Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #629913 > unrolled thread

Reactionless Action Mechanism for Aerospace

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Reactionless Action Mechanism for Aerospace AbhiJeet Patil <abhiriksh@gmail.com> - 2017-04-20 07:41 -0700
    Re: Reactionless Action Mechanism for Aerospace Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-04-23 10:09 +1000
      Re: Reactionless Action Mechanism for Aerospace AbhiJeet Patil <abhiriksh@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 22:08 -0700
        Re: Reactionless Action Mechanism for Aerospace Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-05-19 20:26 +1000
          Re: Reactionless Action Mechanism for Aerospace AbhiJeet Patil <abhiriksh@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 07:01 -0700
            Re: Reactionless Action Mechanism for Aerospace Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 11:56 -0500
              Re: Reactionless Action Mechanism for Aerospace AbhiJeet Patil <abhiriksh@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 07:12 -0700
                Re: Reactionless Action Mechanism for Aerospace Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 13:19 -0500
                  Re: Reactionless Action Mechanism for Aerospace AbhiJeet Patil <abhiriksh@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 22:43 -0700
                  Re: Reactionless Action Mechanism for Aerospace AbhiJeet Patil <abhiriksh@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 22:57 -0700
            Re: Reactionless Action Mechanism for Aerospace Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-05-20 11:42 +1000
              Re: Reactionless Action Mechanism for Aerospace AbhiJeet Patil <abhiriksh@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 07:20 -0700
                Re: Reactionless Action Mechanism for Aerospace Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-05-21 10:03 +1000
                  Re: Reactionless Action Mechanism for Aerospace benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 21:51 -0400
                    Re: Reactionless Action Mechanism for Aerospace Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-05-21 11:54 +1000
                      Re: Reactionless Action Mechanism for Aerospace benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 22:23 -0400
                  Re: Reactionless Action Mechanism for Aerospace AbhiJeet Patil <abhiriksh@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 05:31 -0700
                    Re: Reactionless Action Mechanism for Aerospace Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-05-21 09:47 -0500

#629913 — Reactionless Action Mechanism for Aerospace

I am same Abhijit patil who was used to post here and in sci.physics.relativity during 2002-2005. I was used to argue mainly over Reactionless Propulsion. Many users of that period have disappeared. I see many newcomeres. Due to social media, activity in usenet has decreased considerably.

Anyway, just when I saw that my reactionless propulsion device is working, I stopped filing patents and went dead silent. It is long story.

Now I am back with the same Arrowhead shaped reactionless propulsion device. Yesterday I had posted just youtube link of the video, but it seems everybody ignored it.

The video shows only compression half cycle. In this half cycle, upper side body (A) remains stationary while second body (B) of equal mass moves towards it. In expansion half cycle, second body (B) remains stationary while upper side body (A) moves away from it. Thus at the end of one complete cycle, we find that the whole device (including two bodies) are displaced in space without expelling any reaction mass.

I am not going to file any patent application for this device. I had filed 17 provisional patent applications during July 2003 to April 2005 which are lapsed long ago due to non follow-up. This device is open for all mankind to be explored and build various vehicles.

This is just very basic device and hundreds of inventions will have to be made to make various spaceships and aerial vehicles. I think it will take at least five years to launch spaceship in the space for testing.

I just hope that the mankind do not fight on other planets on petty things like religions, castes, borders, patriotism, racism etc.

I am giving below youtube link of this reactionless propulsion device.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INJEc1E-qyE

Thanks !

-Abhi.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#630169

On 21/04/2017 12:41 AM, AbhiJeet Patil wrote:
>
> The video shows only compression half cycle. In this half cycle,
> upper side body (A) remains stationary while second body (B) of equal
> mass moves towards it. In expansion half cycle, second body (B)
> remains stationary while upper side body (A) moves away from it. Thus
> at the end of one complete cycle, we find that the whole device
> (including two bodies) are displaced in space without expelling any
> reaction mass.

It is clear from the video that the upper side does not stay stationary, 
so what's the point of posting this nonsense?

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#633770

On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 5:39:54 AM UTC+5:30, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 21/04/2017 12:41 AM, AbhiJeet Patil wrote:
> >
> > The video shows only compression half cycle. In this half cycle,
> > upper side body (A) remains stationary while second body (B) of equal
> > mass moves towards it. In expansion half cycle, second body (B)
> > remains stationary while upper side body (A) moves away from it. Thus
> > at the end of one complete cycle, we find that the whole device
> > (including two bodies) are displaced in space without expelling any
> > reaction mass.
> 
> It is clear from the video that the upper side does not stay stationary, 
> so what's the point of posting this nonsense?
> 
> Sylvia.

It almost stays stationary. It moves because of weight difference in the connecting rods.

