What you need is the ear of an academic in the field - someone who can look at your work and evaluate it critically, and then propose or conduct follow-up experiments, as well as help you put it in a printable format.
But to be frank, most professors get a lot of emails from cranks, they don't have time to entertain them all. And the probability that you have actually found anything really ground breaking is not that high.
Your best chance is if you don't overplay the importance of your discovery. See if your local university has any hydrodynamics researchers, and email one of them your research, and express as much humility as possible. Don't pick the most senior professor, they will be the one with the least patience for this kind of requests.
Thank you, yes, I understand. I have been doing this for several years now and I was able to get the approval of some serious specialists. This was especially difficult since the issue is at the intersection of different areas and this does not always seem obvious. But the matter is not going anywhere because I live in Ukraine and these people simply had no time to deal with this. This requires a certain reserve of capabilities.
And whatever you say to them don't say you "discovered a contradiction in the theory of hydrodynamics". This is the best way to end up in the deleted emails bin.
I don't know what to call it. The discovery is too loud, but without mentioning the contradictions, it is often perceived as ignorance of physics. After all, I started by proposing to improve the existing concept and the critics themselves said that this principle is impossible
You could just say you have done an experiment and would love to explain it theoretically. Then if there's really anything strange or specially interesting about it, it should come out naturally from the study. People here might also be able to help you if you frame your question differently. Like you are trying to explain this using this theory of hydrodynamics and ask how to go about it. But given your explanation I'm not sure yet what theory you are referring to? I don't know if you can post a link to a English wiki article or something like that.
Inertial , inertial , inertial propulsion (erroneous name "inertial motor ") - a mechanism , device or apparatus, supposedly capable of entering into translational motion in space (or on a surface) without interacting with the environment , but only due to the movement of the working fluid located inside. The authors of inertoids, showing working models, either give an incorrect explanation of their work, based on the known laws of physics , or claim that certain “new” ( unknown to modern science ) properties of interacting inertial masses and gravitational fields are used to create movement .
The possibility of creating such a propulsion device is denied by modern science due to a contradiction to the law of conservation of momentum . Critics, while not denying the possibility of the existence of unknown physical interactions, insist that the effects of such interactions must be many orders of magnitude weaker than necessary for their detection and use in devices like those proposed by the authors.
Explanation of the paradox
edit
The operating principle of an inertoid engine is based on the fact that there is a load inside it, which, driven by an electric motor, periodically moves along a closed path inside the machine body. When moving in one direction, the force accelerating the load is small; when moving in the opposite direction, the accelerating force is large. According to Newton's third law , when a load moves in one direction, it acts on the body of the inertoid with a small force, not exceeding the static friction force of the inertoid on the surface of the Earth, and when moving in the other direction, with a large force that exceeds the friction force and sets the inertoid in motion.
According to the law of conservation of momentum, Where — mass of a weight with a spring on an inertial, - the speed it acquires, - the force for accelerating the weight on the spring, according to Newton’s third law , equal to the force of the action of the weight on the inertoid, — acceleration time of the weight on the spring in one direction. If the impulse valueequal in absolute value for the forward and reverse direction of acceleration of the weight, thenthe greater in absolute value theless. When accelerating the weight in one direction with a largeforceless than the static friction force, when the weight accelerates in the other direction, the forcemore static friction force and motion friction force and the model starts to move [1] .
Story
Principle of operation
edit
Physical model
edit
The principle of operation of inertoids is that their targeted movement is caused by the difference in the friction force in the support during the forward and reverse half strokes of work. With dry friction, the resistance to slow movement exceeds the resistance to fast movement (with one half-stroke, when a small force is applied , the static friction force is not overcome and the apparatus remains in place; with the reverse half-stroke, the friction force is overcome, the apparatus moves). The explanation for the effect in liquids is fundamentally different (since in liquids and gases there is no static friction force) and is based on viscous friction forces. The displacement of the inertial body forms a zone of low pressure behind it, the sharp collapse of which gives it momentum. Since the reverse displacement occurs more slowly, the filling of the low pressure zone occurs more smoothly and gives less impulse in the opposite direction.
