Electromagnetic Propulsion

[drwayne]

"I am not trying to break the conservation of momentum, energy or mass."<br /><br />Yes, you are. There is no external force acting on your system. Hence there is no change in momentum for your system.<br /><br />"Couldn’t the energy difference cause difference in momentum?"<br /><br />No, it can not. There is not loss of energy. Some energy will be changed into heat, noise, phonons etc.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[vidar]

I think there is loss of energy from the ship to its environment.<br /><br />First there will be radio magnetic waves from the energy source.<br />Next, assuming that space is not entirely empty, but consists of particles, then energy in form of heat and vibrations will be transferred from the ship to space.<br />

 

[nacnud]

Yes there will be an energy exchange but unless you direct that energy, and throwing and reeling in a hammer won't work, your space ship will just sit there throbbing and losing heat untill it has the same temperature as its surroundings.

 

[peterweg]

I have to give it to some of you guys for being so patient in the face of such ignorance and stupidity. Dismissing the basic laws of physics without the slightest understanding of them might be plain stupid, but its also crackpot.<br />

 

[vidar]

I absolute agree that the loss of energy is not the solution for forward propulsion.<br /><br />The argument is a respond to the claim that I am trying to break the conservation of momentum, (energy or mass).<br /><br />Furthermore, when I suggest that I can move a vessel forwards on earth simply by sitting in it and move myself, it is claimed that it is due to environmental systems like the earth, - and that I actually move earth a little too. If so, the same argument should be applicable for a space vessel and its environment too. <br />

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">If so, the same argument should be applicable for a space vessel and its environment too. <br /><br /><font color="white">What environment? The vacuum of space? There is nothing there to push against in the way you describe.<br /></font></font>

 

[vidar]

… or hardcore quality testing of fundamental theories.

 

[nacnud]

If you really want elecrtomagnetic 'propellant less' drive look up electrodynamic tethers, even this have to push against the sorce of the EM feild, ie the Earth or Jupiter etc.

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">" testing of fundamental theories."</font><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> Your theories are more spiritual than real physics<br /><br /><br />'If one pats his own back does he move forward?'<br /><br />- Zen and crackpot science

 

[drwayne]

"The argument is a respond to the claim that I am trying to break the conservation of momentum, (energy or mass)."<br /><br />There is no claim. You're idea *is* violating conservation of momentum. <br /><br />Wayne<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[vidar]

Violating is such a brutal word.<br />I would rather say the idea is hard-core-testing the conversation of momentum.<br /><br />But seriously, sit yourself in a small lorry and hit the lorry hard in the back a few time. You will experience that it, and yourself, moves forwards. (As proposed and described in the beginning of this debate.) <br /><br />Even if Newton made up a mathematical law against that, 250 years ago, it still works. I am simply trying to apply that reality into space, even if some ancient and simple laws are broken.<br />

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>But seriously, sit yourself in a small lorry and hit the lorry hard in the back a few time<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />And it was explained to you many times that it works because of static and dynamic friction with ground. There _is_ no friction with any envrionment in space.<br /><br />Try avoid hitting with your head too many times in the future.

 

[vidar]

‘Try avoid hitting with your head too many times in the future.’<br />I understand you are experienced in many ways, so I will not even try doing that.<br /><br />But seriously, you should see that arguments like that say more about yourself than anyone else.<br />

 

[drwayne]

