| --------------| A COLLECTION OF IDEAS | by Raheman Velji |
Two inventions that propel themselves using "self-suffiecient
propultion". A third invention which is an interesting dynamo.
(2) Law of Conservation of Energy
A few reasons why the Law of Conservation of Energy is wrong.
Redefining work intuitively, with the knowledge that the Law of
Conservation of Energy is wrong.
An attempt at explaining electricity with the knowledge of "(3)
* must use a fixed-size font to view diagrams properly
-|-|-| (1) INVENTIONS -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
1) The Seesaw Newton Motor
2) The Simple Newton Engine
3) The Gravitational-density Dynamo
Devices which use "self-sufficient propulsion" work on Newton's law
that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction." The idea is
to harness the "action" and eliminate the "reaction", or convert the
"reaction" into useable energy. Thus, within the device, the
"reaction" is lost allowing the "action" to propel the device. All
devices that use "self-suffiecient propulsion" work without affecting
the environment. That is, they don't need a road to push off of like
cars, they don't have to push air like planes or spew out gases like
space shuttles. Thus, they get the name "self-sufficient propulsion"
because they are self-sufficient. In other words, you can put a box
around the entire device and the box would move, and nothing would
enter or exit the box, and the device itself wouldn't react with the
environment that comes inside the box. It only reacts to the
environment in the box, which it creates, which it uses to propel
itself. (I propose that any device that uses self-suffiecient
propulsion should have the name "Newton" added to its full-name so
that we remember how it relates to Newton's third law.)
Whether the Seesaw Newton Motor or the Simple Newton Engine are
feasible is uncertain. However, the idea of "self-suffiecient
propulsion" will have a lasting effect on transportation.
The third invention is an interesting dynamo which generates
(must be read using a "fixed-size font" to view diagrams)
=-=-=-1) The Seesaw Newton Motor=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
o <--seesaw ||
Ideally, "M1a", "M1b", "M2a", "M2b", "m1", "m2" are all
electromagnets. (Some of the electromagnets can be changed into
permanent magnets where it is deemed fit.) "M1a", "M1b", "M2a", and
"M2b" are fastened to the base, while "m1" and "m2" are connected to a
"seesaw" whose pivot ("o") is connected to the base. (It is possible
to construct this without the back electromagnets.)
The way this invention works is somewhat hard to understand. Here is
a simplified version:
When "M1a" and "m1" are nearly touching an electric current is sent
through "M1a", "M1b", and "m1". "M1a" should repel "m1" while "M1b"
should attract "m1". Thus, both "M1a" and "M1b" will experience a
force in the forward direction, while the seesaw swings around
bringing "m2" close to "M2a". As "M2a" and "m2" are close now, an
electric current will pass through "M2a", "M2b", and "m2". "M2a"
should repel "m2" while "M2b" should attract "m2". Again, the
electromagnets connected to the base, "M2a" and "M2b", will experience
a force in the forward direction while the seesaw swings back to its
starting position to repeat the cycle. Since all the electromagnets
that are connected to the base experience a force in the forward
direction, the entire device will be propelled forward as the seesaw
keeps swinging about. Notice that the seesaw does *not*
simply moves back and forth, like a seesaw.
It should be noted that as the seesaw swings about, a bit of the
"backward" energy of the electromagnet on the seesaw will be conveyed
to the base via the pivot, thus slowing down the entire device. That
loss of speed, though, is negligible.
The above explanation of the workings of the Seesaw Newton Motor is
incomplete. One must understand the following:
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The main idea of the
Seesaw Newton motor is to harness the "action" by converting the
"reaction" into useable energy. When the front electromagnets and the
electromagnet on the seesaw are activated, the front and back
electromagnets experience a "positive" force by being forced forward.
