Can you move in space?

[MPMin]

4 hours ago, Mordred said:

Here is a far more practical design to give you some better ideas and some useful factors to consider. Including formulas.

 

Thanks, I’ll check them out.

7 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Something like this;

9,08μN/m2∗a=250kg∗8∗10−6⇒a≈220m2

That is the theoretical maximum if sail is operating at 100% efficiency near earth orbit where the irradiance (solar constant) value is 1361 W/m2. Note that in reality you account for angle of the sail and direction of travel etc. 

Thank you for your answer. Even though you applied the absolute worst case scenario in terms of the craft being a 100% efficient reflector (I like how efficiency is on your side when you want it to be) do you think a 250kg craft is likely to have a 220 square metre surface area facing the sun even if it was a perfect reflector? 

[Ghideon]

57 minutes ago, MPMin said:

(I like how efficiency is on your side when you want it to be)

Explain what that is supposed to mean.

1 hour ago, MPMin said:

do you think a 250kg craft is likely to have a 220 square metre surface area facing the sun even if it was a perfect reflector? 

Why not?

IKAROS, according to wikipedia

Launch mass 315 kg (694 lb)

DimensionsSolar sail: 14 m × 14 m (46 ft × 46 ft) (area: 196 m2 (2,110 sq ft))

Not too far off...

[Strange]

Another solar-powered, propellentless craft described here: https://www.universetoday.com/142894/lightsail-2-is-sending-home-new-pictures-of-earth/

[Mordred]

Of course one must consider that distances will vary with solar sails due to having to tack. Just like a sail boat if you are approaching the sun then the route will be longer 

 There is advantages in a propellant craft in this regard. Though it is quite advantageous to have a combination to save on fuel payload where viable 

Edited July 19, 2019 by Mordred

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

Of course one must consider that distances will vary with solar sails due to having to tack. Just like a sail boat if you are approaching the sun then the route will be longer 

 There is advantages in a propellant craft in this regard. Though it is quite advantageous to have a combination to save on fuel payload where viable 

Having to tack:

A sailboat gets it's windward momentum from the water. The solar sail gets it's sunward momentum from gravity. I'm pretty sure a solar sail would climb away from sun on one tack by increasing orbital speed, or fall toward the Sun by decreasing orbital speed on the other tack. Both require extra distance but each should be all on one tack.

[Mordred]

Or for the return trip a decreasing radius orbital return is one conjecture I have been considering. However we are essentially thinking along the same lines.

Edited July 20, 2019 by Mordred

[MPMin]

23 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Explain what that is supposed to mean.

I was just having a chuckle at how my design has been regarded as hopelessly inefficient but when it comes to it being a reflector (which it isn’t) its regarded as being 100% efficient. I didn’t know that i knew how to create the perfect reflector all this time 

 

23 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Why not?

IKAROS, according to wikipedia

Launch mass 315 kg (694 lb)

DimensionsSolar sail: 14 m × 14 m (46 ft × 46 ft) (area: 196 m2 (2,110 sq ft))

Not too far off...

Why not: because having a sail on my design would contradict what you’re saying about the counter effect of solar radiation and that’s assuming you want to travel towards the sun. If we were talking about travelling away from the sun, the optional addition of sail might help... a little. However, as I’ve never mentioned having a sail i would not compare my design to a craft that had a sail as its main propulsion.

As my design is based on a craft of about 250kg, It would be unlikely for it have a surface area greater than 1m2 facing the sun, so even if it was the absolute perfect reflector, its still producing 220 times more force than the solar radiation pressure acting upon it at 1AU.

Further more, my design’s efficiency could potentially be improved by bringing the parallel wires closer together.

Id also like to know if anyone else has proposed the concept of pulsing an emp between fixed parallel wires before? I’m curious to know what’s been said in other discussions - or could this be the first of its kind?

[Strange]

1 hour ago, MPMin said:

I was just having a chuckle at how my design has been regarded as hopelessly inefficient but when it comes to it being a reflector (which it isn’t) its regarded as being 100% efficient. I didn’t know that i knew how to create the perfect reflector all this time 

Firstly, no one has claimed your craft is a reflector.

Secondly, assuming 100% efficiency is a good starting point to get "order of magnitude" figure. (For example, your calculations of the force on the wire in your system.)

