} Your understanding of movement.... your example is wrong... see my description below...
***
OK combustion chamber mixes fuel {F} and Oxygen {O} and an ignition source {I} to produce an explosion of hot gasses and fire (this hot gass is NOT oxygen).
Waste gasses are vented from chamber via exit nozzels producing forward movement.
Now that's a normal rocket like propulsion system (simplified but still true)
***
*!*
Now YOUR system has some form of fully enclosed 'exit' system where the gasses will strike a backboard of some form and be pushed through pipes.... this cancells out the forward thrust.
Now the gasses go up to strike a midship bulkhead or something in your opinion causeing thrust forward... and this works IF the gasses are then released into space.....
But you send them back to the combustion chamber and that's where you get problems..... (and even if you send them next to but not in the chamber you still have problems.
*!*!*!*!*!*
1st} you are replacing the oxygen with non oxygen so you get no combustion and thus no new gasses.... net value of no thrust and waste of time.
2nd} this is the big one.... hot gasses take up more space then non hot gasses.... even if your not stopping the combustion process then you run out of space for your gasses and eventully after going no where your ship explodes.
3rd} I was gonna say even if you could get passed those two.... but that second one can only be solved by venting gasses from the ship and thus producing thrust and thus creating a 'normal' rocket.... so i guess that's it.....
as you can see... you idea may be creative but it's still just plain not going to work due in most part to your complete lack of understanding of reality....
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
Newtype
01/17/09 12:36 PM
207.160.205.13
|
I have miscalculated my rerevised reusable fuel transit drive exhaust methods. When the gas molecules are heated they go radially in different directions. So each time the gas particles go exit the combustion chambers they leave behind a portion of gas particles in the combustion chambers until there's not much remaining pushing in many different directions - this won't provide sufficient thrust. This rerevised transit drive therefore won't work. Still the dark matter cloaking device will work to some extent because as a ship that's cloaked with such a device coasts (nonacceleration movement due to lack of sufficient gravity to slow ship down) towards a target, the dark matter cloaking device will provide concealment. I prefer to have overwhelming force when I attack anyways (I prefer to outnumber, outgun, outarmor, outspeed, etc.) and I've got control of Clan units so that's ok. Perhaps I'll discover a means to have waste gasses exit the ship through dark matter cloaking device vent pipes as waste heat like a toaster giving off heat. That would show up on IR sensors at 50Megameters max range. This new rerevised transit drive would need to continuously burn fuel to replenish fuel already burnt.
Edited by Newtype (01/17/09 12:59 PM)
|