MPMin Posted July 16, 2019 Author Posted July 16, 2019 4 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Many many times, as has others; You should be grateful they have remained so patient... Are you saying I’m not allowed to ask for clarity on statements made with no explanation?
dimreepr Posted July 16, 2019 Posted July 16, 2019 1 minute ago, MPMin said: Are you saying I’m not allowed to ask for clarity on statements made with no explanation? You don't seem to be asking...
MPMin Posted July 16, 2019 Author Posted July 16, 2019 5 minutes ago, dimreepr said: You don't seem to be asking... If you read back you’ll see that I did ask
dimreepr Posted July 16, 2019 Posted July 16, 2019 Just now, MPMin said: If you read back you’ll see that I did ask I'll take your word for that; did you learn?
MPMin Posted July 16, 2019 Author Posted July 16, 2019 1 minute ago, dimreepr said: I'll take your word for that; did you learn? I’m trying to but It’s hard to learn when explanations aren’t provided with the statements given
dimreepr Posted July 16, 2019 Posted July 16, 2019 Just now, MPMin said: I’m trying to but It’s hard to learn when explanations aren’t provided with the statements given YOU CAN'T BREAK THE LAW... https://archive.briankoberlein.com/2015/09/10/breaking-the-law/index.html
Ghideon Posted July 16, 2019 Posted July 16, 2019 4 hours ago, MPMin said: Please tell me what defines a reactionless drive or please tell me how idea isn’t a reactionless drive? Can’t you try to look it up in case you still don’t understand after 7 pages of analysis of your specific idea and explanations of physics in general? Anyway: A reactionless drive is a device producing motion without the exhaust of a propellant. A propellantless drive is not necessarily reactionless when it constitutes an open system interacting with external fields; but a reactionless drive is a particular case of a propellantless drive that is a closed system, presumably in contradiction with the law of conservation of momentum. Reactionless drives are often considered similar to a perpetual motion machine. The name comes from Newton's third law, often expressed as, "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."* A reactionless drive is guaranteed to fail unless completely new physics emerge, reactionless drives will produce exactly zero thrust. Your rig relies on the momentum of the radiation to possibly produce a tiny amount of thrust in an extremely inefficient way. Since your rig relies on propellant in form of EMPs it is not reactionless. *) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionless_drive 1
MPMin Posted July 16, 2019 Author Posted July 16, 2019 7 minutes ago, dimreepr said: YOU CAN'T BREAK THE LAW... I’m pretty sure I’m not trying to break the law
dimreepr Posted July 16, 2019 Posted July 16, 2019 1 minute ago, MPMin said: I’m pretty sure I’m not trying to break the law See above...
MPMin Posted July 16, 2019 Author Posted July 16, 2019 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Ghideon said: Can’t you try to look it up in case you still don’t understand after 7 pages of analysis of your specific idea and explanations of physics in general? Anyway: I did look It up: 18 minutes ago, Ghideon said: A propellantless drive is not necessarily reactionless when it constitutes an open system interacting with external fields Mine doesn’t interact with external fields However, if the ultimate defining feature of a reactionless drive is that a reactionless drive violates Newton’s third law by definition then mine isnt reaction less for that definition alone, my system isn’t breaking Newton’s third law. Edited July 16, 2019 by MPMin
dimreepr Posted July 16, 2019 Posted July 16, 2019 Just now, MPMin said: I did look It up: Mine doesn’t interact with external fields However, if the ultimate defining feature of a reactionless drive is that a reactionless drive violates Newton’s third law then mine isnt reaction less for that definition alone, my system isn’t breaking Newton’s third law.
MPMin Posted July 16, 2019 Author Posted July 16, 2019 7 hours ago, Ghideon said: 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? If my system can generate enough thrust, 1, 2 and 3 wont be a problem.
Ghideon Posted July 16, 2019 Posted July 16, 2019 1 minute ago, MPMin said: If my system can generate enough thrust, 1, 2 and 3 wont be a problem. Again: give us the numbers you expect then. Can’t you at least try doing some calculations? Give it a try, it is not dangerous. In case you get stuck post questions regarding the formulas.
