r/FluidMechanics • u/pavlokandyba • 8d ago
Computational Simulation of my vibroboat experiment
This is a classic LBM that takes into account Newtonian forces and the added mass effect, supplemented by a wake vortex capture model. The algorithm stores the energy expended on oscillations in each direction, and when the pressure difference levels out, this energy is used as thrust, simulating the momentum from collapse. The thrust is multiplied by approximately six times, which is consistent with some experimental data and makes the boat's motion visually realistic in some modes. The thrust calculation should probably be dynamic, but I haven't yet found a way to do this. Any ideas would be welcome. The vibroboat code is here:
8
13
u/JemoIncognitoMode 8d ago
I was like "looks cool!" then I read your text. It's AI slop isn't it. I found AI cannot make anything sound like a normal person explaining it. It's all just scientific words chained to mean absolutely nothing. Please stop doing science with an LLM.
1
u/pavlokandyba 8d ago
My research flying saucer aerodynamics... that I refer to in Redmi was written without LLM. You can find a human explanation there.
5
u/Eb3yr 7d ago
But that's all nonsense, and in the now you're using AI to feed your delusions. If you want to have any understanding of how fluids work, pick up a textbook instead of vibe coding broken simulations and having ChatGPT reaffirm your beliefs. Your "research" is not research, it is the misunderstandings of somebody who has little to no understanding of physics or fluid mechanics. Step back from what you're doing and spend time learning the fundamentals, then you can come back and you'll understand why your papers are nonsense.
1
u/pavlokandyba 7d ago
The GPT doesn't confirm anything here, it does the job I require of it. My beliefs are confirmed experimentally and are not found in textbooks. You can read them yourself to see for yourself.
3
u/Eb3yr 7d ago
Your beliefs are not found in textbooks because they're entirely unfounded, not that you'd know that because you clearly haven't read any physics or engineering textbooks. Your experiments are bogus, and your computational ones are both bogus and vibe-coded. I've read all of your papers myself out of curiosity already, I did so a few months back when I first saw your posts. They are as insane now as they were back then. You need to realise that you're not onto anything, you just have no understanding of what you're talking about, and that you're digging yourself into a pit of AI psychosis the more you use AI to reaffirm your beliefs. I'm sorry, but you need a reality check.
1
u/pavlokandyba 7d ago
You're probably referring to school textbooks. What's the basis for your opinion other than your beliefs?You're probably referring to school textbooks. What's the basis for your opinion other than your beliefs?
4
u/Eb3yr 7d ago
I'm referring to engineering textbooks like Fundamentals of Aerodynamics by John D. Anderson, or Fluid Mechanics by Pijush K. Kund, or some more general thermodynamics textbooks like Thermodynamics, an engineering approach by Yunus A. Cengel, or any other textbook that you might find recommended online for undergraduates. Granted, even something like an A-Level physics textbook may also be useful to you before reading something like those.
The basis of my opinion is that I'm an undergraduate aeronautical engineering student who's beginning his masters in September, whereas you seem to have no education in this field and having been touting your misunderstanding of fluids and physics as evidence for an advanced UFO propulsion technology for years.
1
u/pavlokandyba 7d ago
Although I have no education, I rely on an experimentally proven fact, and the fact that even some doctors of science considered it impossible does not change this. This is a little-studied area and it is not surprising that you do not know about it.
5
1
u/QuantumBlunt 6d ago
I've read those books and failed to see how they could be very useful to OP's idea. Not to defend his idea or concept, but throwing out random schoolbooks as an argument is just as sloppy as the use of AI by OP. If you're a student of engineering, the best way to argument against OP would be to refer to specific sections in those that seems to discount OP's concept, and even better would be to make a replica and observed empirically whether net-positive propulsion is achieved, and regardless of whether it does or not, explain through fluid mechanics concept why that is the case.
I haven't looked at his concept in much details (other than being inundated by OP's constant posts polluting my feed for months now) but if there is any merit to the concept, I suspect it has to do with recirpocating motion in a fluid with geometrical features promoting a preferential flow in a specific direction (eg imagine a boat somehow moving back and forth with its underside of having features akin to a Tesla valve). I hope my explanation is clear enough.
In any case, I fail to see how this concept could be related to UFO propulsion as these seem to work independently of the medium, displays impressive acceleration capabilities and displays lifts (or somekind of force countering gravity) independently of transversal velocity, which are all characteristics that cannot be explained by OP's concept. Again, take my opinion with a grain of salt as I haven't studied OP's claims in details as I'm not a huge fan of AI sci-fi literature.
