The Sling Drive Inertial Thrust Demonstration Proof!

[Document injection of 14 April 1999]

I have received quite a lot of mail on this subject, and have "given in" to a Newtonian review of the concepts that negate this idea, and have been persuaded to at least hedge my dialog to include doubt.

While the GIT and Thor machines have had a large and increasing number of reported successes, this particular machine concept has been a more researched and better understood series of material motions, and I will concede that I may in fact be WRONG! ;)

HEY, at least I'm willing to listen and correct my assumptions when better information comes in, unlike SOME I know! ;)

Stay tuned for the next update! - DavidC - 8 pm Wednesday evening, 14 April 1999
(gotta go, "7 Days" just started! ;)

.

In the time the GIT project has been in operation (since the 4th of May 1997), I have been privileged to work with forward thinking visionaries from all around the world, developing what I believe to be one of the best mechanical methods of getting the "average" individual a chance to get themselves into space.

While a small but growing group of unleashed minds HAVE been assisting me in improvements, theory discussions, developing an expanding list of variants, and even differing method devices, we have all come up against a much BIGGER barrier to cheap space flight than "the rocket equation". That has been MENTAL inertia.

Inertial Propulsion is now a reality, proven time and time again by independently built and tested machines, and yet our efforts to gain "establishment" recognition has largely been ignored, and even actively discouraged!

SO, we needed a "gotcha" concept that can NOT be easily dismissed, and simple enough that it doesn't require calculus to prove (we can't travel around and show all of these folks our homebuilt machines in person after all! ;).

Joao Andrade of Brazil (his picture on the right), has been one of the most active researchers contributing to the GIT project, (you can read about his many contributions in my updates), and has again pushed forward our quest for everyday space!

We needed a means to easily get across the pervasive mental barrier to allow those with their hands on our science budgets, to see how their assumptions are wrong.

To clearly demonstrate with simple concepts and well known physical interactions, that we CAN indeed, produce thrust from a closed system, we needed something less complicated than the GIT to get the idea across. That has now been realized with Joao's "Sling Drive" Inertial Propulsion demonstration device!

On the left is a simple graphic of the concept, which as originally presented, described two meshed (syncronous) axles that held masses, that would wind up to a high angular velocity, and then be simultaneously released toward the wall of their container.

Upon mass release, there will NOT be a direct and immediate rearward reaction, just a release of tension on the carrier arms, counterbalanced side to side, as the released masses begin forward travel.

In striking the wall, their impact velocity would cause the entire system to gain a net forward (upward in this instance) velocity change.

That wasn't easy to enough to see, since it could be argued that the final back swing of the masses would impart a rearward velocity on the frame, that would exactly counter the forward impact (the "for every action, there is an opposite but equal reaction" mantra).

While I still maintain that is not true, the goal was something that has no "wiggle room" for a "mental experiment" demonstration. Back to the drawing boards! (That's an old timey expression for drawing up concepts on paper, before CAD software for you youngsters! ;)

Shown on the left is a counter-rotating pair of excentric masses, which will oscillate back and forth in space, in response to the centrifugal forces not canceled out side to side by each other (well, top and bottom in this case).

Note, that as the masses both reach the inside positions prior to release, the frame is moving rearward (left) at maximum velocity. The rearward centrifugal force has first stopped the forward movement, reversed it, then accelerated the frame in the opposite direction to that in which we want to go (right).

Each half cycle (outside to inside, and vice-versa), is equal to one another, but opposite in direction, for a net zero external velocity in "dymamic equilibrium". So far, this is not controversial, just simple Newtonian functions.

But we will back up for a minute, to engage the "rocket jockeys" in our understandings.

Here I've animated a BSD (Balanced Sling Drive), a concept improvement by recent contributor J. Snell. He has a web site up on the net now, and asked me to give you a link for his contribution. Sure J.! ;)

J. added a counter balancing mass to each axle, so that the wind up will not produce any external movement, not even vibration prior to mass release. In this instance, I've thrown the masses away, to make a point.

Since the frame is at total rest prior to the mass release from their arms, we have a rearward force on the frame that is NOT previously countered by a forward sweep and movement, by the now excentric red masses swinging to the rear.

