Spin-off Thread re: Technology Start up

[David Callahan]

I really do not know how to discuss my proposal without going into any specifics but I will try. There is nothing magical about my proposal. The mechanics are simple.

 

You can think of it like this using the Navy's Railgun as a reference:

 

The electromagnets accelerate a magnetically reactive projectile, the projectile encounters an opposing force. As the force of the projectile equalizes with the opposing force, the engine and the craft that the engine is attached to will accelerate. The force of the projectile at some point will be less than the force of the opposing force, which will allow the projectile to be placed in the initial position where the electromagnets can fire the projectile again. This cycle will have to happen faster than the craft can deccelerate in order to increase velocity of the craft.

 

Using Coulomb's Law: F = kq(1)q(2)/r^2

 

A -1 Coulomb charge will repulse another -1 Coulomb charge with a million tons of force. This is the potential that I am tapping into.

 

The first obvious counterargument is going to be that the projectile will penetrate the opposing force, but we are not trying to achieve the greatest change in instaneous velocity, all we are trying to do is propell the projectile with enough force to counter the force of gravity with whatever mass coefficient. The velocity of the craft will increase with each cycle of the projectile.

 

Even if the velocity of the craft is 1 m/s after each projectile cycle, assuming a cycle of 1/s, after 60s we will be travelling at 60 m/s or ~134 m/h. In one hour we will be travelling at 3600 m/s or ~8053 m/h. after 1 day of projectile cycle the velocity would be at 86400 m/s which would be ~193271 miles/hour.

 

In space, instantaneous change in velocity will be increased since we no longer have to worry about gravity. In space, let us assume that each cycle of the projectile increases the velocity of the craft by 10 m/s. In 1 minute the velocity will be ~1342 m/h. In 1 hour the velocity will be ~80529 m/h. In 1 day the velocity will be ~1932713 m/h.

 

A craft with a nuclear powerplant could provide constant acceleration for years.

 

You can think of the projectile as a piston moving back and forth.

 

The next argument is going to to be opposing forces. On the ground, you do not necessarily have to worry about opposing forces since you have the mass of the Earth to provide the opposing force, but the problem arises when you are no longer have the opposing force of the Earth. This is where my solution is.

Edited September 27, 2013 by David Callahan

[Spyman]

The electromagnets accelerate a magnetically reactive projectile, the projectile encounters an opposing force. As the force of the projectile equalizes with the opposing force, the engine and the craft that the engine is attached to will accelerate. The force of the projectile at some point will be less than the force of the opposing force, which will allow the projectile to be placed in the initial position where the electromagnets can fire the projectile again. This cycle will have to happen faster than the craft can deccelerate in order to increase velocity of the craft.

 

//SNIP//

 

The velocity of the craft will increase with each cycle of the projectile.

 

//SNIP//

 

You can think of the projectile as a piston moving back and forth.

So let me get this straight, the craft gets accelerated by absorbing the projectile's kinetic energy?

 

Don't you think the craft will recoil during the initial acceleration of the projectile?

 

"In a closed system (one that does not exchange any matter with the outside and is not acted on by outside forces) the total momentum is constant. This fact, known as the law of conservation of momentum, is implied by Newton's laws of motion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation

 

The only thing this engine will achieve is rocking the craft back and forth.

 

 

Further more, what do you mean with the cycle must happen faster than the craft can decelerate?

 

If the cycle is for fast for the craft to decelerate then it is also to fast for it to accelerate.

[swansont]

Spyman is right. This only works if the mass is ejected, making your propulsion limited to whatever mass you can carry.

[David Callahan]

Spyman,

 

Thanks for your reply. Yes of course I thought of the recoil. But the recoil has been minimalized because the force that is applying the acceleration to the projectile is cancelled. The end result is almost pure acceleration of the projectile in a predicted direction. Please give me the benefit of the doubt to have thought of the most obvious problems. Your question on deceleration is that the cycle must repeat before the craft can decelerate back to zero. The ideal mechanic is that the projectile is returned to the initial start position when or before the craft achieves maximum acceleration in order for the projectile to be fire again in order to increase velocity.