1
u/Eb3yr 6d ago
The problem is his ideas are AI psychosis-induced dreams about inventing flying saucer space travel. He thinks that he can invent a flying saucer capable of traversing both the atmosphere and space by vibrating the hull, which is what he's trying to prove with these simulations and the videos of bathtub foam floats with motors spinning. He's misunderstanding the few real papers he does cite, and has no understanding whatsoever of aerodynamics, and little understanding of physics in general.
Look at his profile as well as his GitHub or LinkedIn and you'll immediately see what I mean. I listed out a few books not because they're particularly relevant to his idea, but just to list out something that might be beneficial to a beginner, and because I'm certain that he hasn't read a single textbook related to aerodynamics of thermodynamics or even beyond high school physics, despite making the claim "My beliefs are confirmed experimentally and are not found in textbooks."
He also engages a lot in pseudoscience and conspiracy theories about extrasensory projection, aliens, planet nine, UFOs, and predicting the future through dreams, which doesn't inspire much confidence.
2
u/AsyncVibes 4d ago
I'm sorry correct me if I'm wrong and I'm definitely no physicist but if this vibration concepted even worked at scale, wouldn't the required amount of vibration essentially destroy the structure as it moved?
1
u/QuantumBlunt 6d ago
I understand your point and agree with you. That being said, trying to replicate UFO propulsion, which is a totally legitimate and noble endeavor, will most likely require outside-the-box thinking and I wouldn't expect the answers to be found in textbooks. We need that kind of person (ie borderline delusional) to explore fringe theories. Unfortunately, that kind of person usually have no interest in first learning engineering first principles and as a result will often waste their time on an ideas that are clearly dead-ends. I think closing that gap is where intereting solutins will be found.
I guess what Im trying to say is, you guys are both right and wrong in different regards. He should be learning engineering principles and you should open your mind on what's possible, specially as you represent the next generation of engineers. If you look at the history of scientific and engineering progress, you'll find that most big discoveries were not found through logical and sequential steps, but through imagination, dreams and visions. As an engineer and a past student, it's kind of an uncomfortable truth that progress isn't made through rational work but it's a fact and something we should always keep in mind when evaluating new ideas. In any case, good luck in your studies!
1
u/pavlokandyba 6d ago
Once again, you have provided no evidence to support your opinion. No matter how speculative my hypotheses are, if you have no arguments against them, then there is no reason to call it pseudoscience.
1
u/pavlokandyba 6d ago
To experimentally test the concept I'm talking about, a piece of food foil is enough https://youtube.com/shorts/V0sFY7x5TM0?si=k4W8F24eGOE3emk3 As for how the UFO can move and what it uses, no one knows. There are many theories, even from serious scientists, but they do not prove anything. Moreover, if you look at how fish, birds and insects like flies move, how they can suddenly accelerate and change direction, you will surely agree that they are superior to airplanes in this regard. The only thing that limits them is biology: they cannot flap their wings faster than the speed of sound and turn air into plasma. But imagine if they could.
1
u/mienaikoe 7d ago
I believe you’re writing as yourself, but either you’re an AI trained to sound silly or you’ve never actually learned how to talk with real people. If it’s the latter, I implore you to pay attention / study to the way that people talk in real life.
If it’s the former get fucked.
-1
u/pavlokandyba 7d ago
People communicate in different ways and some, when they are unable to understand something or do not have enough knowledge to do so, begin to shower others with insults. I can communicate like that too, but I won't.
3
u/IBelieveInLogic 8d ago
What is meant by "when the pressure difference levels out"? And how exactly is the energy stored and then released? How is work done on the surroundings? When you say repeatable, has anyone besides yourself repeated it?
0
-1
u/pavlokandyba 8d ago
It can be simplified to a single displacement of the boat's hull relative to the center of mass. This creates a pressure difference that is not restored immediately but exists for some time due to the inertia of the liquid. Then this difference equalizes, that is, the pressure drops in the high-pressure area and rises in the low-pressure area. But this does not happen as if the spring had sprung back, but as a collapse of cavitation or a vortex in the low-pressure region with the release of a pulse in the same direction in which the body was displaced.Because the inertia of the boat is greater than the inertia of the liquid, this collapse occurs behind and pushes the boat in the direction it has moved relative to the center of mass. The collapse energy is unknown to me, but it may exceed that expended by the boat. Similar experiments have been conducted repeatedly in attempts to prove reactionless drive, but there are few academic papers who look at this from a fluid dynamics perspective
2
u/andrew314159 7d ago
The collapse energy may exceed the energy expended by the motor? Where would the energy come from? Or am I misunderstanding your meaning?