That will give the frame a net rearward velocity before beginning continuous and complete 360 degree self canceling cycles, settling the frame into a back and forth moving oscillation, NOW with a net rearward velocity! (although a staggering velocity! ;)

This is simple Newtonian logic, HEY, we threw the masses away, there HAS to be a movement of the frame now, since we added momentum from an "outside mass interaction"! In this instance, the net action/reaction sequence is something similar to rocket propulsion (boo-hisssss! ;).

I've added the throw-away mass concept to make the point, that the net momentum imparted to the frame to the rear, by the previously uncountered half cycle sweep, will NOT be greater than the amount of mass/momentum that we throw away, OR added back with the impact of the green masses. This gives us our "opposite and equal reaction" safe harbor, and easily seen logic (even by rocket heads ;), for further examination.

Are you ready for this? NOW, we know that by simple Newtonian logic, that the now final unbalanced rearward swing of the axle retained masses (red) will NOT be greater in force than the impact of the green masses on the frame!

While I maintain that the excentric Sling Drive will have a net impulse (single throw masses on each axle), I can state categorically that the final rearward sweep of the (red masses) of a Balanced Sling Drive can NOT be greater in negative impulse than the forward impact of the green masses!

(Ahem.... think about it for just a darned second, for if that were so, (greater rearward sweep impulse than forward impact), we'd have inertial propulsion the other way! ;) Damned if you do, damned if you don't, stake your counter argument on THAT mistake! GOTCHA! ;)

The swan dive impact of the red masses on their final sweep back toward the front, will NOW give us a net external velocity change from totally internal actions! Boom boom, we're outa here! ;)

This is supposed to be impossible (just like I keep getting told about my GIT and Thor machines), and yet, I believe I've shown a simple means to achieve the "impossible"! Of course, a dyed in the wool Newtonian will counter " The impact of the second masses back in the direction of the ejected mass would only stop the frame at it's average velocity, and stop oscillating, if thrown mass example is considered, still equal to the momentum imparted by the exiting mass, or just stay in place with one or both impacts, and would NOT come to a halt with respect to it's beginning point if traveling from mass ejection, just halt oscillation at it's average velocity, everything balances, no exceptions". Sighhh.....;)

There are those that will still not believe the above devices would gain a net external velocity, so how about this? On the right is another internal impact, but THIS time, out to the sides, instead of in either direction.

The Newtonian says, "But in an oscillation, the masses would be at the rest positions of frame and swing masses relative to each other in the x dimension, and the frame has come to a complete rest, you've displaced the frame only by the new internal position of the masses, center of gravity stays in place".

OK, we agreed that the full cycle sweeps are applying centrifugal force on the axle through the entire sweep, alternating front and rear canceling force vectors over time in an oscillation. The mass may be at rest in respect with the frame's x velocity, as it is released to the sides, and assume the frame has come to a complete halt. What happens to the centrifugal force on the frame at that point, once the mass is released to hit the sides?

The frame will experience a "snap back" on it's axles to the left in this graphic. Did we destroy that force, or......? In steady oscillation. we have a net impulses on the axles opposite and equal in force in complete cycles, and thus dynamic equilibrium, but here we cut the impulse quantity in half on one side!

The momentum of the now opposed direction impact masses will turn to heat (if not caught in say, an hydralic energy capture), and give us a net external velocity change! ;) Can you find a flaw in my logic? I will not answer "we all know that....", or "so and so said so", or other useless arguments that have no merit in true scientific discourse, which seems to pervade today's science establishment.

You should now be able to show those that believe that inertial propulsion is impossible, that we can indeed, create thrust from simple mechanical movements in a closed system!

Of course, this would be one bumpy, whiplash ride as a propulsion mechanism, but this concept is only designed to be a demonstration of the "impossible", easily seen by even the most ardent adherant to centuries old understandings! OR, they may toss and turn for nights on end, trying to disprove this concept, but at least they will be thinking, and not assuming.

Have fun opening minds, but don't expect it to be graciously accepted. I've learned from bitter experience that "well established scientific facts" and worshipped "science" dogma, dies hard indeed! ;)

Write me if you try this concept on those that have rudimentary motion physics knowlege, and let me know your experiences in helping us get our next frontier opened up for you and me!

I'd like to thank Dann McCreary for assisting us in getting this idea into better format and making it more understandable. His GIT experiments and continued participation in our international group has been invaluable!

DavidC's Inertial Propulsion web site index page

.