The electromagnet on the seesaw, however, experiences a "negative"
force as it moves in the backward direction. One must get rid of the
"negative" energy of the electromagnet on the seesaw. If the
"negative" energy is not rid of, then it will somehow be transferred
to the entire device, thus not allowing the device to gain velocity
and move forward. The Seesaw Newton Motor does not only get rid of
the "negative" energy, it in fact uses it to propel the device
further. Consider the following scenario: a Seesaw Newton motor at
rest, and set-up similar to the diagram above. Now, let us initiate a
current through "M1a", "M1b", and "m1". The electromagnets on the
base ("M1a" and "M1b") will experience a "positive" force by being
forced forward. The electromagnet on the seesaw ("m1"), however, will
experience a "negative" force by being forced backward. However, at
the other end of the seesaw, the electromagnet ("m2") seems to be
approaching the front electromagnet ("M2a") and receding from the back
electromagnet ("M2b"). Thus, at the other end of the seesaw, when
those electromagnets are activated, the repulsive force between the
electromagnet on the seesaw and the front electromagnet will be
greater, thus propelling the device further forward. Also, at the
other end of the seesaw, when those electromagnets are activated, the
attractive force between the electromagnet on the seesaw and the back
electromagnet will be greater, again propelling the device further
forward. The fact that both magnets ("M2a" and "M2b") experience a
greater forward force is due to the the initial "negative" energy of
the electromagnet ("m1"). Thus, both the "action" and the "reaction"
are harnessed to propel the entire device forward.
If both "action" and "reaction" are to be harnessed, one must ensure
that the electromagnets on the seesaw should not hit either the front
electromagnets or the back electromagnets. That is because if, as the
seesaw swings, "m1" hits "M1b" or "m2" hits "M2b", then the collision
will slow the forward motion of the entire device. It may seem that
if the seesaw swings so hard that "m1" hits "M1a" or "m2" hits "M2a"
then the force of the collision will cause the base to experience a
force in the forward direction. This is wrong. Only the "forward
momentum" of the seesaw will "push" the base forward. However, when
the seesaw hits the front electromagnets, the entire seesaw will stop
moving and the "backward momentum" of the electromagnet on the seesaw
will be conveyed to the base via the pivot. Thus, such collisions are
One must avoid collisions by ensuring that the electromagnets are
activated such that the seesaw never has a chance to collide. Thus,
input sensors would need to be used to calculate the speed of the
seesaw so that the electromagnets can be perfectly timed to avoid
collisions. By avoiding collisions, both "action" and "reaction" are
Notice that for this invention to actually move, the electromagnets
must be very strong and the entire device must be light. Otherwise,
the device will stay in the same spot and just wiggle about instead of
moving. In any case, this invention can definetely compete with
devices that use ion propulsion.
Also, the entire Seesaw Newton Motor can (with a battery) be put into
a box and the box would move without interacting with the environment
outside the box. Thus, it moves using "self-sufficient propulsion".
=-=-=-2) The Simple Newton Engine-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The Simple Newton Engine works using "self-sufficient propulsion".
The engine is a cylinder with a piston in it. The piston may require
wheels to move inside the cylinder.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The main idea of the
Simple Newton Engine is to harness the action by getting rid of the
reaction. How do we get rid of the momentum of the reaction? One way
is by using friction, which is discussed in "Step 3".
The idea is to force the piston in the backward direction, down the
cylinder. Since every action has an equal and opposite reaction, the
cylinder will then experience a force in the forward direction. This
force is ideally created by using electromagnets. Let us say that
there is an electromagnet on the piston ("#") which repels the magnet
("X") that is connected to the front of the cylinder. (Also, one
could make this similar to a Linear Induction Motor, with the piston
as the projectile.)
|| #X| <--magnet ("X") forward -->
| ||__piston ("#")
Now, activate the electromagnet on the piston. Thus, the piston,
which is repelled by the magnet, moves down the cylinder, as the
magnet and the cylinder accelerate forward.
| ___ The magnet and the cylinder
| || move forward...
| \/ -->
| | # X|
| /\ <--
| ||__ ...as the piston moves backward
| through the cylinder
In fractions of a second, the piston will have arrived at the back of
the cylinder. The piston must be stopped before it slams into the
back of the cylinder because, if it does, then the energy of the
piston will cancel out the forward velocity that the cylinder has
gained. So, the energy of the piston must be removed (by friction,
e.g. brakes on the wheels) or harnessed (a method which converts the
"negative" energy of the piston into something useable).