Now I have built new device and I am using right-left threaded bolt to control the motion of both weights. You can see in this video that "upper side" weight does not move from its place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el8aduO_1eM

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#633776

On 19/05/2017 3:08 PM, AbhiJeet Patil wrote:
> On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 5:39:54 AM UTC+5:30, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 21/04/2017 12:41 AM, AbhiJeet Patil wrote:
>>>
>>> The video shows only compression half cycle. In this half cycle,
>>> upper side body (A) remains stationary while second body (B) of equal
>>> mass moves towards it. In expansion half cycle, second body (B)
>>> remains stationary while upper side body (A) moves away from it. Thus
>>> at the end of one complete cycle, we find that the whole device
>>> (including two bodies) are displaced in space without expelling any
>>> reaction mass.
>>
>> It is clear from the video that the upper side does not stay stationary,
>> so what's the point of posting this nonsense?
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> It almost stays stationary. It moves because of weight difference in the connecting rods.
>
> Now I have built new device and I am using right-left threaded bolt to control the motion of both weights. You can see in this video that "upper side" weight does not move from its place.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el8aduO_1eM
>

There's plenty of friction around. This video shows nothing of significance.

Sylvia

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#633799

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 3:57:00 PM UTC+5:30, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 19/05/2017 3:08 PM, AbhiJeet Patil wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 5:39:54 AM UTC+5:30, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 21/04/2017 12:41 AM, AbhiJeet Patil wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The video shows only compression half cycle. In this half cycle,
> >>> upper side body (A) remains stationary while second body (B) of equal
> >>> mass moves towards it. In expansion half cycle, second body (B)
> >>> remains stationary while upper side body (A) moves away from it. Thus
> >>> at the end of one complete cycle, we find that the whole device
> >>> (including two bodies) are displaced in space without expelling any
> >>> reaction mass.
> >>
> >> It is clear from the video that the upper side does not stay stationary,
> >> so what's the point of posting this nonsense?
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > It almost stays stationary. It moves because of weight difference in the connecting rods.
> >
> > Now I have built new device and I am using right-left threaded bolt to control the motion of both weights. You can see in this video that "upper side" weight does not move from its place.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el8aduO_1eM
> >
> 
> There's plenty of friction around. This video shows nothing of significance.
> 
> Sylvia

haha... I have worked on this device from Oct 2002 to May 2005. It was working and i had even filed 17 provisional patent applications. But just when I saw that it is working, I entered in "another world". I returned to this device last year and may be I had forgotten something. But now i have recollected everything what I had done in April 2005.

First video was taken in a room in Shahada town which is 180 Km away. Second video was taken here in my Chinawal village. And now I have just uploaded third video. These 3 videos are taken on 3 separate different floors. There is no friction involved. My further videos will clear all the doubts in your mind. But for the moment, this is third video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVLKd75MneA

Even though I have to beg money from my family for basic needs, I am not going to file any patent for this device. This Universe belongs to the God and whole mankind.

Welcome To The Universe...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#633806

On 5/19/17 9:01 AM, AbhiJeet Patil wrote:
> haha... I have worked on this device from Oct 2002 to May 2005. It was working and i had even filed 17 provisional patent applications. But just when I saw that 
> it is working, I entered in "another world". I returned to this device last year and may be I had forgotten something. But now i have recollected everything what 
> I had done in April 2005.
> 
> First video was taken in a room in Shahada town which is 180 Km away. Second video was taken here in my Chinawal village. And now I have just uploaded third 
> video. These 3 videos are taken on 3 separate different floors. There is no friction involved. My further videos will clear all the doubts in your mind. But for 
> the moment, this is third video...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVLKd75MneA
> 
> Even though I have to beg money from my family for basic needs, I am not going to file any patent for this device. This Universe belongs to the God and whole 
> mankind.
> 
> Welcome To The Universe...

I've you're going to spend your time doing this rather than taking work 
that would provide for your basic needs, then at least do it right.

To prove that there is motion without reaction, you need to do three 
other things:
1. Eliminate external forces on the system by isolating it from the 
ground. There are a couple of options here. The simplest would be to 
mount teflon pads on the bottom and perform the entire demonstration on 
ice, such as at a skating rink.
2. Eliminate external forces on the system by isolating it from your 
hand. This means you have to devise a way to have the central screw 
cranked without you touching it by hand. A coiled spring can be devised 
to do this.
3. Measure the center of mass of the system in both the triangle and 
arrowhead configurations. This you can do pretty simply by balancing it 
on your finger in both configurations. It's essential that you prove 
that the center of mass moves, NOT the endpoints.



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#633904

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 10:26:41 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 5/19/17 9:01 AM, AbhiJeet Patil wrote:
> > haha... I have worked on this device from Oct 2002 to May 2005. It was working and i had even filed 17 provisional patent applications. But just when I saw that 
> > it is working, I entered in "another world". I returned to this device last year and may be I had forgotten something. But now i have recollected everything what 
> > I had done in April 2005.
> > 
> > First video was taken in a room in Shahada town which is 180 Km away. Second video was taken here in my Chinawal village. And now I have just uploaded third 
> > video. These 3 videos are taken on 3 separate different floors. There is no friction involved. My further videos will clear all the doubts in your mind. But for 
> > the moment, this is third video...
> > 
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVLKd75MneA
> > 
> > Even though I have to beg money from my family for basic needs, I am not going to file any patent for this device. This Universe belongs to the God and whole 
> > mankind.
> > 
> > Welcome To The Universe...
> 
> I've you're going to spend your time doing this rather than taking work 
> that would provide for your basic needs, then at least do it right.
> 
> To prove that there is motion without reaction, you need to do three 
> other things:
> 1. Eliminate external forces on the system by isolating it from the 
> ground. There are a couple of options here. The simplest would be to 
> mount teflon pads on the bottom and perform the entire demonstration on 
> ice, such as at a skating rink.

