Can you move in space?

[Ghideon]

18 hours ago, MPMin said:

The reason I believe

What you believe is irrelevant.

18 hours ago, MPMin said:

The momentum of an emp seems to be conditional.

 Mainstream physics shows you are wrong, electromagnetic radiation carries momentum*. Why do you keep posting unsupported guesses? What is the goal? 

 

*) exemples: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html

 

Edited July 14, 2019 by Ghideon
Part of sentence missing

[MPMin]

17 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Mainstream physics shows you are wrong, electromagnetic radiation carries momentum*. Why do you keep posting unsupported guesses? What is the goal? 

Yes I wrong to say the emp doesn’t carry any momentum or that it was conditional.

What I was trying to say was that the momentum in -p ‘effectively’ becomes 0 because it doesn’t interact with the system or should I say it doesn’t transfer its momentum into the system.

 

1 hour ago, Strange said:

It would be much more efficient to direct all of the rocks (or all of the electromagnetic pulse) out of the back of the craft.

Are you saying it would work now? 

[Ghideon]

22 minutes ago, MPMin said:

What I was trying to say was that the momentum in -p ‘effectively’ becomes 0 because it doesn’t interact with the system or should I say it doesn’t transfer its momentum into the system.

 

Not correct. Particles carrying momentum -P to the right interacts with the system at time t=0. The particles do of cource not interact again later, but the interaction at t=0 is a crucial part of the analysis due to conservation of momentum.

30 minutes ago, MPMin said:

Are you saying it would work now? 

What does ”work” mean to you? 

[MPMin]

At t

7 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Not correct. Particles carrying momentum -P to the right interacts with the system at time t=0. The particles do of cource not interact again later, but the interaction at t=0 is a crucial part of the analysis due to conservation of momentum.

Yes, and as I already described, the -p momentum is counteracted by p at time t=0, p then interacts with the system again when it arrives at B and -p does not 

 

work means the system will generate momentum  to the left 

[Mordred]

3 hours ago, Strange said:

The other directions are important when you think about efficiency.

Your proposal is like throwing rocks in all directions but there is a narrow bar across one end of the craft. That narrow bar stops a tiny number of rocks and so there is a net thrust (because of the excess of rocks in the direction opposite the bar).

So you are wasting energy / fuel by throwing it in all directions, just to generate a tiny thrust because a tiny obstacle blocks a tiny fraction of them.

It would be much more efficient to direct all of the rocks (or all of the electromagnetic pulse) out of the back of the craft.

I was wondering  how long this would take... 

[Strange]

9 hours ago, MPMin said:

Are you saying it would work now? 

Possibly (now it is clearer what you are saying).

But it would be hard to think of a less efficient mechanism for generating thrust!

[Ghideon]

12 hours ago, MPMin said:

work means the system will generate momentum  to the left 

So a few pages later we agree on what was told earlier, here the picture are again. You reject this kind of propulsion*:

And propose an extremely weak variant of this:

Now that you have been given a model, basic math and references, can you do some work and calculate just how extremely weak and inefficient your rig is?

 

*)electrical variants: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrically_powered_spacecraft_propulsion

[MPMin]

 

35 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Now that you have been given a model

I haven’t been given a model, I’ve been the one proposing a model this whole time.

The reference you have kindly provided does not refer to my ‘rig’, your reference talks about ejecting mass for propulsion but thank you all the same.

Weak or not it would seem that my idea at least has merit and the potential to work as a reactionless propulsion system. Requiring only solar power to generate propulsion (if it actually works) efficiency and power aren’t so much of a concern because even a weak propulsion system that can continually refuel itself from the sun will have the ability to gather momentum over time. 

[Strange]

1 minute ago, MPMin said:

Weak or not it would seem that my idea at least has merit and the potential to work as a reactionless propulsion system.

It is not reactionless. The thrust is generated from the (microscopic) difference between the pulse emitted to the left and right (because you are blocking/absorbing a minute amount of the field to the left). That is the reaction.

It is so monumentally inefficient that it has no practical potential at all. 