If friction is used to stop the piston, the friction must cause the
piston to lose velocity in decrements; should the brake make the
piston stop abruptly, then the "negative" momentum of the piston will
be transferred to the cylinder. Consider the following analogy: if
I'm on a bike and I stop abrubtly by pushing down hard on my brakes, I
(my body) will go hurtling forth until I hit a wall. In the presence
of gravity, I might hit the ground before I hit a wall, but the point
remains the same. However, if I push on my brakes and slowing come to
a stop, I can avoid being thrown forward. And moreover, by coming to
a stop slowing, the momentum of me and the bike is dissipated as heat,
and perhaps sound. Thus, in the Simple Newton Engine the "reaction"
is lost due to friction (as heat and possibly sound) while the
"action" is harnessed to propel the cylinder forward.
| | # X|
| ||__The piston must be stopped before
| it hits the back of the cylinder
When the piston has reached the end, and has been brought to a stop,
it must then be moved to the front of the cylinder, perhaps by hooking
it to a chain which is being pulled by a motor. Perhaps the piston
can slowly move back on its wheels towards the front of the cylinder.
Or perhaps the piston can be removed from the cylinder when it is
being transferred to the front, and thus leave the cylinder free so
that another piston can "shoot" through the cylinder.
| |# X|
Return to STEP 1:
The piston has been returned to the front. Overall, the engine has
moved and gained velocity. Now it is ready to restart at STEP 1.
| | #X|
Also, like the Seesaw Newton Motor, the entire Simple Newton Engine
can (with a battery) be put into a box and the box would move without
interacting with the environment outside the box. Thus, it uses
Magnetic Propulsion for the Simple Newton Engine:
mmmmm ____ mmmmm <-- "m" are magnets
mmmm /WWWWWW\ mmmm
mm \W\ mm
m W mmmm W m <-- "W" is a wire coil
m |W| mmmmmm |W| m
m |W| mmmmmm |W| m
m W mmmm W m X forward
mm \W\ mm /W/
mm (into paper)
mmm \W\____/W/ mmm
mmmm \WWWWWW/ mmmm
If the magnets "m" are arranged such that the field is perpendicular
to the wire, and if a current is set up in the wire coil, then the
wire coil will either move forward or backward. This could be applied
to the Simple Newton Engine. The wire coil would be the "piston" and
the magnets would be part of the "cylinder".
It should be noted that the Simple Newton Engine creates a small
amount of force for a relatively minute amount of time. In my mind,
it would only be effective if many are used simultaneously. For
example, I imagine that it wouldn't be too hard for the Simple Newton
Engine to have a burst of 5N for a tenth of a second. Building a unit
of ten thousand of such Newton engines would create a combined force
of 5000N, assuming that the engines can "reload" in 0.9 seconds. The
real problem is getting a good force-to-mass ratio (acceleration); if
you can get acceleration greater than 10 m/s² then you can pretty much
launch any vehicle, no matter how massive, into space. If the vehicle
is too massive, then all you need to do is add more individual engines
to the unit, and eventually it should lift off the ground. If such
high accelerations cannot be made, then I'm sure this invention can
compete with ion propulsion.
=-=-=-3) The Gravitational-density Dynamo-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Here is the general idea of the Gravitational-density Dynamo:
First, an object (the object could be a liquid) on the ground is
inserted into a tall tube which contains a fluid which is more dense
than the object. Also, the object should be insoluble in the fluid.
Due to the density difference, the submerged object is displaced
upwards. When the object reaches the top, it is removed from the tube
and is dropped. Due to the force of gravity, it will fall. The
energy of the falling object will somehow be harnessed to create
electricity. Once the object has reached the ground, it must be
reinserted back into the tube to repeat the process. (Notice that the
tube should be as tall as possible so as to maximize the amount of
energy of the object when it falls.)