In this device upper arrowhead point remains stationary and only lower point moves. You suspect that the upper arrowhead point is somehow grip or friction with the ground. So I have rotated the device in this new video to explain that ground is not playing any part in this device. Then you may suspect that the nuts touching the ground may have friction. So I have removed and rotated whole nut-bolt i.e I have changed places of nuts touching the ground. Please see this video I just uploaded...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZsD-KElJdA

> 2. Eliminate external forces on the system by isolating it from your 
> hand. This means you have to devise a way to have the central screw 
> cranked without you touching it by hand. A coiled spring can be devised 
> to do this.

I am going to certainly attempt something like that.

> 3. Measure the center of mass of the system in both the triangle and 
> arrowhead configurations. This you can do pretty simply by balancing it 
> on your finger in both configurations. It's essential that you prove 
> that the center of mass moves, NOT the endpoints.

Oh, I will shoot new video to show that center of mass indeed moves in this device.

There is simple mathematics involved in this device which I have posted in this group in November 2003. Here is I am copy-pasting it...

==============
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics/bnKERTTv0qY/discussion

OK, let us see Pythagores in Action..
______________________________________________________
Pythagores Theorem:
In a right angled triangle, the square of hypotenuse is equal to the
sum of the squares of the other two sides.

c^2 = a^2 + b^2
______________________________________________________

Now  draw X, Y axis on paper. We refer origin as "B" instead of
conventional "O".

Line AC of length c is on X axis and initially point C of line AC
coincides with origin B. Let us move or slide line AC along X axis by
distance d(where d<<c) in such a way that point C of this line AC
slides along Y axis in vertical direction. Now, we have a right angle
traingle ABC.

In this triangle AC = c, AB = a = c-d, BC = b

According to Pyathagores theorem, in this right angle triangle

c^2 = a^2 + b^2

We replace "a" by "c-d" as AB = a = c-d

Hence c^2 = (c-d)^2 + b^2
c^2 = c^2-2cd+d^2 + b^2

We get, b^2 = 2cd-d^2

******************
b = sqrt[d(2c-d)]
******************

This is the basic equation which controls this action device. Please
note that when, initially,  we move line AC along X axis by very small
distance d, point C slides along Y axis and BC = b > d

Please tell me whether you have understood this or not.

Thanks.

-Abhi.
=================

That means, suppose you are moving a rod of 100 cm length on the floor of your axis to slide it upward on the wall. When you move this rod by some 13 cm, you find that the the other end of rod has climbed on the wall by 50 cm.

This is the key simple math which had occurred to me while I was thinking about my gravity theory at that time.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Oh, as you are maker of tools and tables, you can easily make such device of wooden rods and test it yourself. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#634000

On 5/20/17 9:12 AM, AbhiJeet Patil wrote:
> On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 10:26:41 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 5/19/17 9:01 AM, AbhiJeet Patil wrote:
>>> haha... I have worked on this device from Oct 2002 to May 2005. It was working and i had even filed 17 provisional patent applications. But just when I saw that
>>> it is working, I entered in "another world". I returned to this device last year and may be I had forgotten something. But now i have recollected everything what
>>> I had done in April 2005.
>>>
>>> First video was taken in a room in Shahada town which is 180 Km away. Second video was taken here in my Chinawal village. And now I have just uploaded third
>>> video. These 3 videos are taken on 3 separate different floors. There is no friction involved. My further videos will clear all the doubts in your mind. But for
>>> the moment, this is third video...
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVLKd75MneA
>>>
>>> Even though I have to beg money from my family for basic needs, I am not going to file any patent for this device. This Universe belongs to the God and whole
>>> mankind.
>>>
>>> Welcome To The Universe...
>>
>> I've you're going to spend your time doing this rather than taking work
>> that would provide for your basic needs, then at least do it right.
>>
>> To prove that there is motion without reaction, you need to do three
>> other things:
>> 1. Eliminate external forces on the system by isolating it from the
>> ground. There are a couple of options here. The simplest would be to
>> mount teflon pads on the bottom and perform the entire demonstration on
>> ice, such as at a skating rink.
> 
> In this device upper arrowhead point remains stationary and only lower point moves. You suspect that the upper arrowhead point is somehow grip or friction with 
> the ground. So I have rotated the device in this new video to explain that ground is not playing any part in this device. Then you may suspect that the nuts 
> touching the ground may have friction. So I have removed and rotated whole nut-bolt i.e I have changed places of nuts touching the ground. Please see this video > I just uploaded...
> 

