Can you move in space?

[MPMin]

If the wires are only 0.1m apart, and the emp is traveling out of the wire at the speed of light, and you need to pulse the current quickly enough so that the emp only emerges by 0.01m before stopping the current (because if you let the emp reach the other wire before stopping the current it will create an attachment or simultaneous force), how quickly does the switch need to go on and off to allow this to happen... too quick for anything I have access to that’s for sure. 

[Mordred]

Too quick to generate 10 amps that's also for sure. Are you familiar with pulse width modulation to generate current ? All variable speed drives use this principle. 

 I can quantantee it takes a high frequency of pulses to generate 10 amps. 

Sounds like your proposal is an impossibility in its circuit requirements. Particularly since the flow of charge will take longer in the wires than the flow of EM field in an atmosphere.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Mordred

[MPMin]

I think we are moving away from the principal on which the design works on and moving towards the technology to make it work which is not my concern at this stage. I’m just want to know if the principle of my design is at least test worthy before moving to the next phase of development. 

[Mordred]

Well considering flow of charge through your wire length vs the gap between your two wires. So that you can compete with c for a pulse width I would say your pulse idea is an impossibility.

 As I mentioned you can experiment the Lorentz force at home to see how two wires respond. 

Consider this wires has a signal propagation delay at roughly 1 NS per 15 inches on average.

[MPMin]

8 minutes ago, Mordred said:

 As I mentioned you can experiment the Lorentz force at home to see how two wires respond. 

I have no problem with this and agree this would work with a continuous current in both wires. But I do hope you now understand what I’ve been trying to say with regard to pulsing currents. The technology can be worked on if the principal is worth testing. 

[Mordred]

Good luck ever getting the technology to meet your requirements...the gap atmosphere will always allow the EM field to be quicker than the flow of charge through your wire. Wires delay signals.

You would need a much bigger gap and thus much more power.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Mordred

[MPMin]

The technology is the next hurdle but thanks for listening and understanding 

[Mordred]

15 minutes ago, MPMin said:

I have no problem with this and agree this would work with a continuous current in both wires. But I do hope you now understand what I’ve been trying to say with regard to pulsing currents. The technology can be worked on if the principal is worth testing. 

Well hopefully you also agree on how Newton's third law applies.

[MPMin]

I agree with Newtown law, I just don’t agree that my design is violating Newton’s law 

A continuous (simultaneous) force will cancel each other out thus generating no propulsion - claiming otherwise would be in violation of Newton’s third law. Pulsing the current creates a detached force that the system can then act on that detached force as though it’s not attached to the system because it’s not actually attached to the system. As the system is acting on a force that’s not attached to the system, Newton’s third law is not being violated 

Edited July 22, 2019 by MPMin

[Strange]

16 hours ago, Mordred said:

Yeesh the minute to pulse wire A to wire B wire B pulls  back on wire A. See the Blooming link if you refuse to believe me. 

 It clearly shows two not one Lorentz force lines in the two wire scenario. 

 YOU MUST ACCOUNT FOR BOTH.

To be fair, I think MPMin is correct, in that it appears that a pulse that is shorter than the travel time from A to B does not exert a force on A (because there is no longer a magnetic field at A). 

I think this is approximately true. And doesn’t violate any laws. For example, consider a machine that throws two metal spheres in opposite directions, so there is no net force on the machine. The sphere going left can hit an object (eg a wall of the craft) and exert a force on it, still with no force on the throwing machine. ( The reaction force is on the sphere)

If the other sphere (going right) is allowed to leave the craft then there will be a net thrust on the craft (to the left).

The claim is that the craft is moved by the force of sphere hitting the wall. Whereas it is actually caused by the ejected sphere carrying momentum.

And in fact, we can dispense with the left going sphere completely and just throw the right-going one out of the craft. This will generate exactly the same thrust, but uses half the energy. (And also proves that the force generated by the left-going sphere (or pulse) is irrelevant.)

In the system described, it is even worse because "spheres"  (pulses) are being thrown in all directions. Only a tiny barrier (wire B) stops a few of them, most have no effect (being cancelled out by others) and a few (those exactly opposite B) carry away net momentum and generate thrust.

So, again, a hopelessly inefficient way of generating minute thrust.

 

[Strange]

3 hours ago, Mordred said:

Good luck ever getting the technology to meet your requirements...the gap atmosphere will always allow the EM field to be quicker than the flow of charge through your wire. Wires delay signals.

Good point. I hadn't really thought about this, either. I guess one would need an array of point generators of magnetic pulses with precise synchronisation between them.

I have no idea how (or even if) that could be done with magnetic pulses. 

But such point generators of EM radiation do exist, and have the advantage of being very efficient and highly directional, as well. (Yes, I am thinking of semiconductor lasers.)

[MPMin]

Thank you Strange for understanding my design, I appreciate you acknowledging that it could work.