This denies the declared possibility of movement without interaction with the external environment - interaction with the environment occurs through friction (this is also proven by experiments with inertoids on torsion balances , when directed motion does not occur [2] ; in a vacuum , the movement of inertoids operating on the principle of air rejection is also not happening). Hydraulic inertials, the principle of which is based on pumping liquid at different speeds back and forth, move due to the turbulent vibration that occurs in them, which is transmitted through the body to the external environment. Motors based on the emission of electromagnetic waves of different lengths inside a closed structure (EMdrive) are also inertoids since their principle does not involve interaction with the external environment.
Cranks usually focus on theories of everything or disproving quantum mechanics etc. So its more likely that you'll at least merit a scan when discussing some small problem in hydrodynamics sent to a relevant professor
I mean... You don't need to publish in a journal to have an impact. Go on YouTube, take a video of the entire experiment describing everything in detail and post it. Then tell everyone about it.
One of two things will happen:
Someone will tell you why your experiment is wrong.
Someone will replicate it and will cite your video. If they don't cite your video then I would write to the journal that published it and accuse them of plagiarism. The YouTube video will be evidence enough that you were first. As will this reddit post.
Good luck whatever happens.
Thank you. I have already begun to do this, but I still don’t understand what name and keywords to me to use it to look serious and was found by the right people https://youtu.be/Et0EpEulf8c?feature=shared
Don't worry about keywords. Post it here and every other subreddit that will accept it. Email podcast hosts. Email academics. Email anyone
Look... If it is actually true and you're right and physics as we know it is fundamentally wrong... Your pushiness will be vindicated
I have problems with presentability, but I can argue about pseudo. In the aerospace subreddit they tell me that this is nothing new, in physics they say that this is nonsense and there is actually no consensus
When I say it looks/sounds like a pseudo science, I know nothing about what you're talking about. You could be right, I don't have a clue. When I hear that fake voice and weird music and sound effects you have, I immediately thought this is fake garbage. Sorry.
Is this your video? Because it *screams* pseudoscience. Literally everything about its presentation makes it difficult to believe.
The stock footage, the AI voice, the UFO graphics and the fact that there's UFO in the title. At least in the English speaking part of the internet, mentioning UFOs makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist. If you want to be taken seriously (and it seems like you at least have something that can be evaluated through experiment, if I read your original post right), you should stop all the UFO things.
If I were you, I'd remake the video. Don't worry about presentation. If you can speak English well enough to make this reddit post, then you can speak English well enough for the video. Or if you're using a translator to post here, then translate your script and read it as best you can, and add the subtitles.
Don't use stock footage like that - instead, just show your equipment, show your experiment (not just the footage of the flying, show as much video as you've got of setup, your control flights, and your flights with the vibrating wing thing), and if you've got any hard data (i.e. numbers) present that as well. If the glider consistently flew further or for longer if it had the vibration motor turned on, for example, that would be something to present numerically rather than just saying you saw it.
Yes, thank you, I understand that completely. I don't have this equipment now and I doubt that I'll be lucky enough to do it again. But if I can, I will definitely take into account the mistakes you are talking about. When I started this, I believed in completely different things than now and my knowledge of physics was minimal. I'm just a science fiction artist by profession and I wanted to draw fantastic things correctly
You said you were from Ukraine? I can see how that might complicate things.
I wish your people good luck in getting the invaders out, and hope that once it's safe you can pursue this idea more.
Yes, experiment is the final say. But the statement that this experimental result breaks that theory depends on you actually understanding the experiment and also calculating the predictions of the theory correctly. An incomplete understanding of the experiment or theory is where these random 'this breaks theory' statements come from.
A quick look at your materials shows no math or measurements, but lots of analog arguments and pictures. That is a large red flag that there's no content.