Rotating it doesn't help. Both ends are in contact with the ground and 
they will have DIFFERENT friction forces relative to the ground.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZsD-KElJdA
> 
>> 2. Eliminate external forces on the system by isolating it from your
>> hand. This means you have to devise a way to have the central screw
>> cranked without you touching it by hand. A coiled spring can be devised
>> to do this.
> 
> I am going to certainly attempt something like that.
> 
>> 3. Measure the center of mass of the system in both the triangle and
>> arrowhead configurations. This you can do pretty simply by balancing it
>> on your finger in both configurations. It's essential that you prove
>> that the center of mass moves, NOT the endpoints.
> 
> Oh, I will shoot new video to show that center of mass indeed moves in this device.
> 
> There is simple mathematics involved in this device which I have posted in this group in November 2003. Here is I am copy-pasting it...
> 
> ==============
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics/bnKERTTv0qY/discussion
> 
> OK, let us see Pythagores in Action..
> ______________________________________________________
> Pythagores Theorem:
> In a right angled triangle, the square of hypotenuse is equal to the
> sum of the squares of the other two sides.
> 
> c^2 = a^2 + b^2
> ______________________________________________________
> 
> Now  draw X, Y axis on paper. We refer origin as "B" instead of
> conventional "O".
> 
> Line AC of length c is on X axis and initially point C of line AC
> coincides with origin B. Let us move or slide line AC along X axis by
> distance d(where d<<c) in such a way that point C of this line AC
> slides along Y axis in vertical direction. Now, we have a right angle
> traingle ABC.
> 
> In this triangle AC = c, AB = a = c-d, BC = b
> 
> According to Pyathagores theorem, in this right angle triangle
> 
> c^2 = a^2 + b^2
> 
> We replace "a" by "c-d" as AB = a = c-d
> 
> Hence c^2 = (c-d)^2 + b^2
> c^2 = c^2-2cd+d^2 + b^2
> 
> We get, b^2 = 2cd-d^2
> 
> ******************
> b = sqrt[d(2c-d)]
> ******************

This does not work. You can demonstrate this to yourself by calculating 
the value of b, measuring that distance and putting a mark on the device 
at that site, and then attempting to balance it on your finger where 
that mark is. You'll find that it will fall. The reason is simple. You 
calculation assumes a uniform distribution of mass. But it's clear from 
the cylindrical weights you've added here and there, and the fact that 
the rod is a different composition and configuration from the perimeter 
arms, that the mass distribution is not uniform.

> 
> This is the basic equation which controls this action device. Please
> note that when, initially,  we move line AC along X axis by very small
> distance d, point C slides along Y axis and BC = b > d
> 
> Please tell me whether you have understood this or not.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -Abhi.
> =================
> 
> That means, suppose you are moving a rod of 100 cm length on the floor of your 
> axis to slide it upward on the wall. When you move this rod by some 13 cm, you find 
> that the the other end of rod has climbed on the wall by 50 cm.
> 
> This is the key simple math which had occurred to me while I was thinking about my gravity theory at that time.
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 
> Oh, as you are maker of tools and tables, you can easily make such device of wooden rods and test it yourself.
> 

Of course I can. But I would put the whole thing on an air hockey table, 
not on a concrete pad.