9 minutes ago, MPMin said:

Requiring only solar power to generate propulsion (if it actually works) efficiency and power aren’t so much of a concern because even a weak propulsion system that can continually refuel itself from the sun will have the ability to gather momentum over time. 

Efficiency still matters because of the cost of the system, the time to reach a given speed (and hence destination) etc.

Solar power could be used much more directly, and a bazillion times more efficiently using a light bulb  with a reflector behind it. And better still, a laser.

Or, even more directly, by using a solar sail. 

[Mordred]

The system would be so inefficient it wouldn't be able to move the mass of its own wiring let alone the mass of the craft

[MPMin]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

The system would be so inefficient it wouldn't be able to move the mass of its own wiring let alone the mass of the craft

I’m pretty sure efficiency, or lack there of, doesn’t prevent a force from moving something in space.

I understand each cycle would only produce a tiny amount of force but keep in mind that that’s only a tiny amount of force per cycle. 

Im not saying the wires should be 0.1m apart; but if they were, and light travels 300 million meters per second, and each cycle occurs in the time it takes one pulse to reach the other wire, even if each pulse only produces a tiny amount of force, that force would be multiplied 3 billion (3x10^9)  times per second, in one week of gathering momentum that tiny force will be multiplied by 1.8x10^15. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Strange]

26 minutes ago, MPMin said:

Im not saying the wires should be 0.1m apart; but if they were, and light travels 300 million meters per second, and each cycle occurs in the time it takes one pulse to reach the other wire, even if each pulse only produces a tiny amount of force, that force would be multiplied 3 billion (3x10^9)  times per second, in one week of gathering momentum that tiny force will be multiplied by 1.8x10^15. 

The force on the wire is irrelevant. And generating a force intermittently is not better than generating a force continuously. So your multiplication factor is bogus.

Look at this diagram. The only reason you generate any thrust at all is because you "shadow" a tiny bit if the field by the presence of wire B. It will be a simple bit of school geometry for you to work out what proportion of the energy is blocked by B, and how much is just wasted.

Now look at another naive implementation where we block (about) half of the radiation:

 

Which do you think is more efficient?

Imagine how much more efficient it could be if you generated all the radiation in one direction, Like this:

        O ----------------------------------

You know, like a ... laser, or something.

[Mordred]

Calculate how many Newton's of force would be required to move a 10 ton craft. 

 Then try and tell me efficiency doesn't matter.

Does the everyday wind move a ten ton rock ?

Ps ten tons would be a light estimate for all the wiring you would need to generate a substantial force (ever picked up a decent size transformer ?

Edited July 15, 2019 by Mordred

[MPMin]

20 minutes ago, Strange said:

The force on the wire is irrelevant. And generating a force intermittently is not better than generating a force continuously. So your multiplication factor is bogus.

 

If the force on the wire is irrelevant, what’s going to move the craft? 

If an intermittent force is collectively greater than a really weak continuous force of you know like a laser then it is better.

And the multiplication factor is not fake, what the total product of force ends up being is yet to be determined but certainly not fake.

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Calculate how many Newton's of force would be required to move a 10 ton craft. 

 Then try and tell me efficiency doesn't matter.

Does the everyday wind move a ten ton rock ?

Ps ten tons would be a light estimate for all the wiring you would need to generate a substantial force (ever picked up a decent size transformer ?

If the system can gather endless energy from the sun to power itself and produce thrust over time, perhaps you could explain why ‘efficiency’ would be a failure point?

The wind blowing a rock on the ground is hardly a relative comparison to moving a craft in space and without a complete design how can you assume the mass of the craft?

[Strange]

2 hours ago, MPMin said:

If the force on the wire is irrelevant, what’s going to move the craft? 

Again: the slight excess of electromagnetic radiation in the other direction because of the blocking/shadowing effect of the wire.

Quote

 If an intermittent force is collectively greater than a really weak continuous force of you know like a laser then it is better.

It isn't.

Quote

If the system can gather endless energy from the sun to power itself and produce thrust over time, perhaps you could explain why ‘efficiency’ would be a failure point?

Apart from anything else, it would be trivial to build something which is a gazillion times more efficient than your system which your admit would be almost impossible to engineer.