I’m definitely not trying to start a new argument unnecessarily but I don’t agree that it’s the radiation going out the back that’s producing the momentum in the craft when using emps. The reason I think it’s the force at wire B is increasing the amperage in wire B will increase the force exerted on the emp from wire A without pushing more emp energy out the back from wire A; If this is incorrect (and I’m pretty sure it isn’t incorrect) then it’s still just a ‘six of one half dozen of the other’ argument as to where the force comes from as at the end of the day it’s action and reaction. Having said that though, you are right that the system loses energy in all directions except wire to wire and your analogy of throwing physical objects is correct. However, as the system can use renewable energy from the sun to generate emps, its inefficiency isn’t a deal breaker as it will produce more thrust per m2 than solar radiation pressure on the solar panels will and as technology improves the wires will be able to be mounted closer together which will increase the efficiency of the system.

 

i don’t know why the font size is different in the text above I didn’t indent that to happen 

Edited July 22, 2019 by MPMin

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, MPMin said:

I’m definitely not trying to start a new argument unnecessarily but I don’t agree that it’s the radiation going out the back that’s producing the momentum in the craft when using emps.

The why would putting the whole thing in a metal box stop it working? 

3 minutes ago, MPMin said:

The reason I think it’s the force at wire B is increasing the amperage in wire B will increase the force exerted on the emp from wire A without pushing more emp energy out the back from wire A;

That will still happen in a sealed metal box. And yet ... no thrust.

The comparison with the two metal spheres being thrown left and right is an exact analogy with your system. Unless one of the spheres/pulses leaves the craft, there is no thrust. Throwing the other sphere/pulse in the other direction contributes absolutely nothing.

So, if you were to direct the magnetic pulse in all directions except towards wire B (so it never exerts a force on wire B) then you would get exactly the same thrust as you do currently.

 

 

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Mordred said:

Good luck ever getting the technology to meet your requirements...the gap atmosphere will always allow the EM field to be quicker than the flow of charge through your wire. Wires delay signals.

You would need a much bigger gap and thus much more power.

Just to say that I pointed this out two weeks ago, plus the fact (posted later) that you can't just look at the effect of one piece of wire — you have to look at the entire closed loop.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/119459-can-you-move-in-space/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-1109351

 

[MPMin]

50 minutes ago, Strange said:

That will still happen in a sealed metal box. And yet ... no thrust.

That will happen with any propulsion system and doesn’t conclude anything.

The disk analogy isn’t exactly the same. For example, you can have no current in B and no thrust, that’s like opening the window in that direction and letting the disk fly straight through, but closing the window will only generate as much thrust as the disk can transfer to the craft, where as the current in wire B can be increased beyond the current that produced the emp in wire A thus generating more thrust at B: I still maintain that the force occurs at the wires when the emp interacts with the wire carrying a current as the amount of current in the receiving wire is variable which can vary the amount of thrust generated where as a disk hitting the wall at B has only potential of the momentum in the disk hitting it. 

Edited July 22, 2019 by MPMin

[Mordred]

5 hours ago, MPMin said:

I agree with Newtown law, I just don’t agree that my design is violating Newton’s law 

A continuous (simultaneous) force will cancel each other out thus generating no propulsion - claiming otherwise would be in violation of Newton’s third law. Pulsing the current creates a detached force that the system can then act on that detached force as though it’s not attached to the system because it’s not actually attached to the system. As the system is acting on a force that’s not attached to the system, Newton’s third law is not being violated 

On essence acting upon radiation pressure not Lorentz force. Sounds like you will need to analyze the response of the siding of the craft as the radiation pressure will also respond to container walls.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, MPMin said:

That will happen with any propulsion system and doesn’t conclude anything.

And you need to think about why. 

There is still a force on wire B. If that force is what propels the craft, why doesn't it work in a metal box?

1 hour ago, MPMin said:

The disk analogy isn’t exactly the same.

It is exactly the same. (Apart from being spheres rather than disks!  )

1 hour ago, MPMin said:

For example, you can have no current in B and no thrust, that’s like opening the window in that direction and letting the disk fly straight through

The current in B will make no difference (which is another problem with your analysis). 

You will get the same thrust with no current, or the current flowing in the opposite direction. The thrust is not caused by the force on the wire.

 

How about considering the actual counter-example I presented instead of making up another (incorrect) one.

Only send the spheres or pulses to the right (so there is no force on wire B) so they leave the craft. The thrust generated is identical (*) to the case where you also send a sphere / pulse to the left, which intersects with the wire. Therefore the force on the wire is irrelevant.

(*) We know this from conservation of momentum.

1 hour ago, MPMin said:

I still maintain that the force occurs at the wires when the emp interacts with the wire carrying a current as the amount of current in the receiving wire is variable which can vary the amount of thrust generated

It can't do. Because the amount of thrust (defined as momentum gained by the craft) must be equal to momentum carried away by the EM radiation that leaves the craft in the opposite direction. Therefore this is (must be) independent of the force on the wire. 