 

Swansont,

 

Thanks for your reply. Please think of it this way. You have a sphere, and inside the sphere are multiple springloaded projectiles. The projectiles are fired in sequence which in turn accelerate the sphere. In this system no mass needs to be ejected. Unless you are talking about mass of the potential energy. This system is only an analogy and is not the actual system, but the principle is the same.

 

Alcon,

 

This is not a perpetual motion machine, energy has to be introduced into the system. I am just increasing the efficiency of the system.

The problem I am working though now is the question if I am going to have a net force by the projectile over gravity. To increase the force of the projectile, I am going to have to increase the capacitance of the system, resulting in increase weight. Am I in a self-defeating cycle? This is an engineering problem. The power plant has to provide constant power, while the capacitors are going to to provide instantaneous power. Will the power plant be able to restore the capacitors in a given cycle? There are now capacitors that can store 1 Farad the size of coins, how long does it take to recharge one, and what is the instantaneous power of this capacitor? These are the questions I am trying to resolve now. My gut says that I will have a net force of the projectile, but how long will I be able to sustain this net force? Long enough to reach Earth orbit? My system will definitelly work in space, and will be a significant improvement on current platforms. In fact I would have to say that this is the end game of propulsion in space, being able to provide the same force to the system for years, reaching within fractions of relativistic speed. The only thing that would be faster would be the warping of space, but my opinion is that it is a fairy tale, not necessarily because it is impossible, but because it would take astronomical amounts of energy, not even figuring in the damage to local space. You would be permanently rearranging the geometry of any system you would be travelling through.

 

Spyman,

 

Please do not assume that I thought of all the obvious problems. Before answering the more technical problems, we need to ensure that all of the basics were covered. Thank you for your input. But your question to the problem of conservation of momentum has been solved and is not really the question. It is not a closed system. Even though the projectile is technically part of the system, it is not part of the system in a literal sense.

 

Potential energy is stored in the capacitors, which turns into kinetic energy in the electromagnets. Momentum is transferred to the projectile which then the energy is tranferred to the craft. The projectile transfers the energy by an opposing electromagnet. The opposing electromagnet allows for an approximate instaneous transfer of momentum. During this transfer of momentum, the opposing electromagnet increases force, moving the projectile back to initial position faster than gravity, some energy will be lost in this transaction, but there will still be a net force opposing gravity because the acceleratation of the projectile will not be the same. It is the same concept as mult-stage engine in a rocket, except instead of using chemicals, we are using kinetic energy, and the stages approaches infinity. I hope I cleared some technicalities up for you.

 

In this system the mass will be a constant, the only variable is acceleration. Initial acceleration of the projectile will be much much greater than the return acceleration resulting in a net postive force of the initial acceleration.

Edited October 7, 2013 by David Callahan

[swansont]

If you have a box with a mass inside, attached to a spring, it is true that the box will recoil when the spring shoots the mass away. But when the mass hits the other side, the box must come to rest. The same conservation of momentum principle applies to each part of that scenario.

[David Callahan]

Swansont,

 

Thank you for your response. I think I understand where the miscommunication is. The force is cancelled in such a way that the energy is transferred as the accelerated projectile. The recoil is not in the same plane as the vector of the projectile.

[swansont]

Swansont,

 

Thank you for your response. I think I understand where the miscommunication is. The force is cancelled in such a way that the energy is transferred as the accelerated projectile. The recoil is not in the same plane as the vector of the projectile.

 

How do you change the trajectory without a momentum transfer?

[David Callahan]

Reply to Swansont sent via PM because the information is considered sensitive.

Edited October 7, 2013 by David Callahan

[swansont]

Reply to Swansont sent via PM because the information is considered sensitive.

 

In reality it's not.

[David Callahan]

Changed.

Edited October 7, 2013 by David Callahan

[Bignose]

So. David, there actually have been similar propulsion devices suggested (on this forum actually!).

