Closed Loop Pulse Propulsion: A new Guide with Models, Interactive VPython Scripts, Explanations and stories!

[mikelewis]

9. Yup, you nailed it. Way to make the effort!

Last edited Thu Oct 3, 2024, 12:46 PM - Edit history (58)

Thank you and have a lovely life. Melinda...

On Edit:

These are the videos of the different models you can build. They're arranged from oldest to newest so you can see the evolution of the project. Please do your best to copy them from the videos and build them yourselves. I will post the .stl files on my website when I get around to building it. This is a completely one man band as currently there's like 10 other people who know how to do this and they are all over the world. So it's taking time to put it all together... but it's getting there.

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6QYtoVBH6X7egCeZOJrljlOeuRvyoUGj&si=q9MIaR_ASJMST9Bd



These are ridiculously basic models. Put more weight, longer arms and faster motors on any and all of them. I have not tested the Gravity assisted models on water but I believe they will do extremely well. Gravity assisted eliminates the need for the second arm and let's you deliver a blast of thrust exactly where you need it. See the tractor pull video and the work videos for the examples of what I mean. In gravity rich environments, these might actually be the best way to go.

Important note... We are still cutting the radius on these models. Notice the bridge that stops the arms just short of the solenoids... that is crucial. You can cut a radius in two ways. You can shorten the length of the arm or tether or you can stop the arm closer to the center of where it's spinning. Think about getting your hand caught in the spokes of a tire. If you stop the tire from the outside it's easier than if you grabbed the center around the axel... this is also what I call, 'cutting the radius'. So when we stop the Gravity Assisted arm closer to the pivot point, we are adding momentum. This seems counterintuitive but I assure you, spend some time trying to understand it before coming to any judgements please.

This is my favorite one... well one of them. This is the Tractor Pull... well, Tractor Push video using Gravity Assisted CLPP. It's different as it won't work in space... but it'll make a hell of a snow plow. Also please note the Mosfet button... it's taken me years to understand how to wire that stupidly easy thing to wire... I still can't explain it and I have to copy it exact, like I'm doing surgery but there it is... my first Mosfet button energizing my horizontal jackhammer... it's the little victories that keep me going.

Also note that the elevated prop that is holding up the unit in the front, that is just an extra piece of PLA plastic I had laying around so it would slide better and on the back, there's a screw head on the back that makes the back slide better. The point was to try to get as little friction as possible.

Later I get it to jackhammer on wheels too... I forget which video it's in but it really does. You put the whole jackhammer device on wheels... that shitty white cart and it'll push things the same way... it's crazy. This is only one half of a full unit because Gravity handles the other half... otherwise this is the exact same design as Goodbye Norma Jean. They work identically... it's just you get an 87 mile an hour free push with gravity... why waste it?

This is a chat about alternative propulsion methods and how they compare with CLPP. Essentially, they all suck but I could have told you that.🤣

https://chatgpt.com/share/aadbf217-3d97-46ac-91ac-b807f70d9645

The I think I understand what the Thornson Propulsion System is and how it works. The model I believe that was most similar to mine was the potter's wheel with the super capacitor on top. When you spin it up, it drags the potters wheel across the table... so it works but honestly, it sucks. You'd need massive weight to go anywhere and I'm pretty certain there's a top speed as I don't think it's true CLPP but I didn't work with it too much. I understood immediately it wasn't what I wanted but it did prove to me CLPP could work. I had no idea someone else had invented a form of this propulsion already, and it's truly amazing they didn't try this out in space. I really don't think they have a clue how this works...
From what I see, this is a form of CLPP... not a great implementation of it but this proves to me that someone else built a machine that proves me right. CLPP is better... exponentially better but the Thornson Propulsion System to me is an independent verification that CLPP is real.

Ok... so this is new... I just found this online and believe me, I have been hunting for things like this. So either this guy just made these videos public or there's a hidden Youtube I am not invited to see. Regardless... This is a version of CLPP and another independent confirmation that these principles are real. I am not the only one!!!

See!!! This guy has it nailed... That method sucks but it works. That's the exact same thing as the Thornson Propulsion System, I assume as it sounds identical. But neither system, no matter how they achieve the effect is True Closed Loop Pulse Propulsion. One major and immediately obvious advantage is by reducing the Radius, CLPP is much more powerful than both of these designs. Plus there is a reverse momentum in this setup making it unable to glide, which is why I abandoned the spinning magnet on the potters wheel design. It's limited but as you can see... it works in a way.

Now his reasoning in the following video as to why his system works is just bonkers. If you listen to his explanation that is not remotely what is happening, he's not 'changing time' , he's unbalancing the load and using one off-balanced equation to push off the other. When the weights spin around, they create a reverse momentum so he's just making a short jump into a new center of mass location. The thrust is just a short little hop and not really a glide as the reverse momentum will stop the coasting, even in space.

So, for just moving something around, this is fine but for a replacement for rocket propulsion, No, it's more like crawling. That being said, the momentums do combine in a manner that is a version of CLPP, only it's more like the Gravity Assisted Models I created as all you'll get in space and on Earth is those measured hops. At least for me, maybe they know something I don't. I discussed that design with AI a while back ago but couldn't figure out how to make it glide or amp it up without a massive system so I abandoned it. But that certainly does work... albeit mind-numbingly slow in proportion to the mass and it's never going to glide, just hop. So the reason it's not True CLPP is simply because those pulses aren't stackable. By cancelling out the momentum as those weights come around, you lose your ability to stack pulses, meaning you'll only move as fast as your motor can run and that's it.

https://www.glowscript.org/#/user/fifth.grade.physics/folder/perletutchmallotion/program/Ray's-Knockers

I was busting Ray's chops with this Model... Ray had said that my designs required friction to work and though they're completely fine on Earth, they would fail as the friction was reduced. Which is how I knew I had him because that is not true. I mocked him with this Ray's Floppy Space Knockers demonstration but oddly enough, this is precisely how Steven Hampton's model works. So that is absolutely great... that is propulsion in space... it's just got it's limits.

https://chatgpt.com/share/90b0eadf-8da5-4982-8c60-ad8dfc1c259f
This is a chat that explains how the Thornson Propulsion system and the Steven Hampton's Propulsion Systems work and why CLPP kicks their ass!!! Still, you have to hand it to both of these guys... they invented the first, almost, CLPP devices in history. They can absolutely move in space without expelling mass. They can't go very fast but they can do it... and this chat explains how and why they're not true CLPP devices.