[swansont]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

you can't just look at the effect of one piece of wire — you have to look at the entire closed loop.

This, combined with the short time the current is moving in the loops, will limit the length of wire you can have. Keep in mind that the return path of the current is in the opposite direction, meaning the force would be, as well.  

[MPMin]

 

38 minutes ago, Strange said:

You will get the same thrust with no current, or the current flowing in the opposite direction. The thrust is not caused by the force on the wire.

 

Think about the two wires in parallel and imagine them both carrying a continuous current for a moment; what’s the force pushing or pulling them apart in the continuous current situation? Further more, the force can be reversed by reversing one of the currents.

If you were to stop the current in one of the wires, does the force between the two wires stop the very instant one of the currents stops, or does the force between the wires continue until the magnetic field from the wire that was switched off finishes traveling towards the wire with the continuous current? I’m sure it’s the later. 

The emp is essentially a segment of the magnetic field traveling towards the wire with the current, therefore: 

F = I x L x B (where B is the magnetic field in Tesla’s and not the wire B)

Which is the equation for the force on a wire carrying a current in a magnetic field, no current, no force

Further more, reversing the current in wire B would cause wire B to be attracted to the magnetic field from wire A thus moving the craft to the right. 

Edited July 22, 2019 by MPMin

[Strange]

36 minutes ago, MPMin said:

Think about the two wires in parallel and imagine them both carrying a continuous current for a moment; what’s the force pushing or pulling them apart in the continuous current situation? Further more, the force can be reversed by reversing one of the currents.

If you were to stop the current in one of the wires, does the force between the two wires stop the very instant one of the currents stops, or does the force between the wires continue until the magnetic field from the wire that was switched off finishes traveling towards the wire with the continuous current? I’m sure it’s the later. 

The emp is essentially a segment of the magnetic field traveling towards the wire with the current, therefore: 

F = I x L x B (where B is the magnetic field in Tesla’s and not the wire B)

Which is the equation for the force on a wire carrying a current in a magnetic field, no current, no force

Further more, reversing the current in wire B would cause wire B to be attracted to the magnetic field from wire A

This all appears to be 100% correct.

37 minutes ago, MPMin said:

thus moving the craft to the right. 

This is 100% wrong.

[Mordred]

Editted was thinking of wrong formula

Edited July 22, 2019 by Mordred

[MPMin]

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

This is 100% wrong.

I disagree, for the same reason the magnetic field from A and wire B repel each other as shown in my animated example (move to the left) reversing the current in wire B would cause wire B to move into the emp from A (move to the right) 

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, MPMin said:

I disagree, for the same reason the magnetic field from A and wire B repel each other as shown in my animated example (move to the left) reversing the current in wire B would cause wire B to move into the emp from A (move to the right) 

This is correct. The wire will move. This will not move the craft.

If you were correct, this would violate the conservation of momentum. You claim that the craft will move to the right. This means an increase in momentum to the right. To meet the conservation law (because there is no external force) there must be something, separate from the craft, that carries momentum to the left. There isn't anything, so it can't happen. 

I don't know how else to explain this to you...

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 hours ago, MPMin said:

You don’t have to create anything but you are anyway. You have misunderstood your own reference, to illustrate this point; you think that only one of the wires needs a current to produce a force between the wires. As you don’t understand your own reference, your understanding of my design is as flawed as your understanding of your own reference. 

As I said, the detachment of the emp from wire A essentially makes the emp an external force because it is no longer attached to the craft when it interacts with the other wire.

You will have to explain how the detached emp is still attached to the craft when it interacts with the other wire to make your point valid. 

The point is; I don’t consider the emp attached to the craft when it interacts with the other wire. 

Considering the emp has left the wire behind as it emanates outward, can you please explain how it’s still attached to the craft even though it’s no longer attached to the wire it came from? 

I said it could be considered as part of the craft/system. Do you see the advantage of being able to do that?

[MPMin]

51 minutes ago, Strange said:

If you were correct, this would violate the conservation of momentum. You claim that the craft will move to the right. This means an increase in momentum to the right. To meet the conservation law (because there is no external force) there must be something, separate from the craft, that carries momentum to the left. There isn't anything, so it can't happen. 

The thing that separates itself from the craft is the emp, once it leaves the wire it is no longer part of the craft.I think you might be thinking of the emp as a physical force rather than a magnetic force.

where F = I x L x B 

then 

-F = -I x L x B 

 

 

39 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I said it could be considered as part of the craft/system. Do you see the advantage of being able to do that?

If you are referring to the emp as being part of (or remaining attached to) the craft, I don’t understand how this would be an advantage in my design? 

Edited July 22, 2019 by MPMin