When I first conceived this idea I figured the object would be a log
of wood, and the fluid would be water. In the following section, I
will examine a Gravitational-density Dynamo that uses water as the
object and perfluorooctane as the fluid.
-|-|-| (2) LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY |-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
Here is a specific, and perhaps practical, version of the
Gravitational-density dynamo. (The workings of the
Gravitational-density dynamo was described in the previous section.)
semi- __\ |___ _________________ |
permeable / | | | |
material | |
(dialysis | | |
tubing) | | |
| | |
| | ------*------ <--\
| | | |
| | | turbine
| | |
tube B --> | |
(contains | | | |
perfluoro- | | | |
octane) | | | |
| | | | <-- tube A
| | | | (contains
| |_________________| | water)
| | |
Tube A contains water. Tube B contains perfluorooctane. Tube A
and tube B are connected to each other by dialysis tubing, which is a
semi-permeable material. Water can permeate through the dialysis
tubing, but perfluorooctane can't. Due to osmotic pressure, the water
in tube A will pass through the dialysis tubing entering tube B.
Since perfluorooctane is insoluble in water, and since water is less
dense than perfluorooctane, the water will rise to the top of tube B.
The water that has risen will permeate through the dialysis tubing at
the top of tube B. Once enough water has accumulated at the top of
tube B, it will fall, turning the turbine, and returning back into
Notice that this dynamo didn't require any input energy, and it
will continue to work, creating electricity by turning the turbine
(and generator, which is not shown), so long as the perfluorooctane
does not seep into tube A through the semi-permeable material.
Eventually, the perfluorooctane will seep through the dialysis tubing,
and so, this invention is not a perpetual motion machine.
But how can this dynamo generate electricity without any input
energy? First, let's observe that the water at the top of tube B has
a gravitational potential energy. When it falls, the gravitational
potential energy is realized and is converted into electricity by the
turbine (and generator, which is not shown). But how did the water
initially get its gravitational potential energy? It got its
gravitational potential energy from being displaced in a fluid
(perfluorooctane) that is more dense than it. Thus, we must conclude
that insoluble objects in fluids that are more dense gain
gravitational potential energy by being displaced upwards. However,
where is that energy coming from? By the Law of Conservation of
Energy, something must lose energy so that another can gain energy.
Since we cannot find anything losing energy, we must conclude that the
Law of Conservation of Energy is wrong, and that gravity creates
forces which then create/destroy energy; in this case it created
energy in the final form of electricity.
Energy is being created/destroyed all around us. Gravity and
magnetism are prime examples. Both create forces. The immediate
effect of the forces on the system is nothing (the vectors of the
forces cancel each other out). However, after the immediate effect,
and after a minute amount of real time, the forces will do work on the
system. If "positive work" is done, then the system will gain energy.
If "negative work" is done, then the system will lose energy.
Whether energy seems to be added to the system or removed depends on
your inertial frame of reference. Should these forces be sustained
for a longer duration of real time, then the forces might be found to
have not done any work on the system (that is, it added the same
amount of energy that was removed).
Suppose we have two magnets with like-charges "q" and "q0". The
space between the two charges is "r". Let the potential energy
between the charges be "U". So,
U = ------ ------
where pi = 3.14
E is the permittivity of free space
As the two magnets are moved closer to each other, potential
energy will be gained and kinitic energy will be lost. As the two
magnets move away from each other, potential energy will be lost and
kinitic energy will be gained.
Say, initially, that both magnets are far apart. Now, let us do
work by moving the charges closer together. When we are done, and the
magnets are close to each other, the potential energy will have
increased. The increase will be equivalent to the work we did.
Now, let's say that we took two hammers and pounded both magnets
until they lost their magnetism. Then, the potential energy between
the two magnets will dissappear. Thus, the system has lost energy
without any part of the system gaining energy. Thus, we have
demonstrated that the Law of Conservation of Energy is wrong.