Newton made no proof against what you are stating. there is not problem with Newton, it is your logic that is flawed.<br /><br />The key to you truck example is that the truck is in fact "coupled" to the outside world through the friction associated with the wheels. This makes this problem distinctly different than the problem of a space vehicle.<br /><br />As I have stated several times before, successful analysis of static and dynamic problems requires some experience in actually analyzing those problems at the mathematical level. Problems like this are NOT well solved by appealing to example. Why is that? Because, as you have shown, the example that you appeal to may not in fact be the same problem.<br /><br />Wayne<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">But seriously, sit yourself in a small lorry and hit the lorry hard in the back a few time. You will experience that it, and yourself, moves forwards. (As proposed and described in the beginning of this debate.) <br /><br /><font color="white">Ok lets take baby steps through the Hammer Lorry propulsion you think to can use to move your self through space. There are four distinct motions in the cycle of moving the hammer.<br /><br />1) Accelerating the hammer<br />2) Decelerating the hammer by hitting the lorry<br />3) and 4) accelerating and decelerating the hammer to get it back to the starting point.<br /><br />We also need to define the amount of force needed to overcome friction and get the lorry moving, lets call it F_Lorry. Once the lorry is moving the friction drops to a lower level, this is the difference between static and kinetic friction. Link<br /><br />In step one as long as the force used to accelerate the hammer is at any one time less than F_Lorry the lorry won’t move. The force to accelerate the hammer is transmitted through the lorry to the Earth. You push the earth back to accelerate the hammer.<br /><br />In step two the hammer hits the lorry and in a very short time transmits all its momentum to the lorry. This force is for a short time greater than F_Lorry, therefore the lorry move forwards until friction brings it to a halt again.<br /><br />Note that the total force or impulse of accelerating the hammer is the same as the impulse decelerating the hammer. The long slow acceleration of the hammer in step one contains the same energy as the short high deceleration as it hits the lorry in step two.<br /><br />The hammer can be returned to the starting point slowly where the instantaneous force is less than F_Lorry so the lorry doesn’t move.<br /><br />However this won’t work in space because in space <b>F_Lorry = 0</b></font></font>

 

[vidar]

Wayne said:<br />‘In particular, in the case of the "forward" motion, it the impulse is high enough, friction can be overcome and the skateboard shifts foward. When the skater returns to the original position, if this motion is slow enough, friction is not overcome. If there is no friction in the wheels, (similar to space conditions), this does not work, i.e. the center of mass does not shift.’<br />--------------<br /><br />I understand that the argument is that the vessel is imposed a ‘shift’ in position. But I contradict that and say that: the lorry moves because I added kinetic energy by hitting it in forward direction. The vessel stops because eventually friction stops anything.<br /><br />I do agree that the shift theory do not work in space because of the lack of friction. But I think consequently the vessel do not stop in space as it did on earth.<br />

 

[nacnud]

No, the hammer and lorry’s combined centre of mass doesn’t move in space<br /><br />Move the hammer forward by pushing on the lorry then the lorry moves backwards, conversely, move the hammer backwards by pushing on the lorry then the lorry moves forwards<br /><br />That all that happens in space.<br /><br />On the Earth there is also the Earth to consider, however even in this case the combined centre of mass ot the Earth, Lorry and Hammer doesn’t move. The Lorry and hammer move in relation to the Earth but the combined centre of mass stays in the same place.<br />

 

[tap_sa]

Btw I haven't seen anyone moving a small lorry by sitting on it's bed and hammering the tailgate. I'd imagine a blow strong enough to move the lorry (because of the friction changes in the wheels) would do some serious damage <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> I wonder how the insurance company would react? "What do you mean you don't cover it ... I was just .. testing physics!" <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[vidar]

I think our different ways to see the event, is that I consider the action as an addition of kinetic energy from the energy source, me. All in all, the total energy is the same. But by hitting the vessel, I have transformed my energy to kinetic energy to the vessel. (I suppose I lost some weight there. But let’s leave that problem.) <br /><br />I my view, in space, that addition of kinetic energy will not be lost due to friction. The space vessel will not stop.<br />

 

[nacnud]

Sorry but your view is wrong.

 

[vidar]

Imagine it in space.<br />‘You thought you had problems violating Newton’s law enforcements.’<br />Wait till the ship violates Einstein’s speed limit, then you get seriously problems with the laws.’<br />

 

[vidar]

That's OK.<br />We do not have to agree.

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"Imagine it in space."</font><br /><br />A frustrated astronaut, feet strapped to lorry's bed, waving a big sledge hammer around and helplessly observing how the automobile moves always in the opposite direction of hammer's head. He keeps hammering for a better part of an hour until his visor gets all fogged up and Houston orders him to end the failed experiment.

 

[vidar]

OK, I will answer why the chariot does not go to the moon.<br /><br />Since the chariot is more massive in the middle, I assume that vessel is pointed at the back.<br />When he throws the magnetic ball up, he also presses him and the chariot down, and into the ground. Next the ball falls down with magnetic and gravity acceleration. When the ball hits the vessel, it is pressed further into the ground. <br />For each time the procedure is repeated, the chariot is hammered into the ground a little further.<br /><br />He won’t reach the moon, but he has buried himself on Earth.<br />Let him rest in peace.<br />

 

[larper]

Guys, please, it is painful watching you trying to convince this guy. He is a flat earther (or simply a troll) and will not turned. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>