Thirdly, stop the "humorous" straw man arguments and stick to the science.

 

It is patently obvious that your idea is hopelessly inefficient. Even if you generate a force on wire B, and even if that were the force driving the craft, you are wasting nearly all the energy by radiating it out into space. This is like having a steam train where the fire is at the back and the boiler is at the front and arguing that "some of the heat will reach the water". Or, to make that slightly more relevant to your claim that "it doesn't matter because it is solar power", hoping to boil water by just leaving it out in the sunlight. (It is of course, simple to build a system that will boil water using collected sunlight, just as it is possible to build an efficient solar-powered craft.)

Your claim that it is irrelevant "because solar" disregards the fact that collecting solar power has costs. If you come along with your design that has an efficiency of say 0.1% (which is probably generous, but as you can't give us any data we'll go with that) and someone else comes along with a craft that has a realistic efficiency (say, 80%). Theirs has a 1 square metre solar panel; yours requires 800 square metres of solar panel, which will cost more to make and vastly more to launch.

1 hour ago, MPMin said:

Id also like to know if anyone else has proposed the concept of pulsing an emp between fixed parallel wires before? I’m curious to know what’s been said in other discussions - or could this be the first of its kind?

I imagine if anyone else has thought about it, they rejected it after a few seconds more thought: "No, that's really silly and wasteful. Why don't we use all of the energy by focusing all the EM radiation on one direction."

Also note that the thrust does not come from "pulsing an emp between fixed parallel wires". The thrust pertly comes from the fact that you block the radiation in one direction but allow it to leave in the other.

If you were to enclose your system in a metal box, the thrust would drop to zero. So another factor that you haven't considered is the effect of the infrastructure on the system. As you solar panels will block more of the radiation than your thin wire will, you will actually be generating a thrust in the direction opposite the panels. (And the same applies to any other metal components in the system.)

[MPMin]

On 7/19/2019 at 8:26 AM, Strange said:

Just leaving the lights on and blocking all the windows but one would generate more force.

And don’t snipe with unsubstantiated and non scientific remarks and then hide behind the ‘straw man’ accusation. You clearly use this as a tool undermine people and then make out its them who are the antagonisers. 

Everything you have said about my design has had absolutely no scientific basis, you’ve been shooting from the hip and condescendingly at that.

 

 

On 7/19/2019 at 8:29 AM, MPMin said:

(As action and reaction are equal and opposite, I suppose you can think of it the other way round. That would be like saying that a rocket goes because the burning fuel pushes on the front of the reaction chamber but not on the back where the exhaust is(*). Which is not wrong, but is just ... weird. So if you want to think that the craft moves because the EMP pushes on the wire, I guess you can. That doesn't stop it being hopelessly inefficient.)

 

On 7/19/2019 at 8:29 AM, MPMin said:

As you said yourself, it’s action and reaction, it’s just a point of view - are you now able to explain how the force on the wires OR the reaction force created by the wires is not the same as the force on the craft? Or do we need to spend another ten pages of my statements being deliberately taken out of context to try to invalidate what I’ve been saying all along! 

Scientifically if you can? If you cant then just don’t say anything that’s ok 

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Your claim that it is irrelevant "because solar" disregards the fact that collecting solar power has costs. If you come along with your design that has an efficiency of say 0.1% (which is probably generous, but as you can't give us any data we'll go with that) and someone else comes along with a craft that has a realistic efficiency (say, 80%). Theirs has a 1 square metre solar panel; yours requires 800 square metres of solar panel, which will cost more to make and vastly more to launch.

What are you basing this on, where are your numbers? Ive given you the figures, I’ve even mathematically refuted the claim that my craft is more of a reflector than not - which was clearly suggested before, perhaps you didn’t pick up on that? And yet you still revert back to the ‘six of one half dozen of the other’ pointless argument of where the force actually comes from when you yourself said it doesn’t matter if its a reaction or counter reaction, right?  The real point here is there is a force being generated that’s far greater than the solar radiation hitting it. I’ve shown  you mathematically and yet you still continue to shoot my design down with snide remarks instead of actual science.

If you can tangibly support anything you say please do.