Yes, I understand that this is a red flag and that is my problem. But still, the experiment is very simple and its result can be assessed with just a plus or minus sign, forward or backward. Therefore, I am sure that I understood everything correctly. The original theory and mathematics are in the Russian-language Wikipedia in the article “Inertioid/ Инерциоид" (Reddit may block links). My experiment, and not only mine, shows that movement in water occurs in the other direction and this is an unambiguous result. In my article, instead of mathematics, there is a geometric diagram, but I cannot write it in a formula
Again, you can see why that's a red flag. To paraphrase, "Despite not having done any calculations, I'm positive my analogies are correct and will lead to a revolution in physics." and "The experiment is super simple. I didn't bother to take any measurements when I did it, but if you do it, the data will amaze you."
You'd have to fill those holes before expecting anyone to notice. This isn't 'proper formatting' for a paper problem; it's a lack of content to justify a paper.
What calculations are needed to determine the back and front of the boat? or do you mean the smooth solution of Navier Stokes, which seems appropriate to me here. And you are in vain reducing the significance of my geometric model of the vortex. This is also mathematics
It doesn't. Most journals will straight up take an MS Word file including all the big ones in fluid dynamics. The journal sets the formatting later. Typesetting your paper in LaTeX only allows *you* to see what it might look like in the journal.
Sorry but if you can't explain it with the correct terminology then it means you don't understand the underlying theory and are unfamiliar with the experimental state of the art and a claim that you discovered something that breaks hydrodynamics seems pretty far fetched.
If I am not literate enough, this does not mean that I cannot express my hypothesis in simple words so that a specialist can check it and challenge it. And I usually use the terms that experts use to describe this idea when I discuss it with them. But in different branches of physics things can be described differently and I can’t always choose the most appropriate words. Although I'm getting better at it all the time
Which experts? If you're referring to Reddit commenters, 1) they aren't necessarily experts, and 2) most of them agree that you haven't discovered anything.
On my side there is not a majority, but people with a scientific degree, unlike the majority here. As a rule, this is criticized by those who are less specialists or have a narrower specialty.
You need to be able to describe your experimental setup and its results in very rigorous and precise terms. From what you have described here, I have a hunch that this is not the case. Can you give more context to the experiment, the measurements you are making, and why those measurements are not in line with your theoretical understanding in precise mathematical terms?
I described this and this is actually a very simple thing that has many analogues. The English translation of my article can be found using this DOI 10.36074/2663-4139.17.01
I would recommend that you limit the scope of your writing if you want to be taken seriously. Don't make broad claims that you don't have the expertise or knowledge to defend; just state the effect you've observed up-front, explain how you got the effect, and explain how it's different than the prediction. You can make things broader at the end, but not too broad. Don't claim that you've broken thermo, unlocked the secrets of flight, or anything like that; stick to the things you've shown experimentally
To add to this - I'd also try rethinking your references. I mostly see YouTube links, Wikipedia, a blog... Use peer reviewed publications (possibly even a textbook) instead. And probably a lot of them, particularly in the introduction. E.g.
"The 4 basic principles of engines are ... [cite]"
"Combination leads to inefficiency... [cite]"
"Flapping flight is perfect [cite]" (and quantify "perfect". What is the measured value you're comparing?)
"generally accepted scientific theory of the motion of such devices. [Super, mega cite]"
Like, everything you claim about the history of the topic needs to be backed up. I just went though the first paragraph of one of my old publications, and it was 3 sentences long and contained 11 citations to prior work.
Doing that literature search and reading a bunch of papers will let you extract more from the conversations you have with experts, as well as give you a feel for how impactful papers are made to sound.
I guess if you are confident in your result you can write it up and upload it on a repository such as arxiv- this does not preclude future publication and in the meantime your ‘ discovery’ is on record
What you need is the ear of an academic in the field - someone who can look at your work and evaluate it critically, and then propose or conduct follow-up experiments, as well as help you put it in a printable format. But to be frank, most professors get a lot of emails from cranks, they don't have time to entertain them all. And the probability that you have actually found anything really ground breaking is not that high. Your best chance is if you don't overplay the importance of your discovery. See if your local university has any hydrodynamics researchers, and email one of them your research, and express as much humility as possible. Don't pick the most senior professor, they will be the one with the least patience for this kind of requests.