dimreepr Posted July 16, 2019 Posted July 16, 2019 7 minutes ago, MPMin said: Ok I will Let's hope you're right... 1
Strange Posted July 16, 2019 Posted July 16, 2019 3 hours ago, MPMin said: You’ve said what you think it is but you still haven’t explained how It’s irrelevant? Because it is not the reason the craft moves; that is due to momentum being carried away in the opposite direction by the EMP. (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.) (*) Not really familiar with the terminology for rocket engines! But I hope people can see what I mean... 3 hours ago, MPMin said: You provided just one other drawing as a deliberately vague reference and asked me to do an efficiency comparison? Why would you do this? I'm not sure what you mean. I did the picture quickly (while at work) but I didn't think it was that bad. I was attempting to show the small amount of the EMP that is blocked/absorbed by the wire in your system, compared to how much could be if you were to put a semicircular barrier behind it. (For simplicity; ideally, I guess it would be a parabolic reflector). Your scheme uses a tiny fraction of the available energy (or momentum). I obviously can't calculate how much, because you have not provided any details. I assume you could. The alternative scheme uses at least half the available energy and, if a reflector were used, approaching 100%. Why would I do it? So you could see how inefficient your idea is. I can only give a qualitative answer ("a gazzilion times less efficient"); you could work out a quantitative answer. If you so wished. 3 hours ago, MPMin said: Can you provide a reference for this? (Anything can be more than a bogus number ) It is a crude estimate, but it is basically c2 (as in e=mc2). Obviously, the energy density of different materials varies enormously, but only by a few orders of magnitude. The equivalent mass (or momentum) of an EMP is minute. 3 hours 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. It is up to you demonstrate how it does that. Using physics and mathematics, rather than just claiming that it does. 3 hours ago, MPMin said: What facts are you basing this on when the system I’m proposing didn’t even exist to your knowledge a few days ago? The idea of powering a craft using electromagnetic radiation is not novel. Your method is, prima facie, incredibly inefficient. But feel free to produce some actual physics as a counter-argument. 2 hours ago, MPMin said: If my system can generate enough thrust, 1, 2 and 3 wont be a problem. You need to demonstrate that it can.
Mordred Posted July 17, 2019 Posted July 17, 2019 Have you done any calculations yet ? Or even decided on a tonnage of your craft? You didn't agree with the low ball park of 10 tons. Without some value of weight it would be impossible to calculate the required thrust and the required amount of tesla needed. 16 hours ago, MPMin said: If my system can generate enough thrust, 1, 2 and 3 wont be a problem. That remains to be seen. No one except yourself agree that your design would be capable. So start crunching some numbersm
MPMin Posted July 18, 2019 Author Posted July 18, 2019 (edited) 23 hours ago, Mordred said: Or even decided on a tonnage of your craft? You didn't agree with the low ball park of 10 tons. Without some value of weight it would be impossible to calculate the required thrust and the required amount of tesla needed. You seem to have decided on the tonnage of the craft already. Considering we are talking about a craft already in space wouldn’t it be fair to assume that a certain percentage of the craft’s mass would be dedicated to its propulsion system, in other words, the bigger the craft the bigger the propulsion system, right? Furthermore, with regard to the satellite usage, its role would determine how import it is for the satellite to be able to move, the more important it is to be able to move the satellite, the higher the percentage of the satellites mass would be attributed to its propulsion system. https://www.satellitetoday.com/innovation/2016/07/14/forecast-international-expecting-1935-new-remote-sensing-satellites-2025/ This reference suggests the average mass of a remote sensing satellite was about 226.1kg in 2015 Edited July 18, 2019 by MPMin
MPMin Posted July 18, 2019 Author Posted July 18, 2019 I have calculated that a 10 amp system using 100m copper cable per wire (200m total weighing 30kg approx) will accelerate a 250KG satellite 8x10^-6 ms/s
Ghideon Posted July 18, 2019 Posted July 18, 2019 3 minutes ago, MPMin said: I have calculated that a 10 amp system using 100m copper cable per wire (200m total weighing 30kg approx) will accelerate a 250KG satellite 8x10^-6 ms/s How?
MPMin Posted July 18, 2019 Author Posted July 18, 2019 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. B= u x I / (2pie x R) =1.257x10^-6 x 10 / (2 x 3.1415 x 0.1) B = 2x10^-5 F= I x L x B = 10 x 100 x 2x10^5 = 0.02 N As the magnetic pulse is 0.01m of the 0.1m distance of the continuous field the force of the emp can only be 1/10 Thus F = 0.02/10 F = 0.002N a = F/m = 0.002 / 250 a = 8x10^-6 ms/s
Mordred Posted July 18, 2019 Posted July 18, 2019 So one wire pushes against the other but both are fixed in their distance correct ? That won't work it won't matter how strong the field is with that scenario.
MPMin Posted July 18, 2019 Author Posted July 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, Mordred said: So one wire pushes against the other but both are fixed in their distance correct ? That won't work it won't matter how strong the field is with that scenario. You should read back
Mordred Posted July 18, 2019 Posted July 18, 2019 (edited) Don't need to it's a simple application of the third law of inertia both wires are fixed mounted. One acts upon the other the other reacts to the previous. Secondly 0.02 N won't move a 250 kg craft Edited July 18, 2019 by Mordred
J.C.MacSwell Posted July 18, 2019 Posted July 18, 2019 Pulling on my bootstraps...can't seem to pull with 240# of force...so still on the ground...
Recommended Posts