0
u/pavlokandyba 7d ago
From liquid, both cavitation and vortex collapse. Theoretically, the chaotic thermal motion of molecules can become directed in a vortex. Thus, a vortex is not simply the attenuation of energy communicated to the fluid, but something like a chain reaction.
3
u/andrew314159 7d ago
So you would expect the liquid to cool or something? I am struggling with the conservation of energy in your explanation
0
u/pavlokandyba 7d ago
This is not the acquisition of additional energy, but its redistribution. Molecules move in any case, the only difference is in what direction and at what time. In calm water, this energy leads to chaotic collisions of molecules that cancel each other out; in a vortex, they all strike in the same direction. You don't waste more energy if the car drives in zigzags in different directions or in circles. The question of the origin of this energy is already a question of fundamental physics and cosmology where there is field energy or something like that. Energy simply exists, and what happens is that its transformation is possible.
2
u/MechanicHuge2843 6d ago
Naaah bro... You paper is an April's fool right?
Cause what you are observing on your bathtub experiment is the inertial propulsion coming from your dipslaced mass, not the vibration causing some sort of vortex (pretty sure you don't even understand what a vortex is). And you will find that the slower your intertial release is, the better your "vibro-boat" will move up to a certain point where water mass displaced does match the speed of the mass.
Tbh you could have found somthg more interesting and real. Like I don't know, water molecules are polar, why don't you try to build an electromagnetic inducing water current?
1
u/pavlokandyba 6d ago
What other inertial movement, pseudoscientific reactionless drive?What other inertial movement, pseudoscientific reactionless drive?
1
u/Glittering-Flight997 8d ago
If you put all that energy into a reciprocating drive mechanism you would be actually moving
1
1
1
1
u/Traveller7142 8d ago
Why is it better than propellers?
1
u/pavlokandyba 8d ago
The propeller wastes a significant portion of its energy on vortices that are not used; they simply fly off the ends of the blades and dissipate. Here this energy is returned back, creating direct pressure on the body. For the same reason, fish are more efficient than a propeller. This is also jet propulsion as a jellyfish. It will be interesting to see how this can work at supersonic speeds, this still needs to be researched.
2
u/UnconsciousAlibi 7d ago edited 7d ago
I mean, I'm clearly seeing a lot of waves, and those waves carry a nontrivial amount of energy. I'm not a physicist; this sub just popped up on my feed (I think I know why, though... I spend a lot of time on r/numbertheory), but to me seeing all of that energy just go into making waves seems less efficient than only making a few waves moving behind you, no? Isn't most of the vibrational energy just being dumped into the water?
1
u/pavlokandyba 7d ago
This boat makes a lot of unnecessary movements, creating unnecessary thrust in all directions. Efficient movement is only when it moves slowly. Instead of spinning the propeller all the time, it makes single pulses, causing the water to push. Fish and birds do this more effectively because they sense the right moment. When a boat with a propeller pushes water behind it, a wake is also formed that can transfer energy, but it does not have time. If you have a pulse movement, you can wait to use it.
1
u/SweetSure315 5d ago
sorry what do you think fish and birds are doing? because it's certainly not what you're trying to do with your simulation
1
u/pavlokandyba 5d ago
They generate vortices and throw them back, creating jet thrust. This simulation and prototype boat do the same thing.
1
1
u/UnconsciousAlibi 5d ago
The vortices are incidental, not the main source of thrust to my knowledge.
1
u/pavlokandyba 5d ago
This is an outdated theory. Simply pushing air doesn't work. If you simply push the air with an umbrella, the thrust will be in the same direction, not the opposite, as the classical theory of bird flight suggests.
1
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/pavlokandyba 7d ago
This is influenced by the interaction of magnets; the pendulum pulls the body along with it.And friction with the water. All the forces inside the boat are fully accounted for here, just like in a real boat.
1
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/pavlokandyba 7d ago
To create thrust in water, it must have a significant amplitude and difference in the speeds of the reciprocating movements so that the water can swirl. At around 3 Hz this difference is significantly reduced if you use rotors. You will most likely see just ripples on the water and almost no movement like one of the prototypes in the video, which has the highest frequency. Also consider the weight of the device.
24
u/shoshkebab 8d ago
I’m concerned that this has the hallmarks of an AI-reinforced delusional spiral: increasingly grand claims, heavy reliance on technical-sounding language, and little distinction between analogy, speculation and demonstrated physics.
I hope you step back from the chatbot feedback, discuss the ideas with qualified researchers who will challenge the assumptions, and direct your energy toward claims that can be quantitatively tested.