PDA

View Full Version : why doesnt this reactionless turbine work?

raaaid
10-31-2008, 04:01 PM
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e222/raaaid/reacless.jpg

same amount of water flows on both senses but in one sense it does it 10000 times faster

shouldnt it work?

raaaid
10-31-2008, 04:01 PM
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e222/raaaid/reacless.jpg

same amount of water flows on both senses but in one sense it does it 10000 times faster

shouldnt it work?

stalkervision
10-31-2008, 04:13 PM
Tesla turbine?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_turbine

raaaid
10-31-2008, 04:27 PM
nono the point is to have a 1 m2 surface on one sense and 1 cm2 in the other sense an the water running in a loop

obiously the amount of water in both senses per second is equal but the speed in one sense would be 10.000 times greater

this would unbalance the thing and propel a craft without sending away mass

if i build it ill use a tesla turbine to propel the water

Aaron_GT
10-31-2008, 05:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">same amount of water flows on both senses but in one sense it does it 10000 times faster </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it doesn't. Water is incompressible, thus the back pressure will mean the flow won't be anything like what you imagine without putting additional work into the system, in which case it isn't a closed system any more.

In other words without putting extra work into the system the flow through the small pipe will not not be of equal volume at high speed. Fluid dynamics would prevent this.

raaaid
10-31-2008, 06:00 PM
well im not saying its free energy but reactionless

Aaron_GT
11-01-2008, 02:51 AM
If it is reactionless it won't be propelling anything attached to it.

I don't understand why you have drawn in turbine blades as you need to assume they are frictionless in which case they may as well not be there. You can the simplify the system into one tube of small diameter and one of large. You also have to assume initial energy input into the system to get the incompressible fluid moving and that all flow is laminar and frictionless.

Thus you have a section of tube where the fluid accelerates from low speed to high, and another one where the reverse is the case. Since the system has to be symmetric in speeds then it is symettric in forces and there is no 'unbalancing'.

raaaid
11-01-2008, 06:56 AM
thats interesting aaron

if i put a big pipe and a thin pipe and fluid going in oposite senses

Q(kgpersecond) will be the same in both senses so if its an ideal fluid uncompresible without giving any energy it will keep initial conditions

and initial conditions are 1 m/s in one sense and 10000 m/s in the other and being an ideal fluid it will keep like that forever

i see why reactionless thrust and antigravity might be supressed it leads to free energy

edit:
fluid keeps constantly accelerating in the vertical and only starts braking in the horizontal

edit:

the eqivalent to my idea would be a turbine that sent away the same amount of water in oposite senses but one has a speed of 1 m/s and the other of 10000

you see i use my right brain to think i may not be able to pass the exams design for left brainers but i right brainer see things that a left brainer will never see(as always now im breathing only though my left nostril)

DuxCorvan
11-01-2008, 06:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
if i put a big pipe and a thin pipe and fluid going in oposite senses </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh oh oh, stop, please! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

raaaid
11-01-2008, 07:19 AM
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e222/raaaid/turb.jpg

this is the same idea

Outlaw---
11-03-2008, 07:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
nono the point is to have a 1 m2 surface on one sense and 1 cm2 in the other sense an the water running in a loop

obiously the amount of water in both senses per second is equal but the speed in one sense would be 10.000 times greater

this would unbalance the thing and propel a craft without sending away mass

if i build it ill use a tesla turbine to propel the water </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you plan to build a device with frictionless surfaces?

Where do you plan to get an ideal incompressible fluid to fill it?

Why won't you simply show us the math to prove that there is a net force that could be measured from outside of the device?

--Outlaw?

TinyTim
11-03-2008, 09:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e222/raaaid/reacless.jpg

same amount of water flows on both senses but in one sense it does it 10000 times faster

shouldnt it work? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's of course not the same amount of water flowing in both directions. In a direction "up" there is a certain amount of water flowing with certain velocity. In direction down, there is 10.000 less water with 10.000 higher velocity, so the inertia cancels out.

Yes, water flowing thru thinner hose is faster, but its amount is proportionally smaller.

Outlaw---
11-03-2008, 10:50 AM
His system is closed with the arbitrary constraint that all the water moving in the "up" direction is forced through the middle orifice in the "down" direction, therefore the mass flow rate will be the same. I can't figure out why, with such amazing "free thinkers" around, I still don't have a rocket car in which I can take day trips to the moon.

--Outlaw.

Aaron_GT
11-03-2008, 01:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">reactionless thrust </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is an oxymoron. If there is no reaction there is no thrust, and vice versa.

Like Outlaw says we have 350 years of Newtonian mechanics on which trips to the moon are based.

Outlaw---
11-03-2008, 02:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">reactionless thrust </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is an oxymoron. If there is no reaction there is no thrust, and vice versa.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not in raaaid's world. In his world friction forces, viscous forces, and heat loss are easily assumed away and a free body diagram is "meaningless b/c you have to show all forces acting on the system". Even better, lacking the ability to calculate them, he also simply assumes trajectories, velocities, accelerations, and anything else (which includes almost everything) that is beyond his ability to calculate.

--Outlaw.

TinyTim
11-03-2008, 04:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Outlaw---:
His system is closed with the arbitrary constraint that all the water moving in the "up" direction is forced through the middle orifice in the "down" direction, therefore the mass flow rate will be the same. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is exactly what I am talking about.

mass flow = density x hose cross section x (mean) velocity.

There is "more" mass moving with "less" velocity upwards, so mass flux and inertia stays the same.

Equal mass flow doesn't mean there is equal amount of mass (or number of molecules) moving up and down.

Bremspropeller
11-03-2008, 04:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Equal mass flow doesn't mean there is equal amount of mass (or number of molecules) moving up and down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, dm/dt is equal.

Aaron_GT
11-03-2008, 04:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In his world friction forces, viscous forces, and heat loss are easily assumed away </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be fair we did a certain amount of that in physics classes, but you can't assume away the the other forces too in this instance...