 

1 hour ago, Strange said:

I imagine if anyone else has thought about it, they rejected it after a few seconds more thought: "No, that's really silly and wasteful. Why don't we use all of the energy by focusing all the EM radiation on one direction."

I’m assuming you’re saying you don’t know of any other such design?

1 hour ago, Strange said:

If you were to enclose your system in a metal box, the thrust would drop to zero. So another factor that you haven't considered is the effect of the infrastructure on the system. As you solar panels will block more of the radiation than your thin wire will, you will actually be generating a thrust in the direction opposite the panels. (And the same applies to any other metal components in the system.)

You know full well this would make it a closed system which would defy Newton’s Law so why go there? And I’ve already demonstrated that my design will be able produce more force than 220m2 of solar panels, if you wanted to actually prove me wrong with science, why don’t you calculate how much power my design would need and how much surface area of solar panels it would take to run it, then perhaps there’d be some substance to your claims instead of assuming I haven’t considered the effect of the infrastructure. 

Edited July 20, 2019 by MPMin

[Mordred]

As has been pointed out applying a force on wire b from wire a is not the force that is being applied to move the craft. You also never included the influence of wire b on wire a nor the effects of the wire mounts.

In essence your calculations are far from complete enough to determine the force remaining to move the craft.

For example it does no good to consider a force that is only 0.02 N at a distance of 0.1 m or even closer as you just proposed. 

the only calculation  you have done technically  is the amount of force wire A applies to wire B. If wire B could accelerate from that force is pointless because wire  B is fixed mounted. That isn't the acceleration  of the craft.

Edited July 20, 2019 by Mordred

[Ghideon]

On page 3 it was concluded that forces between cables mounted in a rig does not generate propulsion. 

On 7/8/2019 at 10:47 AM, Ghideon said:

1: Ampère's_force_law Special_case: Two straight parallel wires, currents in wires makes them attract or repel. In this case there is a force F acting on the left cable, and an equal force F in the opposite direction acting on the right cable. If cables are mounted on a common rig the force is an internal stress on the rig. No propulsion will occur. But since current is switched of very fast this situation is not applicable, we look at the second case. 

Yet, many pages later you keep on repeating the same mistakes over and over again. 

On 7/18/2019 at 1:53 PM, MPMin said:

I am using the below link as the reference:

 https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/magnetic-forces-and-magnetic-fields/magnetic-field-current-carrying-wire/v/magnetism-7

The two 100m wires are 0.1m apart and pulse a 10 amp current between each other. I am assuming the pulse has a width of 0.01m.

The calculation is pointless from a propulsion perspective. It is useless for reasons stated over and over again in this thread. How many more pages are required before you are able to provide some kind of progress in the discussion?

As my design is based on a craft of about 250kg, It would be unlikely for it have a surface area greater than 1m2 facing the sun, so even if it was the absolute perfect reflector, its still producing 220 times more force than the solar radiation pressure acting upon it at 1AU.

And you have calculated that a solar panel with surface area less than 1m2 will produce the electricity required for the EMPs? As stated earlier, you can't use more energy than the sun is able to provide.

Edited July 20, 2019 by Ghideon

[Strange]

On 7/18/2019 at 12:53 PM, MPMin said:

The two 100m wires are 0.1m apart and pulse a 10 amp current between each other.

What is the voltage? Or the resistance of the wire?

In other words, how much power is required for the 10A pulse?

How large a solar panel is required to generate that much power? Or how long would it take to charge a battery (or array of supercaps) to provide that pulse? How much do these batteries weigh?

[MPMin]

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

On page 3 it was concluded that forces between cables mounted in a rig does not generate propulsion. 

On 7/8/2019 at 6:47 PM, Ghideon said:

1: Ampère's_force_law Special_case: Two straight parallel wires, currents in wires makes them attract or repel. In this case there is a force F acting on the left cable, and an equal force F in the opposite direction acting on the right cable. If cables are mounted on a common rig the force is an internal stress on the rig. No propulsion will occur. But since current is switched of very fast this situation is not applicable, we look at the second case. 

Yet, many pages later you keep on repeating the same mistakes over and over again. 

On 7/18/2019 at 9:53 PM, MPMin said:

I am using the below link as the reference:

 https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/magnetic-forces-and-magnetic-fields/magnetic-field-current-carrying-wire/v/magnetism-7

The two 100m wires are 0.1m apart and pulse a 10 amp current between each other. I am assuming the pulse has a width of 0.01m.