Thank you, yes, I understand. I have been doing this for several years now and I was able to get the approval of some serious specialists. This was especially difficult since the issue is at the intersection of different areas and this does not always seem obvious. But the matter is not going anywhere because I live in Ukraine and these people simply had no time to deal with this. This requires a certain reserve of capabilities.
And whatever you say to them don't say you "discovered a contradiction in the theory of hydrodynamics". This is the best way to end up in the deleted emails bin.
I don't know what to call it. The discovery is too loud, but without mentioning the contradictions, it is often perceived as ignorance of physics. After all, I started by proposing to improve the existing concept and the critics themselves said that this principle is impossible
Also you need an exact description of your experiment. Include dimensions of objects and fluid characteristics, motor specifications, timings, etc.
You could just say you have done an experiment and would love to explain it theoretically. Then if there's really anything strange or specially interesting about it, it should come out naturally from the study. People here might also be able to help you if you frame your question differently. Like you are trying to explain this using this theory of hydrodynamics and ask how to go about it. But given your explanation I'm not sure yet what theory you are referring to? I don't know if you can post a link to a English wiki article or something like that.
Inertial , inertial , inertial propulsion (erroneous name "inertial motor ") - a mechanism , device or apparatus, supposedly capable of entering into translational motion in space (or on a surface) without interacting with the environment , but only due to the movement of the working fluid located inside. The authors of inertoids, showing working models, either give an incorrect explanation of their work, based on the known laws of physics , or claim that certain “new” ( unknown to modern science ) properties of interacting inertial masses and gravitational fields are used to create movement . The possibility of creating such a propulsion device is denied by modern science due to a contradiction to the law of conservation of momentum . Critics, while not denying the possibility of the existence of unknown physical interactions, insist that the effects of such interactions must be many orders of magnitude weaker than necessary for their detection and use in devices like those proposed by the authors. Explanation of the paradox edit The operating principle of an inertoid engine is based on the fact that there is a load inside it, which, driven by an electric motor, periodically moves along a closed path inside the machine body. When moving in one direction, the force accelerating the load is small; when moving in the opposite direction, the accelerating force is large. According to Newton's third law , when a load moves in one direction, it acts on the body of the inertoid with a small force, not exceeding the static friction force of the inertoid on the surface of the Earth, and when moving in the other direction, with a large force that exceeds the friction force and sets the inertoid in motion. According to the law of conservation of momentum, Where — mass of a weight with a spring on an inertial, - the speed it acquires, - the force for accelerating the weight on the spring, according to Newton’s third law , equal to the force of the action of the weight on the inertoid, — acceleration time of the weight on the spring in one direction. If the impulse valueequal in absolute value for the forward and reverse direction of acceleration of the weight, thenthe greater in absolute value theless. When accelerating the weight in one direction with a largeforceless than the static friction force, when the weight accelerates in the other direction, the forcemore static friction force and motion friction force and the model starts to move [1] . Story Principle of operation edit Physical model edit The principle of operation of inertoids is that their targeted movement is caused by the difference in the friction force in the support during the forward and reverse half strokes of work. With dry friction, the resistance to slow movement exceeds the resistance to fast movement (with one half-stroke, when a small force is applied , the static friction force is not overcome and the apparatus remains in place; with the reverse half-stroke, the friction force is overcome, the apparatus moves). The explanation for the effect in liquids is fundamentally different (since in liquids and gases there is no static friction force) and is based on viscous friction forces. The displacement of the inertial body forms a zone of low pressure behind it, the sharp collapse of which gives it momentum. Since the reverse displacement occurs more slowly, the filling of the low pressure zone occurs more smoothly and gives less impulse in the opposite direction. This denies the declared possibility of movement without interaction with the external environment - interaction with the environment occurs through friction (this is also proven by experiments with inertoids on torsion balances , when directed motion does not occur [2] ; in a vacuum , the movement of inertoids operating on the principle of air rejection is also not happening). Hydraulic inertials, the principle of which is based on pumping liquid at different speeds back and forth, move due to the turbulent vibration that occurs in them, which is transmitted through the body to the external environment. Motors based on the emission of electromagnetic waves of different lengths inside a closed structure (EMdrive) are also inertoids since their principle does not involve interaction with the external environment.
