Effect of Momentum Dismemberment on Linear Momentum

Effect of Momentum Dismemberment on Linear Momentum.

(This document is a work in progress: wjeconsultant@gmail.com)

The first impression many people get when they see the turbulent fluid space propulsion proposal (wjetech.50webs.com/simple/ or wjetech.50webs.com ) is that it breaks the law of conservation of linear momentum. This simple analysis demonstrates that the proposal does not in any way invalidate the fundamental laws of physics as we understand them.

Fig. 1

In Fig. 1 we have our pressurized structure (M1) in a micro-gravity environment, inside (M1) we have a 100k mass (M2), as M1 and M2 are traveling at the same velocity and direction we may say M2 is “floating” inside M1.

What we desire is for M2 to accelerate in the +X direction so that it may “bump” onto the pressurized structure (M1) forward hull accelerating the pressurized structure in the +X direction.

(Ok, I know it sound silly, Pleases continue reading)

In Fig.2 we illustrate how we accelerate the 100k mass (M2) in the +X direction by expelling a steel ball (M3) in the –X direction.

Fig 2

In Fig 3 we can see that although M2 did accelerate and collide with the pressurized structure’s (M1) forward hull, any velocity change in M1 is canceled by the collision of the steel ball (M3) in the –X direction, no “forward” motion is generated.

This is true no matter how many steel balls are expelled, what mass they have, what size they are, what velocity they are expelled at, if the distance to the –X hull is short or very long the resulting forces inside the pressurized structure (M1) always end with a net change of 0.

No matter what ingenious idea we may have there NEVER will be a net change in velocity if we use steel balls.

Fig.3

Having established that it is futile to accelerate the 100k mass (M2) by expelling mass in the –X direction, it may be safe to presume the same result may be expected if we accelerate the M2 mass by blowing air in the –X direction (Fig. 4), after all we may assume the air molecules are equivalent to very small steel balls, it is necessary to take a closer look at this assumption.

Fig. 4

In Fig. 5 we represent the air movement generated by the propellers (or other blowing apparatus) as a series of masses (M3₁, M3₂ ,M3₃ ,M3₄ ,M3₅….) each with its corresponding momentum (red arrows).

If the air molecules were tiny steel balls and the containing structure (M1) was a vacuum, then the behavior of the system will be equivalent of what is described in Fig.3 because all the tiny steel balls will reach the –X hull of the containing structure (M1), as soon as the last tiny steel ball collides with the –X hull all momentum will cancel out.

Fig.5

But as the pressurized structure (M1) contains air at normal atmospheric pressure, the air molecules traveling in the –X direction encounter air molecules (Fig 6) that move in random direction and various velocities, when they collide they change directions and transfer momentum to each other.

Remember that according to the kinetic theory of gases

Gases can be visualized as very small particles, the “average” distances between said particles may be 40 times the “size” of the gas molecules yet as they constantly move at very high velocity (dependent on the temperature) they are constantly colliding with one another. Collisions between molecules are perfectly elastic: that is, energy from one molecule can be transferred to another through collisions.

Pressure is a result of the collision of gas particles with the walls of their container.

Fig. 6

Fig 7.

If the –X hull off the pressurized hull is very near to the source of the air current most of the molecules may collide with the –X hull and effectively transfer their momentum in the –X direction, but the longer the distance between the –X hull and the source of the air current the grater the number of molecules it may collide with, changing their direction many times before hitting any of the hulls (-X,+X,-Y or +Y), the total momentum may not change but is dismembered, no longer a “relative orderly fashion” ( red arrows) in the –X direction as illustrated in Fig.5, but a more “random” pattern as illustrated in Fig 7.

The more the masses ( air molecules involved ) the more collisions happen, momentum is never “lost” but it is divided and diverted, and the resulting direction on multi mass collisions does not result in the same direction as the original vector.

Consider what would be necessary for the turbulent fluid space propulsion proposal not to work.

Fig. 8a Fig. 8b

In order for the proposal not to work, to accelerate a mass expelling steel balls (Fig 8a) must be exactly equivalent to accelerating the mass by expelling (or blowing) air and that is not the case.

Momentum in the +X direction.

Regardless of the method we use to accelerate the mass in the +X direction, if the final velocity is the same (let us say 1mps) both will generate the same force in the +X direction:

If:

V₁ = V₂ and

M₁ = M₂ then

V₁ x M₁ = V₂ x M₂ = F₁ = F₂

But for the same force to be excreted in the –X direction it would be necessary to:

1- Each of the air molecules must reach the –X hull without colliding with a random air molecule or:

2- Every air molecule encountered is at rest and in the exact position so that the momentum continues in the –X direction without a relative change in direction, as illustrated in fig 9.

Fig 9

In short what I am stating is that even in a closed system the force on a surface produced by a jet of air (or other Newtonian fluid ) decreases as the distance from the source increases. This is true if the flow is turbulent.

For more details on using the behavior of turbulent fluid flow in space propulsion please see http://www.wjetech.50webs.com/#Part2

Question? More info? Flame? Please contact wjeconsultant@gmail.com

A simple video of the idea can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjaZioGLdTg

Home Page, Simple experimentations, building a working model, video of homemade working model,