Let me recap: First, we did work to move two repelling magnets
together. Thus, we lost energy, while the magnets gained potential
energy. We then destroyed the magnetism of the magnets, thus losing
the potential energy. Thus, all-in-all, we lost energy.
This idea, which works on magnetism, can also be applied to
Consider two stationary gaseous planets, both made entirely of
deutrium. Let's move them apart from each other. That is, let's do
work on the planets, thus increasing the gravitational potential
energy between the planets. The increase in gravitational potential
energy will be equivalent to the amount work we did separating the
Now, let's say that the deutrium of both planets began to fuse by
the following equation:
deutrium atom + deutrium atom => helium atom + neutron + 3.27 MeV
(from http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html )
(It is true that I didn't include the initial energy to start the
fusion. However, the above equation is properly balanced, so we do
not have to consider the initial energy required.)
Now, it is obvious that mass is being converted into energy.
Since the mass of both planets are decreasing, the gravitational
potential energy between both planets will also decrease. Thus, the
work we did moving the planets apart will diminish. Thus, we have
again demonstrated the Law of Conservation of Energy is wrong.
Let me recap: First, we did work be moving the two planets
apart. Thus, we lost energy, while the planets gained gravitational
potential energy. We then converted some of the mass of the planets
into energy. Thus, in the process, we lost gravitational potential
energy. Thus, all-in-all, we lost energy.
-|-|-| (3) WORK -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
Once one has realized that energy is not conserved, the big
question that arises is how did something so obvious allude us, and
for so long. The answer to that has many reasons. One reason is that
we did not define work intuitively. I will now attempt to rectify
First, let's realize that force has two equations, or rather,
that it can be observed in two different ways. First, there is
f_g = pA
where f_g is general force
p is pressure
A is area
And then there is "effective force":
f_e = ma
where f_e is effective force
m is mass
a is acceleration
Thus, effective force is general force which is allowed to "change
motion". (By change motion, I mean that the force is allowed to
increase/decrease velocity (unhindered by other forces).)
Consider the following scenario: two classmates, Jack and Jill,
both able to hold a one-kilogram brick. Naturally, holding that brick
on Earth is approximately equivalent to maintaining a force of 10
Newtons. Let's say that Jack held his brick for 20 seconds, and Jill
held her brick for 2 seconds. Now, without using any scientific
jargon, who did the most work? Jack obviously did more work than
Jill. Thus, intuitively, work should equal force multiplied by time.
Notice, that this means that work done on an object does not
necessarily have to change motion. On the contrary, even if you
placed a book on a table, work is being done; the table is maintaining
a force, and likewise, the book is maintaining a force. The force of
gravity between the two is causing stress at the atomic level. Work,
in general, does not require a change in velocity. Thus, I call the
following the equation for "general work":
W_g = f_g*t
where W_g is general work
t is a period of time
Now, there are two definitions of general work; one is a verb, the
other is a noun. The verb general work is force multiplied by time.
The noun general work is the *result*
of general work (verb). In
other words, the process of general work (verb) causes general work
(noun) to be accomplished.
Of course, as with force, there is also a "effective work". Effective
work is general work which is allowed to change motion. So, take the
term "f_g" and make it effective, that is, change it into "f_e". And
W_g = f_g*t
W_e = f_e*
where W_e is effective work
And since in Newtonian physics
v = a*t
where v is velocity
we can simplify the equation for effective work to the following:
W_e = mv
In Newtontonian physics, momuntum is equal to "mv".
Now, there are also two definitions of effective work; one is a verb,
the other is a noun. The verb effective work is general work which is
allowed to change motion. The noun effective work is the *result*
general work (verb) which is allowed to change motion. In other
words, the process of effective work (verb) causes effective work
(noun) to be accomplished.
Thus, effective work (verb) causes a change in momentum and effective
work (noun) equals the change in momentum.
I concede that I do not know how general work and effective work
are changed when they are considered in Relativistic terms.