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#638730

On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 11:49:04 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 5/20/17 9:12 AM, AbhiJeet Patil wrote:
> > On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 10:26:41 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 5/19/17 9:01 AM, AbhiJeet Patil wrote:
> >>> haha... I have worked on this device from Oct 2002 to May 2005. It was working and i had even filed 17 provisional patent applications. But just when I saw that
> >>> it is working, I entered in "another world". I returned to this device last year and may be I had forgotten something. But now i have recollected everything what
> >>> I had done in April 2005.
> >>>
> >>> First video was taken in a room in Shahada town which is 180 Km away. Second video was taken here in my Chinawal village. And now I have just uploaded third
> >>> video. These 3 videos are taken on 3 separate different floors. There is no friction involved. My further videos will clear all the doubts in your mind. But for
> >>> the moment, this is third video...
> >>>
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVLKd75MneA
> >>>
> >>> Even though I have to beg money from my family for basic needs, I am not going to file any patent for this device. This Universe belongs to the God and whole
> >>> mankind.
> >>>
> >>> Welcome To The Universe...
> >>
> >> I've you're going to spend your time doing this rather than taking work
> >> that would provide for your basic needs, then at least do it right.
> >>
> >> To prove that there is motion without reaction, you need to do three
> >> other things:
> >> 1. Eliminate external forces on the system by isolating it from the
> >> ground. There are a couple of options here. The simplest would be to
> >> mount teflon pads on the bottom and perform the entire demonstration on
> >> ice, such as at a skating rink.
> > 
> > In this device upper arrowhead point remains stationary and only lower point moves. You suspect that the upper arrowhead point is somehow grip or friction with 
> > the ground. So I have rotated the device in this new video to explain that ground is not playing any part in this device. Then you may suspect that the nuts 
> > touching the ground may have friction. So I have removed and rotated whole nut-bolt i.e I have changed places of nuts touching the ground. Please see this video > I just uploaded...
> > 
> 
> Rotating it doesn't help. Both ends are in contact with the ground and 
> they will have DIFFERENT friction forces relative to the ground.
> 
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZsD-KElJdA
> > 
> >> 2. Eliminate external forces on the system by isolating it from your
> >> hand. This means you have to devise a way to have the central screw
> >> cranked without you touching it by hand. A coiled spring can be devised
> >> to do this.
> > 
> > I am going to certainly attempt something like that.
> > 
> >> 3. Measure the center of mass of the system in both the triangle and
> >> arrowhead configurations. This you can do pretty simply by balancing it
> >> on your finger in both configurations. It's essential that you prove
> >> that the center of mass moves, NOT the endpoints.
> > 
> > Oh, I will shoot new video to show that center of mass indeed moves in this device.
> > 
> > There is simple mathematics involved in this device which I have posted in this group in November 2003. Here is I am copy-pasting it...
> > 
> > ==============
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics/bnKERTTv0qY/discussion
> > 
> > OK, let us see Pythagores in Action..
> > ______________________________________________________
> > Pythagores Theorem:
> > In a right angled triangle, the square of hypotenuse is equal to the
> > sum of the squares of the other two sides.
> > 
> > c^2 = a^2 + b^2
> > ______________________________________________________
> > 
> > Now  draw X, Y axis on paper. We refer origin as "B" instead of
> > conventional "O".
> > 
> > Line AC of length c is on X axis and initially point C of line AC
> > coincides with origin B. Let us move or slide line AC along X axis by
> > distance d(where d<<c) in such a way that point C of this line AC
> > slides along Y axis in vertical direction. Now, we have a right angle
> > traingle ABC.
> > 
> > In this triangle AC = c, AB = a = c-d, BC = b
> > 
> > According to Pyathagores theorem, in this right angle triangle
> > 
> > c^2 = a^2 + b^2
> > 
> > We replace "a" by "c-d" as AB = a = c-d
> > 
> > Hence c^2 = (c-d)^2 + b^2
> > c^2 = c^2-2cd+d^2 + b^2
> > 
> > We get, b^2 = 2cd-d^2
> > 
> > ******************
> > b = sqrt[d(2c-d)]
> > ******************
> 
> This does not work. You can demonstrate this to yourself by calculating 
> the value of b, measuring that distance and putting a mark on the device 
> at that site, and then attempting to balance it on your finger where 
> that mark is. You'll find that it will fall. The reason is simple. You 
> calculation assumes a uniform distribution of mass. But it's clear from 
> the cylindrical weights you've added here and there, and the fact that 
> the rod is a different composition and configuration from the perimeter 
> arms, that the mass distribution is not uniform.
> 
> > 
> > This is the basic equation which controls this action device. Please
> > note that when, initially,  we move line AC along X axis by very small
> > distance d, point C slides along Y axis and BC = b > d
> > 
> > Please tell me whether you have understood this or not.
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > -Abhi.
> > =================
> > 
> > That means, suppose you are moving a rod of 100 cm length on the floor of your 
> > axis to slide it upward on the wall. When you move this rod by some 13 cm, you find 
> > that the the other end of rod has climbed on the wall by 50 cm.
> > 
> > This is the key simple math which had occurred to me while I was thinking about my gravity theory at that time.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > 
> > Oh, as you are maker of tools and tables, you can easily make such device of wooden rods and test it yourself.
> > 
> 
> Of course I can. But I would put the whole thing on an air hockey table, 
> not on a concrete pad.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Yawn...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIxm5NV_FQ