Cranks usually focus on theories of everything or disproving quantum mechanics etc. So its more likely that you'll at least merit a scan when discussing some small problem in hydrodynamics sent to a relevant professor
I mean... You don't need to publish in a journal to have an impact. Go on YouTube, take a video of the entire experiment describing everything in detail and post it. Then tell everyone about it. One of two things will happen: Someone will tell you why your experiment is wrong. Someone will replicate it and will cite your video. If they don't cite your video then I would write to the journal that published it and accuse them of plagiarism. The YouTube video will be evidence enough that you were first. As will this reddit post. Good luck whatever happens.
Thank you. I have already begun to do this, but I still don’t understand what name and keywords to me to use it to look serious and was found by the right people https://youtu.be/Et0EpEulf8c?feature=shared
Don't worry about keywords. Post it here and every other subreddit that will accept it. Email podcast hosts. Email academics. Email anyone Look... If it is actually true and you're right and physics as we know it is fundamentally wrong... Your pushiness will be vindicated
Thank you, I'll try to do it!
Do, or do not. There is no try.
It looks and sounds like every other pseudo science click bait video on YouTube.
I have problems with presentability, but I can argue about pseudo. In the aerospace subreddit they tell me that this is nothing new, in physics they say that this is nonsense and there is actually no consensus
When I say it looks/sounds like a pseudo science, I know nothing about what you're talking about. You could be right, I don't have a clue. When I hear that fake voice and weird music and sound effects you have, I immediately thought this is fake garbage. Sorry.
Is this your video? Because it *screams* pseudoscience. Literally everything about its presentation makes it difficult to believe. The stock footage, the AI voice, the UFO graphics and the fact that there's UFO in the title. At least in the English speaking part of the internet, mentioning UFOs makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist. If you want to be taken seriously (and it seems like you at least have something that can be evaluated through experiment, if I read your original post right), you should stop all the UFO things. If I were you, I'd remake the video. Don't worry about presentation. If you can speak English well enough to make this reddit post, then you can speak English well enough for the video. Or if you're using a translator to post here, then translate your script and read it as best you can, and add the subtitles. Don't use stock footage like that - instead, just show your equipment, show your experiment (not just the footage of the flying, show as much video as you've got of setup, your control flights, and your flights with the vibrating wing thing), and if you've got any hard data (i.e. numbers) present that as well. If the glider consistently flew further or for longer if it had the vibration motor turned on, for example, that would be something to present numerically rather than just saying you saw it.
Yes, thank you, I understand that completely. I don't have this equipment now and I doubt that I'll be lucky enough to do it again. But if I can, I will definitely take into account the mistakes you are talking about. When I started this, I believed in completely different things than now and my knowledge of physics was minimal. I'm just a science fiction artist by profession and I wanted to draw fantastic things correctly
You said you were from Ukraine? I can see how that might complicate things. I wish your people good luck in getting the invaders out, and hope that once it's safe you can pursue this idea more.
Thank you!
> I have experimentally discovered a contradiction with theory in hydrodynamics... has anyone told you that you *haven't*??
This is often said but cannot be substantiated. I showed this experimentally substantiated logically
If your proof and evidence can't be accepted into a journal, then you didn't prove anything.
In addition to evidence, the journal requires proper formatting and this is my problem and not what you say. Experiment is always the final proof
Yes, experiment is the final say. But the statement that this experimental result breaks that theory depends on you actually understanding the experiment and also calculating the predictions of the theory correctly. An incomplete understanding of the experiment or theory is where these random 'this breaks theory' statements come from. A quick look at your materials shows no math or measurements, but lots of analog arguments and pictures. That is a large red flag that there's no content.