The calculation is pointless from a propulsion perspective. It is useless for reasons stated over and over again in this thread. How many more pages are required before you are able to provide some kind of progress in the discussion?

15 hours ago, MPMin said:

As my design is based on a craft of about 250kg, It would be unlikely for it have a surface area greater than 1m2 facing the sun, so even if it was the absolute perfect reflector, its still producing 220 times more force than the solar radiation pressure acting upon it at 1AU.

 And you have calculated that a solar panel with surface area less than 1m2 will produce the electricity required for the EMPs? As stated earlier, you can't use more energy than the sun is able to provide.

Edited 20 minutes ago by Ghideon

No. Over and over again you suggest or think the forces act on each other at the same time. As the emp is detached from wire A before arriving at wire B the force of the two wires can not counteract each other as they do not occur at the same time. If you think this wont work show me the reference to where it has been documented that pulsing emp between fixed wires wont work.

As I’ve been trying to point out, I don’t think this has been tried before and until it has, there is no actual evidence that it wont work. So while you are able to assume my craft is the perfect reflector (which is still amusing to me) why not entertain the possibility that pulsing an emp between wires could generate propulsion unless you have direct evidence that it does not. And by the way I’m sure you can work out the order of magnitude from any assumed percentage of efficiency, can you not?

And whilst you all harp on about from which aspect you consider the force is generated from, for over ten pages it has been shown to not be the key point.

To really illustrate my point that you all haven’t really thought about this design thoroughly, if the propulsion is just unbalanced radiation escaping out the back, whats happening in the second phase of the propulsion where the current in wire A is reversed for the incoming emp from wire B? It would appear that you haven’t really considered my design properly before making your opinions.

 

 

Edited July 20, 2019 by MPMin

[Mordred]

It hasn't been tried before because others realize it won't work. If delivering propulsion was as easy as EMP pulsing don't you think it would already be in practical use ?

 Consider  how much we use electrical circuits in our  day and age with electrical  circuits delivering far greater amps than  a measly 10 amps.

Your wires are fixed mounted simple as that you pulse wire a onto wire  B the mount connecting wire b will pull wire a the same amount.

how can you not possibly see that ?

Edited July 20, 2019 by Mordred

[MPMin]

56 minutes ago, Strange said:

What is the voltage? Or the resistance of the wire?

In other words, how much power is required for the 10A pulse?

How large a solar panel is required to generate that much power? Or how long would it take to charge a battery (or array of supercaps) to provide that pulse? How much do these batteries weigh?

Ive assumed the native voltage of the solar panels of around 24 volts. If using more than one solar panel they can be wired in series to increase the voltage if required. 

Ive assumed a 10mm solid copper wire with the temperature of outer space reducing the resistance.

The battery component would depend on the purpose of the craft in terms of where it needed to go how much time out of direct sunlight etc. lets assume 50kg for batteries.

But with all the variables in mind there’s two ways you can look at this, you can just assume my craft will be perfect reflector and find every reason to shoot it down or you could try and be practical and make practical assumptions to explain why it would or wouldn’t work. 

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

It hasn't been tried before because others realize it won't work. If delivering propulsion was as easy as EMP pulsing don't you think it would already be in practical use ?

If this assumption was made at every new innovation, nothing new would ever be tried. 

[Mordred]

One can calculate the impractical it prior to spending and wasting money.

Here is a simple analogy take a C clamp.

Call the shafts mount wire a and the opposing side wire B. What directions are the force vectors on both the ends ?

Wire A pulses against wire B as a result equal force in the opposite direction is applied to wire A. Wire B is fixed mounted  cannot move by that mount. 

Equals no movement of either wire sum of force is zero zip nadda

As your two wires are fixed mounted it would be no different than taking a ram onto a spaceship. The ram hammers one way but equal force is applied the opposite direction.

The only way for EMP to move a ship is if the EMP acts upon something outside of the ship. In space the density of ionized particles is too insignificant for practicality.