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#638732

On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 11:49:04 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 5/20/17 9:12 AM, AbhiJeet Patil wrote:
> > On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 10:26:41 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 5/19/17 9:01 AM, AbhiJeet Patil wrote:
> >>> haha... I have worked on this device from Oct 2002 to May 2005. It was working and i had even filed 17 provisional patent applications. But just when I saw that
> >>> it is working, I entered in "another world". I returned to this device last year and may be I had forgotten something. But now i have recollected everything what
> >>> I had done in April 2005.
> >>>
> >>> First video was taken in a room in Shahada town which is 180 Km away. Second video was taken here in my Chinawal village. And now I have just uploaded third
> >>> video. These 3 videos are taken on 3 separate different floors. There is no friction involved. My further videos will clear all the doubts in your mind. But for
> >>> the moment, this is third video...
> >>>
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVLKd75MneA
> >>>
> >>> Even though I have to beg money from my family for basic needs, I am not going to file any patent for this device. This Universe belongs to the God and whole
> >>> mankind.
> >>>
> >>> Welcome To The Universe...
> >>
> >> I've you're going to spend your time doing this rather than taking work
> >> that would provide for your basic needs, then at least do it right.
> >>
> >> To prove that there is motion without reaction, you need to do three
> >> other things:
> >> 1. Eliminate external forces on the system by isolating it from the
> >> ground. There are a couple of options here. The simplest would be to
> >> mount teflon pads on the bottom and perform the entire demonstration on
> >> ice, such as at a skating rink.
> > 
> > In this device upper arrowhead point remains stationary and only lower point moves. You suspect that the upper arrowhead point is somehow grip or friction with 
> > the ground. So I have rotated the device in this new video to explain that ground is not playing any part in this device. Then you may suspect that the nuts 
> > touching the ground may have friction. So I have removed and rotated whole nut-bolt i.e I have changed places of nuts touching the ground. Please see this video > I just uploaded...
> > 
> 
> Rotating it doesn't help. Both ends are in contact with the ground and 
> they will have DIFFERENT friction forces relative to the ground.
> 
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZsD-KElJdA
> > 
> >> 2. Eliminate external forces on the system by isolating it from your
> >> hand. This means you have to devise a way to have the central screw
> >> cranked without you touching it by hand. A coiled spring can be devised
> >> to do this.
> > 
> > I am going to certainly attempt something like that.
> > 
> >> 3. Measure the center of mass of the system in both the triangle and
> >> arrowhead configurations. This you can do pretty simply by balancing it
> >> on your finger in both configurations. It's essential that you prove
> >> that the center of mass moves, NOT the endpoints.
> > 
> > Oh, I will shoot new video to show that center of mass indeed moves in this device.
> > 
> > There is simple mathematics involved in this device which I have posted in this group in November 2003. Here is I am copy-pasting it...
> > 
> > ==============
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics/bnKERTTv0qY/discussion
> > 
> > OK, let us see Pythagores in Action..
> > ______________________________________________________
> > Pythagores Theorem:
> > In a right angled triangle, the square of hypotenuse is equal to the
> > sum of the squares of the other two sides.
> > 
> > c^2 = a^2 + b^2
> > ______________________________________________________
> > 
> > Now  draw X, Y axis on paper. We refer origin as "B" instead of
> > conventional "O".
> > 
> > Line AC of length c is on X axis and initially point C of line AC
> > coincides with origin B. Let us move or slide line AC along X axis by
> > distance d(where d<<c) in such a way that point C of this line AC
> > slides along Y axis in vertical direction. Now, we have a right angle
> > traingle ABC.
> > 
> > In this triangle AC = c, AB = a = c-d, BC = b
> > 
> > According to Pyathagores theorem, in this right angle triangle
> > 
> > c^2 = a^2 + b^2
> > 
> > We replace "a" by "c-d" as AB = a = c-d
> > 
> > Hence c^2 = (c-d)^2 + b^2
> > c^2 = c^2-2cd+d^2 + b^2
> > 
> > We get, b^2 = 2cd-d^2
> > 
> > ******************
> > b = sqrt[d(2c-d)]
> > ******************
> 
> This does not work. You can demonstrate this to yourself by calculating 
> the value of b, measuring that distance and putting a mark on the device 
> at that site, and then attempting to balance it on your finger where 
> that mark is. You'll find that it will fall. The reason is simple. You 
> calculation assumes a uniform distribution of mass. But it's clear from 
> the cylindrical weights you've added here and there, and the fact that 
> the rod is a different composition and configuration from the perimeter 
> arms, that the mass distribution is not uniform.
> 
> > 
> > This is the basic equation which controls this action device. Please
> > note that when, initially,  we move line AC along X axis by very small
> > distance d, point C slides along Y axis and BC = b > d
> > 
> > Please tell me whether you have understood this or not.
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > -Abhi.
> > =================
> > 
> > That means, suppose you are moving a rod of 100 cm length on the floor of your 
> > axis to slide it upward on the wall. When you move this rod by some 13 cm, you find 
> > that the the other end of rod has climbed on the wall by 50 cm.
> > 
> > This is the key simple math which had occurred to me while I was thinking about my gravity theory at that time.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > 
> > Oh, as you are maker of tools and tables, you can easily make such device of wooden rods and test it yourself.
> > 
> 
> Of course I can. But I would put the whole thing on an air hockey table, 
> not on a concrete pad.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

By the way, I have moved forward. After inventing "wheel", I have invented where to fix "axle" to move this "wheel". Now when I will get few hundred rupees, I will fly it in the air...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2xUhH2FVjY

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#633869

On 20/05/2017 12:01 AM, AbhiJeet Patil wrote:
> On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 3:57:00 PM UTC+5:30, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 19/05/2017 3:08 PM, AbhiJeet Patil wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 5:39:54 AM UTC+5:30, Sylvia Else
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 21/04/2017 12:41 AM, AbhiJeet Patil wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The video shows only compression half cycle. In this half
>>>>> cycle, upper side body (A) remains stationary while second
>>>>> body (B) of equal mass moves towards it. In expansion half
>>>>> cycle, second body (B) remains stationary while upper side
>>>>> body (A) moves away from it. Thus at the end of one complete
>>>>> cycle, we find that the whole device (including two bodies)
>>>>> are displaced in space without expelling any reaction mass.
>>>>
>>>> It is clear from the video that the upper side does not stay
>>>> stationary, so what's the point of posting this nonsense?
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> It almost stays stationary. It moves because of weight difference
>>> in the connecting rods.
>>>
>>> Now I have built new device and I am using right-left threaded
>>> bolt to control the motion of both weights. You can see in this
>>> video that "upper side" weight does not move from its place.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el8aduO_1eM
>>>
>>
>> There's plenty of friction around. This video shows nothing of
>> significance.
>>
>> Sylvia
>
> haha... I have worked on this device from Oct 2002 to May 2005. It
> was working and i had even filed 17 provisional patent applications.
> But just when I saw that it is working, I entered in "another world".
> I returned to this device last year and may be I had forgotten
> something. But now i have recollected everything what I had done in
> April 2005.
>
> First video was taken in a room in Shahada town which is 180 Km away.
> Second video was taken here in my Chinawal village. And now I have
> just uploaded third video. These 3 videos are taken on 3 separate
> different floors. There is no friction involved. My further videos
> will clear all the doubts in your mind. But for the moment, this is
> third video...
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVLKd75MneA

The thing is still lying on the floor. How can you say there's no friction?

