Re:NASA engineer's 'helical engine' may violate the laws of ...
by z3t4 on Tuesday October 15, 2019 @02:58AM
(#21256160)
So it should not be possible to ride a swing?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:NASA engineer's 'helical engine' may violate the laws of ...
by knzhou on Tuesday October 15, 2019 @03:12AM
(#21256214)
In a swing, the back-and-forth linear momentum comes from the tension in the wires, while the energy comes from your legs. No conservation laws are broken.
Re:NASA engineer's 'helical engine' may violate the laws of ...
by labawi on Tuesday October 15, 2019 @03:21AM
(#21256260)
It is not possible to ride an unanchored (and non-couterbalanced) swing in a vacuum.
Re:NASA engineer's 'helical engine' may violate the laws of ...
by steve_taylor on Tuesday October 15, 2019 @04:57AM
(#21256706)
What special properties does an atmosphere confer to a swing?
Re:NASA engineer's 'helical engine' may violate the laws of ...
by dean177 on Tuesday October 15, 2019 @06:27AM
(#21257144)
You need “downwards” acceleration for a swing. The vacuum bit isn’t important, it’s the gravity. They probably meant 0g rather than vacuum.
Re:NASA engineer's 'helical engine' may violate the laws of ...
by labawi on Sunday October 20, 2019 @03:06PM
(#21306312)
It slows you down :)
The vacuum part was an emphasis on requiring a counterpart to change momentum.
In an atmosphere you could flap your wings, or use electric fans, and argue what it means to ride a swing, but it would be besides the point, as in an atmosphere there is no need for propellant-less engines from the article.
Re:NASA engineer's 'helical engine' may violate the laws of ...
by gpderetta on Tuesday October 15, 2019 @06:25AM
(#21257130)
Maybe they meant in 0g?
Re:NASA engineer's 'helical engine' may violate the laws of ...
by SSLy on Tuesday October 15, 2019 @07:35AM
(#21257444)
none, but centers of gravity do
Re:NASA engineer's 'helical engine' may violate the laws of ...
by z3t4 on Tuesday October 15, 2019 @06:40AM
(#21257199)
If you can move levers, it's possible to rate your body. Maybe the inertia can be used as an anchor? Or you could use a sail.
Re:NASA engineer's 'helical engine' may violate the laws of ...
by phyzome on Tuesday October 15, 2019 @07:59AM
(#21257563)
A swing works by moving you back and forth relative to the Earth (and moving the Earth back and forth slightly as well, in the opposite direction, more or less.) The you + Earth system is not actually going anywhere. :-)
Re:NASA engineer's 'helical engine' may violate the laws of ...
by z3t4 on Tuesday October 15, 2019 @09:25AM
(#21258089)
So you need to leave something behind in order to go somewhere? But it would only be relative to the thing I left behind? But then there is some "special" relativity that applies everywhere?
Re:NASA engineer's 'helical engine' may violate the laws of ...
by phyzome on Tuesday October 15, 2019 @08:08PM
(#21265558)
> So you need to leave something behind in order to go somewhere?
As a definition, no. But no one has been able to figure out reactionless propulsion; as far as anyone can tell, the only way to accelerate in space is to throw something in the opposite direction (matter or light).
Re:NASA engineer's 'helical engine' may violate the laws of ...
by z3t4 on Wednesday October 16, 2019 @04:05PM
(#21274878)
If you tie a rope to a hammer, then spin it around as fast as you can like a hammer thrower, and drop it. Wouldn't the breaking force propel you in the same direction your let go of the hammer?
Re:NASA engineer's 'helical engine' may violate the laws of ...
by antonvs on Wednesday October 16, 2019 @04:32PM
(#21275203)
If you're in zero g and not on a surface with friction to push against, you're not going to be able to do what a hammer thrower can do standing on Earth.
But, if you provide some momentum to an object like a hammer and release it, you will move. That goes back to "you need to leave something behind in order to go somewhere."