Edited July 20, 2019 by Mordred

[Strange]

 

53 minutes ago, MPMin said:

To really illustrate my point that you all haven’t really thought about this design thoroughly, if the propulsion is just unbalanced radiation escaping out the back, whats happening in the second phase of the propulsion where the current in wire A is reversed for the incoming emp from wire B? It would appear that you haven’t really considered my design properly before making your opinions.

This is the mirror image of the first pules. A pulse is generated from wire B, it is partly blocked by wire A and so there is an excess of radiation escaping to the left, meaning that the craft will be pushed to the right. Which counteracts the previous change in momentum. So this pulse will undo any effect of the first.

 

35 minutes ago, MPMin said:

If this assumption was made at every new innovation, nothing new would ever be tried. 

Neither science nor engineering work by trying random stuff. Both calculate in detail how something will work before trying it.

35 minutes ago, MPMin said:

Ive assumed the native voltage of the solar panels of around 24 volts.

So 240 W per pulse. But each pulse is only about 30 picoseconds so about 8 nanojoules per pulse. Not much energy (and nearly all of it is radiated into space with no effect).

Going back to my previous diagram (which showed how a small amount of the radiation from wire A is blocked by wire B, hence generating a thrust from the radiation excess in the opposite direction) I have now added solar panels (red). This are large (compared the wires, but you said they were very close together). So they will block nearly all the radiation going in the upwards direction. The radiation going in the opposite direction means that there will be a net thrust upwards. This will be many times larger than any thrust from your wires.

23 minutes ago, Mordred said:

The only way for EMP to move a ship is if the EMP acts upon something outside of the ship.

I'm not sure that is true. For example, a laser mounted on the ship would provide a (tiny) thrust, just from the momentum of the radiation. 

[Mordred]

The laser would also push against its emitter. If it pushes against a shield then you can generate a positive pressure zone that can enable small movement as high pressure wants to equalize with low pressure

Edited July 20, 2019 by Mordred

[MPMin]

17 minutes ago, Strange said:

This is the mirror image of the first pules. A pulse is generated from wire B, it is partly blocked by wire A and so there is an excess of radiation escaping to the left, meaning that the craft will be pushed to the right. Which counteracts the previous change in momentum. So this pulse will undo any effect of the first.

 

Check the direction of current in A and the direction of the magnetic field from B which produce a force in the same direction as wire B, if you check my references you will see this interaction would produce a force to the left.

21 minutes ago, Strange said:

I'm not sure that is true. For example, a laser mounted on the ship would provide a (tiny) thrust, just from the momentum of the radiation. 

I’m saying the force of a magnetic field interacting with a write carrying a current is far greater than the radiation from a laser.

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, MPMin said:

Check the direction of current in A and the direction of the magnetic field from B which produce a force in the same direction as wire B, if you check my references you will see this interaction would produce a force to the left.

And that is exactly why you can't analyse this in terms of the force on the wires. The thrust (if any) comes from the (minute) excess of radiation in one direction.

 

[Mordred]

Day

Just now, Strange said:

And that is exactly why you can't analyse this in terms of the force on the wires. The thrust comes from the (minute) excess of radiation in one direction.

 

Correct it must be excess directional force acting upon the exterior of the ship. Especially pulsed EMP.

[MPMin]

31 minutes ago, Strange said:

Neither science nor engineering work by trying random stuff. Both calculate in detail how something will work before trying it.

No one said anything about trying random stuff and don’t try telling anyone here that before every innovation was tried the results were correctly anticipated every time.

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

And that is exactly why you can't analyse this in terms of the force on the wires. The thrust comes from the (minute) excess of radiation in one direction.

On the contrary, look at the direction of the forces, this is exactly why its the force on the wires and not radiation escaping. Look at the example I provided, slow it down and check the force interaction against the references I provided, they match. 

Edited July 20, 2019 by MPMin

[Mordred]

Does that somehow make your theory workable as if by magic ?

 The three laws of inertia are so well tested and it states what your doing isn't feasible. Denial doesn't change that

Edited July 20, 2019 by Mordred

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, MPMin said:

On the contrary, look at the direction of the forces, this is exactly why its the force on the wires and not radiation escaping.

Nope. If this were true then why would putting it in a box stop it working?

You have had so many explanations why that isn't the case, yet you continue with the same errors.

 

[Mordred]

Agreed NOPE to that quoted section.