 

What I usually suggest is that you build yourself a prototype, install it on a boat, and get yourself on a quiet body of water. If it works the way you say it does, it should be easy to demonstrate, yes? Make sure you don't use any currents or wind effects -- nice an quiet.

 

Amazingly, no one has ever come back able to do the above demonstration -- and no one has ever come back with gobs and gobs of cash, either. The laws of physics as we know them today say that devices such as yours don't work the way you are proposing.

 

But, maybe you'll be the first. Best of luck. I hope you can show us a demo soon.

[David Callahan]

Bignose,

 

Your comment about the boat reminds me of this: http://youtu.be/uKXMTzMQWjo. It is from mythbusters where they blow their own sail.

 

But going back to the original premise, I've done some simple math and figures that I will upload tomorrow to illustrate my reasoning in a separate post. If it is determined that it is mechanically fatal after this, I will concede.

 

Like all terminal diagnosis, I am seeking another opinion.

Edited October 8, 2013 by David Callahan

[Spyman]

Spyman,

 

Thanks for your reply. Yes of course I thought of the recoil. But the recoil has been minimalized because the force that is applying the acceleration to the projectile is cancelled. The end result is almost pure acceleration of the projectile in a predicted direction. Please give me the benefit of the doubt to have thought of the most obvious problems. Your question on deceleration is that the cycle must repeat before the craft can decelerate back to zero. The ideal mechanic is that the projectile is returned to the initial start position when or before the craft achieves maximum acceleration in order for the projectile to be fire again in order to increase velocity.

The most obvious problem of your invention is that conservation laws says it won't work. It really is that simple, either the conservation laws are wrong or your engine will not work. The conservation laws are well established, to the point of being called laws of nature.

 

The cycle can't repeat before the craft decelerates back to zero. It is not possible to by clever engineering or with electromagnets to break conservation laws, any claims of doing so is of equal level as claims of perpetual motion machines.

 

 

Spyman,

 

Please do not assume that I thought of all the obvious problems. Before answering the more technical problems, we need to ensure that all of the basics were covered. Thank you for your input. But your question to the problem of conservation of momentum has been solved and is not really the question. It is not a closed system. Even though the projectile is technically part of the system, it is not part of the system in a literal sense.

If the projectile is reusable and brought back to the initial position every cycle then it IS part of the system and if your craft don't exchange momentum with anything outside then it IS a closed system. Your basic problem is certainly not solved.

 

 

Potential energy is stored in the capacitors, which turns into kinetic energy in the electromagnets. Momentum is transferred to the projectile which then the energy is tranferred to the craft. The projectile transfers the energy by an opposing electromagnet. The opposing electromagnet allows for an approximate instaneous transfer of momentum. During this transfer of momentum, the opposing electromagnet increases force, moving the projectile back to initial position faster than gravity, some energy will be lost in this transaction, but there will still be a net force opposing gravity because the acceleratation of the projectile will not be the same. It is the same concept as mult-stage engine in a rocket, except instead of using chemicals, we are using kinetic energy, and the stages approaches infinity. I hope I cleared some technicalities up for you.

It does not matter at which rate you accelerate the projectile, the exchange of momentum for speeding it up and for slowing it down again will still be equal because with a smaller force you need to provide it for a longer duration to reach the same change in speed.

 

Any technicalities about how the engine accelerate and decelerate the projectile is irrelevant, momentum is still conserved.

 

 

In this system the mass will be a constant, the only variable is acceleration. Initial acceleration of the projectile will be much much greater than the return acceleration resulting in a net postive force of the initial acceleration.

You could as well claim that you can lift yourself up to the Moon, by repeatedly yanking yourself in the hair fast and releasing the hair slow, resulting in a net postive force upwards.

[swansont]

 

In this system the mass will be a constant, the only variable is acceleration. Initial acceleration of the projectile will be much much greater than the return acceleration resulting in a net postive force of the initial acceleration.

 

A smaller acceleration must be present for a longer time. When you account for that, i.e. integrate the acceleration over the time it is applied, the net effect will be zero.