You're also holding it, so you are part of the experiment, and your mass 
and friction with the floor have to be taken into account.

This experiment is being done so incredibly badly that I have to wonder 
whether it's all a troll.

If not, then you're either totally lacking in education in basic physics 
and/or are seriously deluded (the two often go hand in hand).

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#633905

On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 7:12:06 AM UTC+5:30, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 20/05/2017 12:01 AM, AbhiJeet Patil wrote:
> > On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 3:57:00 PM UTC+5:30, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 19/05/2017 3:08 PM, AbhiJeet Patil wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 5:39:54 AM UTC+5:30, Sylvia Else
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 21/04/2017 12:41 AM, AbhiJeet Patil wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The video shows only compression half cycle. In this half
> >>>>> cycle, upper side body (A) remains stationary while second
> >>>>> body (B) of equal mass moves towards it. In expansion half
> >>>>> cycle, second body (B) remains stationary while upper side
> >>>>> body (A) moves away from it. Thus at the end of one complete
> >>>>> cycle, we find that the whole device (including two bodies)
> >>>>> are displaced in space without expelling any reaction mass.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is clear from the video that the upper side does not stay
> >>>> stationary, so what's the point of posting this nonsense?
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> It almost stays stationary. It moves because of weight difference
> >>> in the connecting rods.
> >>>
> >>> Now I have built new device and I am using right-left threaded
> >>> bolt to control the motion of both weights. You can see in this
> >>> video that "upper side" weight does not move from its place.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el8aduO_1eM
> >>>
> >>
> >> There's plenty of friction around. This video shows nothing of
> >> significance.
> >>
> >> Sylvia
> >
> > haha... I have worked on this device from Oct 2002 to May 2005. It
> > was working and i had even filed 17 provisional patent applications.
> > But just when I saw that it is working, I entered in "another world".
> > I returned to this device last year and may be I had forgotten
> > something. But now i have recollected everything what I had done in
> > April 2005.
> >
> > First video was taken in a room in Shahada town which is 180 Km away.
> > Second video was taken here in my Chinawal village. And now I have
> > just uploaded third video. These 3 videos are taken on 3 separate
> > different floors. There is no friction involved. My further videos
> > will clear all the doubts in your mind. But for the moment, this is
> > third video...
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVLKd75MneA
> 
> The thing is still lying on the floor. How can you say there's no friction?
> 
> You're also holding it, so you are part of the experiment, and your mass 
> and friction with the floor have to be taken into account.
> 
> This experiment is being done so incredibly badly that I have to wonder 
> whether it's all a troll.
> 
> If not, then you're either totally lacking in education in basic physics 
> and/or are seriously deluded (the two often go hand in hand).
> 
> Sylvia.

Suppose we are standing on ground. I am at point A and you are at point B. And we both are pulling each other with EQUAL FORCE. I am not moving, but you move from your place. That is violation of Newton's third law of motion. You allege that my legs are somehow dug in the ground. Now we have changed our places. I am standing at your previous point B and you are standing at point my previous point A. Now even at standing at point B, I am not moving. What happened to your theory that my legs were somehow dug in the ground at point A?

This is new video in which I have done something like this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZsD-KElJdA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#633952

On 21/05/2017 12:20 AM, AbhiJeet Patil wrote:

>
> Suppose we are standing on ground. I am at point A and you are at
> point B. And we both are pulling each other with EQUAL FORCE. I am
> not moving, but you move from your place. That is violation of
> Newton's third law of motion. You allege that my legs are somehow dug
> in the ground. Now we have changed our places. I am standing at your
> previous point B and you are standing at point my previous point A.
> Now even at standing at point B, I am not moving. What happened to
> your theory that my legs were somehow dug in the ground at point A?

This doesn't violate Newton's third law, because friction with the 
ground brings the Earth into the equation.

The situation you describe can easily arise, just because we are not of 
equal weights, and consequently have different levels of friction with 
the ground. This is, after all, why you can push a coffee cup away from 
you across a table without yourself getting moved backwards.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#633965

On 05/20/2017 08:03 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 21/05/2017 12:20 AM, AbhiJeet Patil wrote:
>
>>
>> Suppose we are standing on ground. I am at point A and you are at
>> point B. And we both are pulling each other with EQUAL FORCE. I am
>> not moving, but you move from your place. That is violation of
>> Newton's third law of motion. You allege that my legs are somehow dug
>> in the ground. Now we have changed our places. I am standing at your
>> previous point B and you are standing at point my previous point A.
>> Now even at standing at point B, I am not moving. What happened to
>> your theory that my legs were somehow dug in the ground at point A?
>
> This doesn't violate Newton's third law, because friction with the
> ground brings the Earth into the equation.
>
> The situation you describe can easily arise, just because we are not of
> equal weights, and consequently have different levels of friction with
> the ground. This is, after all, why you can push a coffee cup away from
> you across a table without yourself getting moved backwards.
>
> Sylvia.

