"Impossible" EM space drive?

An antenna / waveguide can be thought of as a method of launching energy in (roughly) one direction. Not quite an ion engine, but...

This thing is RF sealed.

--

    Boris Mohar

Check the site in more detail, looks legit. But I don't get the underlying principle.

It this thing really working? The force is microscopic, though, but that might not matter much for the intended purpose.

M

messagenews: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

principle.

not

You need dilithium crystals to get much power out of it.

MooseFET wrote:

That's what I was thinking:

*.2005+*-patent-examiner+warp.drive+graviton+Andrew.Worsley+concerns+Peter.Twist+Worsley-Twist

8-)

*.2005+*-patent-examiner+warp.drive+graviton+Andrew.Worsley+concerns+Peter.Twist+Worsley-Twist

Same guys? Figures, sounded way too good.

M

*.2005+*-patent-examiner+warp.drive+graviton+Andrew.Worsley+concerns+Peter.Twist+Worsley-Twist

Believe it or not, it seems the British government is funding this crap!

M

yup impossible.

either (a) the same number of photons reflect from both ends of the funnel or b (b) some reflect from the tapered trunk.

either way there's no net force generated.

Bye. Jasen

principle.

not

There has been no definitive independent test of any force produced. And if this thing does produce constant thrust for a fixed input of electricity you have an over-unity engine.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

*Cough*

EM carries momentum. So a rate of EM carries a rate of momentum, and kg.m/s per second =3D kg.m/s^2 =3D N, a force. The units work out correctly, and the physics works too (I'm skipping this simple analysis). Thus, a constant EM power output, which is easy to produce from a power source, amplifier and antenna, will produce a constant thrust. The question is magnitude, which is quite small.

I just gave two cases, one of constant thrust per electrical power supply and one of potential resonant multiplication, both based on well known and well tested physical facts. Do you doubt these facts?

I doubt this particular device, but you just stated "any device", which is clearly false.

Tim

Yes - no resonant multiplication.

Not in the case of an engine that does not emit anything.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

I think thig guys setup leaks microwave RF and somehow this provides the microscopic thrust he is measuring, or maybe the air inside heats up and leaks generating thrust.

He himself mentions EMI problems with his camera so clearly there is some RF leaking. So much for a demonstration.

What's amazing is that he managed to convince the idiots in British gov. to finance this crap.

M

Note: I'm cross-posting this to sci.physics so all the people "smarter than Einstein" can have a look at it.

I'm not quite sure about it. My gut feeling has to do with the fact that the device theory more or less ignores the forces along the tapered portion of the guide. This feels a lot like so many hydraulic "perpetual motion" machines where forces on tapered surfaces get neglected and thus the thing seems to work. [but they really don't]

The relativistic explanation would need to be looked at in detail to really be sure about the device. I'm not sure that the frame difference between the radiation and the guide really has the thrust effect claimed. Radiation pressure is obviously real, but that should only be a stress between the large and small end. ( including the tapered portion I presume). Conservation of momentum seems to preclude this thing from working...BUT I'd point out that in Newtons system of action and reaction being equal, which actually doesn't hold when causality is taken into account, then it follows that mechanical momentum is NOT conserved! [for more information on this see Jefimenko, "Gravitation and Cogravitation" P. 7] So if Newton's laws don't hold then we are starting to get somewhere strange.

So guys, do we have an "all-electric" satellite thruster or not? [Follow the links to the theory paper]

Note that any opinion from clowns who "know" it's bunk, even though they haven't read the paper, should be ignored as should all comments about "tinfoil" helmets.

On Sep 29, 9:16=A0pm, Benj wrote: [snip]

This is called light propulsion.

It is fantastically inefficient and for all intents and purposes, useless.

3 nanonewtons per watt, at best!

--
Richard Herring

This has been discussed before in one of the sci.* groups, a few years ago IIRC. It's a drive based on radiation pressure, with an additional (and erroneous) claim that using a resonator multiplies the thrust by the Q-factor of the resonator.

--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler                 
Blackett Laboratory (PHOT)       (ph) +44-20-759-47734 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London,          Dr.Paul.Kinsler@physics.org
SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.          http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/

Start here for some criticism from someone who is not a clown:

What's wrong with tinfoil helmets?

M

nd

t*

ic

y,

do

e,

r,

eem

the

o

No, I was suggesting that you could get some "extra special" effects for the RF. The only way such a drive could be working would require that it bend space time.

Besides, the efficiency is: 0.00..65 zeros ..01 and only goes up to 0.00..65 zeros ..02 as you get near C so there neaver really is an issue.

org/- A UK political party

Our= podcasts on weird stuff

Two points:

1. the claim is that because it's a cavity resonator the radiation pressure is multiplied many times.

1. It's not actually radiation pressure as the cavity is sealed and the light never leaves it...hence the "relativistic" explanation.

OK. Lets make it three points.

1. One presumed advantage would be that no fuel is expelled as in an Ion drive. Hence you could suck power from the sun to drive around the solar system forever. Efficiency is of course an engineering question. The real question here would be is can this thing actually work even inefficiently?

Benj