A passive system with no electrical components or moving parts would be infinitely more effective.

So if, for example, someone were contemplating patenting something like this, I would strongly advise them not to waste their money.

2 hours ago, MPMin said:

If the force on the wire is irrelevant, what’s going to move the craft? 

BTW the force on the wire is the reaction (that you claimed doesn’t exist) to the thrust generated by the “propellant” (EMP) 

[Mordred]

2 hours ago, MPMin said:

 

The wind blowing a rock on the ground is hardly a relative comparison to moving a craft in space and without a complete design how can you assume the mass of the craft?

Ever weigh copper or even aluminum wire in large enough quantity capable of moving even a craft the size of a communication satellite ? Particularly with this design with radiation in every direction instead of directional ?

 

Believe me ten tons us a low low estimate. The NASA spaceshuttle weighs 165000 pounds for one example that is without fuel and cargo. Just to give you some real world perspective...

Edited July 15, 2019 by Mordred

[MPMin]

5 hours ago, Strange said:

Again: the slight excess of electromagnetic radiation in the other direction because of the blocking/shadowing effect of the wire.

I thought you said it was irrelevant? 

 

5 hours ago, Strange said:

It isn't

Can you even justify this against what I said? 

 

5 hours ago, Strange said:

A passive system with no electrical components or moving parts would be infinitely more effective.

Perhaps you’ve missed the point of my concept, mine has no moving parts either. Are you still talking about the same thing? 

 

5 hours ago, Strange said:

So if, for example, someone were contemplating patenting something like this, I would strongly advise them not to waste their money.

Based on what exactly? Are you able to give this statement some tangible reasoning beyond supposition? 

 

5 hours ago, Strange said:

Apart from anything else, it would be trivial to build something which is a gazillion times more efficient than your system which your admit would be almost impossible to engineer.

I’m not sure this statement supports your argument as ‘gazillion’ isn’t a real number. This is the correct context to use the word  a bogus. 

 

4 hours ago, Mordred said:

Ever weigh copper or even aluminum wire in large enough quantity capable of moving even a craft the size of a communication satellite ? Particularly with this design with radiation in every direction instead of directional ?

I haven’t crunched the numbers yet, have you? 

 

4 hours ago, Mordred said:

Believe me ten tons us a low low estimate. The NASA spaceshuttle weighs 165000 pounds for one example that is without fuel and cargo. Just to give you some real world perspective...

I believe this is your low estimate, but I don’t believe it applies to every possible application in space. Are you saying that all satellites are over 10 tons in mass because the space shuttle has a greater mass? I think the amount of energy it takes to get a satellite would put pressure on engineers to keep satellites as light as possible. Actually searching for the answer on google reveals that a lot of satellites weigh a lot less then 10 tons. 

[Mordred]

No I gave you a light  weight figure which is significantly smaller than what would be viable  for any serious practical purpose so that you can apply f=ma.

 Figure out how many Newtons  such a light weight craft would require to move. Then realize  that having radiation going in every direction with only a slight amount of extra in one direction will not be sufficient to move the craft.

 You would be far far better  off too use ionized plasma with your magnetic field. The thrust is substantial. I already linked that option in this thread. 

[MPMin]

Yes but ionised plasma is still a propellant which will eventually be used up, my proposal doesn’t require a propellant and could potentially have an endless supply of thrust from solar power.

[Ghideon]

 

18 hours ago, MPMin said:

Weak or not it would seem that my idea at least has merit and the potential to work as a reactionless propulsion system.

If you think it is reactionless you need to understand.your idea better. It is not reactionless.

48 minutes ago, MPMin said:

 

Yes but ionised plasma is still a propellant which will eventually be used up, my proposal doesn’t require a propellant and could potentially have an endless supply of thrust from solar power.

 

1: If you manage to create a strong magnetic field, it will work against the incoming solar radiation, preventing your rig from collecting it? (Edit: light is not affected by the field and can reach the rig)

2: Where are you going to fly? Towards the sun is not possible since you have to fight the incoming radiation and away from the sun there will be less energy to collect.