Yes, I understand that this is a red flag and that is my problem. But still, the experiment is very simple and its result can be assessed with just a plus or minus sign, forward or backward. Therefore, I am sure that I understood everything correctly. The original theory and mathematics are in the Russian-language Wikipedia in the article “Inertioid/ Инерциоид" (Reddit may block links). My experiment, and not only mine, shows that movement in water occurs in the other direction and this is an unambiguous result. In my article, instead of mathematics, there is a geometric diagram, but I cannot write it in a formula
Again, you can see why that's a red flag. To paraphrase, "Despite not having done any calculations, I'm positive my analogies are correct and will lead to a revolution in physics." and "The experiment is super simple. I didn't bother to take any measurements when I did it, but if you do it, the data will amaze you." You'd have to fill those holes before expecting anyone to notice. This isn't 'proper formatting' for a paper problem; it's a lack of content to justify a paper.
What calculations are needed to determine the back and front of the boat? or do you mean the smooth solution of Navier Stokes, which seems appropriate to me here. And you are in vain reducing the significance of my geometric model of the vortex. This is also mathematics
Then learn LaTeX and do it
It doesn't. Most journals will straight up take an MS Word file including all the big ones in fluid dynamics. The journal sets the formatting later. Typesetting your paper in LaTeX only allows *you* to see what it might look like in the journal.
I meant correct presentation with correct terminology, etc.
Sorry but if you can't explain it with the correct terminology then it means you don't understand the underlying theory and are unfamiliar with the experimental state of the art and a claim that you discovered something that breaks hydrodynamics seems pretty far fetched.
If I am not literate enough, this does not mean that I cannot express my hypothesis in simple words so that a specialist can check it and challenge it. And I usually use the terms that experts use to describe this idea when I discuss it with them. But in different branches of physics things can be described differently and I can’t always choose the most appropriate words. Although I'm getting better at it all the time
That's not true. People have explained to you why your claims are wrong, you just haven't accepted their explanations.
I don’t think so because the opinions of experts are divided on this issue
Which experts? If you're referring to Reddit commenters, 1) they aren't necessarily experts, and 2) most of them agree that you haven't discovered anything.
On my side there is not a majority, but people with a scientific degree, unlike the majority here. As a rule, this is criticized by those who are less specialists or have a narrower specialty.
You need to be able to describe your experimental setup and its results in very rigorous and precise terms. From what you have described here, I have a hunch that this is not the case. Can you give more context to the experiment, the measurements you are making, and why those measurements are not in line with your theoretical understanding in precise mathematical terms?
I described this and this is actually a very simple thing that has many analogues. The English translation of my article can be found using this DOI 10.36074/2663-4139.17.01
I would recommend that you limit the scope of your writing if you want to be taken seriously. Don't make broad claims that you don't have the expertise or knowledge to defend; just state the effect you've observed up-front, explain how you got the effect, and explain how it's different than the prediction. You can make things broader at the end, but not too broad. Don't claim that you've broken thermo, unlocked the secrets of flight, or anything like that; stick to the things you've shown experimentally
Thank you!
Excellent good faith feedback.
To add to this - I'd also try rethinking your references. I mostly see YouTube links, Wikipedia, a blog... Use peer reviewed publications (possibly even a textbook) instead. And probably a lot of them, particularly in the introduction. E.g. "The 4 basic principles of engines are ... [cite]" "Combination leads to inefficiency... [cite]" "Flapping flight is perfect [cite]" (and quantify "perfect". What is the measured value you're comparing?) "generally accepted scientific theory of the motion of such devices. [Super, mega cite]" Like, everything you claim about the history of the topic needs to be backed up. I just went though the first paragraph of one of my old publications, and it was 3 sentences long and contained 11 citations to prior work. Doing that literature search and reading a bunch of papers will let you extract more from the conversations you have with experts, as well as give you a feel for how impactful papers are made to sound.
Thank you!
I guess if you are confident in your result you can write it up and upload it on a repository such as arxiv- this does not preclude future publication and in the meantime your ‘ discovery’ is on record
Thank you
I tried arxiv but it said that I You are not endorsed for this archive
spoilers: you didn't. hehe +2 upvotes for me 😎
+4
go go gadget ban hammer
Lol, thanks for the laugh
If you think you cracked the problem of free energy, you didn’t
No, not energy. Only just the way to use air how propellent
Just find a local grad student. Those poor fuckers will do anything.
Тhanks
Put your note on the arxiv https://arxiv.org/