I propose that the real unit for work (that is, general work,
which is force multiplied by time) should be "P", for Prescott,
Joule's middle name. Thus, one prescott equals one newton second. I
relegate the old, traditional meaning for work to the term "productive
Now, work defined as it is today (productive work) is wrong
intuitively, but nonetheless, it is a *VERY* *USEFUL*
tool". It calculates "useful" work, where usefulness is defined as
causing an object (I use that term very loosely) to be displaced in a
certain direction. Power calculates the rate at which this "useful"
work is happening.
Now let me clarify the vocabulary I have used here:
* "change motion": Allowing a force to increase/decrease velocity
(unhindered by other forces)
* "General work" (or just "work") (calculated in prescotts):
In Newtonian physics "=f*
* "Effective work" (calculated in prescotts):
In Newtonian physics "=mv"
* "Productive work" (calculated in joules):
In Newtonian physics "=f*
s" where "s" is displacement
* "Useful/Useless work": Any work can be considered useful or useless
depending on the situation.
You may be asking, "Why allow general work to be called "work"
for short, instead of allowing that short form to indicate "effective
work" or "productive work"?" I kept it that way because "general
work" is a more general term compared with the other two terms. It's
kind of like how a comedian put it, "Why is it 'corn on the cob' and
'corn'? Instead, it should be 'corn' and 'corn off the cob'." Of
course, one could use the short-form "work" to indicate either
"general work", "effective work" or "productive work" by its use in
-|-|-| (4) ELECTRICITY |-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
Now, I am going to apply work using prescotts on an electrical
Let's find the average drift velocity:
A is the cross-section of the wire (m²)
n is "free" electrons per unit volume (electrons/m³)
e is the magnitude of charge of an electron
(1.602 * 10^(-19) C/electron)
v is the average drift velocity of the electrons (m/s)
I is the current in the wire (C/s)
dq is an infinitesimal amount of charge (C)
dt is an infinitesimal amount of time (s)
dN is an infinitesimal number of electrons (electrons)
(1) dq = e*dN
dN = nAv*dt
(2) dt = dN/(nAv)
(1)/(2) dq/dt = e*dN/(dN/nAv)
I = enAv
v = I/(enA)
Let's find force:
W_j is the Work in Joules (N*
f is the force (N)
s is the distance (m)
V is the voltage (N*m/C)
W_j = F*s
dW_j = F*
dW_j/dt = F*v
I = F*v
F = -----
P is pressure (Pa)
V = ---
So we can say that "voltage is the electromagnetic-pressure (created
by an EMF source) per density of charge."
Notice that the pressure supplied by an EMF has nothing to do with the
length of the circuit. A battery hooked to a 1-meter circuit of 1cm²
wire uses the same pressure to start a current as a similar battery
hooked to a 10000-meter circuit of similar wire!
W_i is the Initial Work (in Prescotts) (N*
(the work done to start the electrical circuit)
t is a duration of time (s)
m_e is the mass of an electron (9.109 * 10^(-31) kg/electron)
W_i = F*t
Notice that in this case "W_i" does not equal "m_e*v". This is
because over the period of time "t", which is greater than the average
change in time between electron collisions, the acceleration of the
electron is hindered when the electron loses its energy during a
U is Initial Work (in Prescotts) per Coulomb (N*
Q is an amount of charge (C)
p is the resistivity of the wire (ohm*m)
l is the length of the wire (m)
U = W_i/Q
Thus, we can say that "U" is a constant for any given circuit. So,
given any circuit, a constant amount of work is done to move a coulomb
along the circuit.
µ is Initial Work (in Prescotts) per Coulomb*
µ = dU/dl
So, the rate at which work is done per unit distance depends on the
t_c is the change in time between electron collisions (s)
Each electron gains "m_e*v" of energy before it makes a collision and
losses it's energy. The collision will take place in "t_c" seconds.
"U" is the amount of work to move a coulomb "l" meters along the wire.
And, in "l" meters, there will be "l/(v*t_c)" number of collisions.
----- = U
------- = enpl
t_c = ----
which is correct.
by Raheman Velji
November 7, 2004
you can also view this (and updated versions) at...