Newton's third law is obviously bogus! Say you have two planets. And the 
gravity of each is in equilibrium with each other. And then one of them 
suddenly moves. Well it still keeps feeling the gravity from the first 
one but the changes due to the movement of the second one take TIME to 
reach the first planet so there is an Imbalance! The Law is bogus! That 
is unless you do not believe in relativity and think that gravity acts 
as a non-local force. One of the two has to be wrong.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#633966

On 21/05/2017 11:51 AM, benj wrote:

> Newton's third law is obviously bogus! Say you have two planets. And the
> gravity of each is in equilibrium with each other. And then one of them
> suddenly moves. Well it still keeps feeling the gravity from the first
> one but the changes due to the movement of the second one take TIME to
> reach the first planet so there is an Imbalance! The Law is bogus! That
> is unless you do not believe in relativity and think that gravity acts
> as a non-local force. One of the two has to be wrong.
>
The problem with that argument is the "suddenly moves". If it moves, 
which in this context means accelerates, then some force must be applied 
to it. We have to account for that force, including finding the 
corresponding force on another body, or demonstrating that there is no 
such body (which would violate Newton's laws). Only then can we look at 
the overall system to see whether it's complying with the laws.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#633967

On 05/20/2017 09:54 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 21/05/2017 11:51 AM, benj wrote:
>
>> Newton's third law is obviously bogus! Say you have two planets. And the
>> gravity of each is in equilibrium with each other. And then one of them
>> suddenly moves. Well it still keeps feeling the gravity from the first
>> one but the changes due to the movement of the second one take TIME to
>> reach the first planet so there is an Imbalance! The Law is bogus! That
>> is unless you do not believe in relativity and think that gravity acts
>> as a non-local force. One of the two has to be wrong.
>>
> The problem with that argument is the "suddenly moves". If it moves,
> which in this context means accelerates, then some force must be applied
> to it. We have to account for that force, including finding the
> corresponding force on another body, or demonstrating that there is no
> such body (which would violate Newton's laws). Only then can we look at
> the overall system to see whether it's complying with the laws.
>
> Sylvia.

Adding a third force does nothing. We can assume it does not interact in 
any way with the second planet or we can also argue that any effect 
there must ALSO be retarded and hence form even additional imbalances.

It's clear that Newton's Third law can only apply to static forces. (or 
else SR is just wrong)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#633988

On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 5:33:21 AM UTC+5:30, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 21/05/2017 12:20 AM, AbhiJeet Patil wrote:
> 
> >
> > Suppose we are standing on ground. I am at point A and you are at
> > point B. And we both are pulling each other with EQUAL FORCE. I am
> > not moving, but you move from your place. That is violation of
> > Newton's third law of motion. You allege that my legs are somehow dug
> > in the ground. Now we have changed our places. I am standing at your
> > previous point B and you are standing at point my previous point A.
> > Now even at standing at point B, I am not moving. What happened to
> > your theory that my legs were somehow dug in the ground at point A?
> 
> This doesn't violate Newton's third law, because friction with the 
> ground brings the Earth into the equation.
> 
> The situation you describe can easily arise, just because we are not of 
> equal weights, and consequently have different levels of friction with 
> the ground. This is, after all, why you can push a coffee cup away from 
> you across a table without yourself getting moved backwards.
> 
> Sylvia.

I have no idea how to convince you. I have just shot this video. First I tested Newton's third law of motion. If two bodies of equal mass are moving with equal distance towards each other, then the ground is frictionless. First I have shown it in this video that the black slab follows Newton's third law i.e the black slab is frictionless. Then in the same video I attached my Triangle to Arrowhead turning device and one side of body suddenly stops moving.

https://youtu.be/2F-ox5WSIRU

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#633994

On 5/21/2017 7:31 AM, AbhiJeet Patil wrote:
> On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 5:33:21 AM UTC+5:30, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 21/05/2017 12:20 AM, AbhiJeet Patil wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Suppose we are standing on ground. I am at point A and you are at
>>> point B. And we both are pulling each other with EQUAL FORCE. I am
>>> not moving, but you move from your place. That is violation of
>>> Newton's third law of motion. You allege that my legs are somehow dug
>>> in the ground. Now we have changed our places. I am standing at your
>>> previous point B and you are standing at point my previous point A.
>>> Now even at standing at point B, I am not moving. What happened to
>>> your theory that my legs were somehow dug in the ground at point A?
>>
>> This doesn't violate Newton's third law, because friction with the
>> ground brings the Earth into the equation.
>>
>> The situation you describe can easily arise, just because we are not of
>> equal weights, and consequently have different levels of friction with
>> the ground. This is, after all, why you can push a coffee cup away from
>> you across a table without yourself getting moved backwards.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> 
> I have no idea how to convince you. I have just shot this video. First I tested Newton's third law of motion. If two bodies of equal mass are moving with equal distance towards each other, then the ground is frictionless. 

... or the ground has equal friction in both or all locations.

First I have shown it in this video that the black slab follows Newton's 
third law i.e the black slab is frictionless. Then in the same video I 
attached my Triangle to Arrowhead turning device and one side of body 
suddenly stops moving.
> 
> https://youtu.be/2F-ox5WSIRU
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web