3: If you manage to collect energy from the sun and waste nearly all of it in all directions, why is that a good idea?

18 hours ago, MPMin said:

I haven’t been given a model, I’ve been the one proposing a model this whole time.

The model I speak of is that we agree that the EMPs involved can be modelled as particles carrying momentum and that momentum can be calculated using math. References such as https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure or http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html

 

Edited July 16, 2019 by Ghideon

[MPMin]

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

If you think it is reactionless you need to understand.your idea better. It is not reactionless.

Please tell me what defines a reactionless drive or please tell me how idea isn’t a reactionless drive? 

[Strange]

13 hours ago, MPMin said:

I thought you said it was irrelevant? 

I said the force on it is irrelevant. (That is just the reaction force to the thrust being generated.)

13 hours ago, MPMin said:

Perhaps you’ve missed the point of my concept, mine has no moving parts either. Are you still talking about the same thing?

It has complex electronics to generate precisely timed pulses.

13 hours ago, MPMin said:

I’m not sure this statement supports your argument as ‘gazillion’ isn’t a real number. 

It is just as much a number as any you have used. 

I gave you a diagram and asked you to work out the actual efficiency.

(I deliberately used a vague reference because, as noted earlier, you have provided no details to be analysed.)

6 hours ago, MPMin said:

Yes but ionised plasma is still a propellant which will eventually be used up, my proposal doesn’t require a propellant and could potentially have an endless supply of thrust from solar power.

Using a propellent just gives you more thrust (than electromagnetic radiation) because the energy density of matter is much greater. By a factor of about 10¹⁶ (that's lot more than a gazillion).

If you don't want to use propellant, but just rely on electromagnetic radiation, then that is fine. You can do that. There are systems that do. You just need a sensible (ie. not stupidly inefficient) way of doing it (eg. solar sail, laser, etc)

2 hours ago, MPMin said:

Please tell me what defines a reactionless drive or please tell me how idea isn’t a reactionless drive? 

As you are the one claiming it is reactionless, maybe you should explain what you mean by the term?

13 hours ago, MPMin said:

Based on what exactly? Are you able to give this statement some tangible reasoning beyond supposition? 

Based on the fact that there are far better ways of producing a solar-powered craft that uses no propellant.

[MPMin]

23 minutes ago, Strange said:

I said the force on it is irrelevant. (That is just the reaction force to the thrust being generated.)

You’ve said what you think it is but you still haven’t explained how It’s irrelevant?

 

25 minutes ago, Strange said:

It has complex electronics to generate precisely timed pulses.

That doesn’t mean it has moving parts thought so this comment is just meaningless in context.

27 minutes ago, Strange said:

I gave you a diagram and asked you to work out the actual efficiency.

 (I deliberately used a vague reference because, as noted earlier, you have provided no details to be analysed.)

You provided just one other drawing as a deliberately vague reference and asked me to do an efficiency comparison? Why would you do this?

39 minutes ago, Strange said:

Using a propellent just gives you more thrust (than electromagnetic radiation) because the energy density of matter is much greater. By a factor of about 10¹⁶ (that's lot more than a gazillion).

Can you provide a reference for this? (Anything can be more than a bogus number )

41 minutes ago, Strange said:

If you don't want to use propellant, but just rely on electromagnetic radiation, then that is fine. You can do that. There are systems that do. You just need a sensible (ie. not stupidly inefficient) way of doing it (eg. solar sail, laser, etc)

Have you considered that my system could potentially produce more thrust than those other systems? It could possibly generate a gazallion times more thrust.

51 minutes ago, Strange said:

Based on the fact that there are far better ways of producing a solar-powered craft that uses no propellant.

What facts are you basing this on when the system I’m proposing didn’t even exist to your knowledge a few days ago?

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, MPMin said:

You’ve said what you think it is but you still haven’t explained how It’s irrelevant?

Many many times, as has others; You should be grateful they have remained so patient...

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, MPMin said:

 Have you considered that my system could potentially produce more thrust than those other systems? It could possibly generate a gazallion times more thrust.

One would need to apply some physics to the problem and do an analysis to come up with this kind of conclusion.