Ghideon

Depends on what you wish to achieve. Propulsion of the system is not possible if the mass is recycled in the system.

I believe it matters since calculations will be different, the force is not constant. The blue cable will slide upwards, and after a short time slide out of the gap and experience a different magnetic field. You would have to calculate force as a function of time. That may be tricky (haven't tried yet). And it is correct, the core will be pushed down when the cable is pushed up. If there is a current in the blue wire I assume it is powered somehow and connected to something, affecting movements. But in an ideal situation we can choose to neglect that to simplify. Again, what will have a momentum? I guess you mean the blue cable? If so then yes (at least for a short while). The total momentum of cable + the core is conserved, the combined center of mass for cable and core will not move.

As far as I can tell mass is ejected and then returned to the system. Your drawing shows ejection of mass (electrons) at one point (A) and then the electrons are recovered at another point (B). Electrons seem to be circulating in the system.

AFAIK python does not make a copy of objects so TempList and List points to the same object. Operations on TempList affects the objects and List points to the same object. This operation: TempList = List[:] Creates a clone of the list so there are two independent objects in memory. When using primitive types such as integers or booleans python will make a copy. This behaveour of ”values” vs ”references” may differ from language to language. https://docs.python.org/3/faq/programming.html#how-do-i-copy-an-object-in-python

like an anchor prevents a ship from drifting away is probably a better analogy...

Ok! A note regering the assumption: To reduce the risk that there is a misunderstanding, exactly what is assumed ho have change of momentum? Is the blue circular cable free to slide upwards out of the gap or is the blue cable mounted solid and supposed to be staying in the gap?

You asked if your calculation is correct. I wanted to make sure that your calculation correctly expressed what you intended. Back to the calculation. Note that the current in the cable generates it's own magnetic field. But we can probably neglect that in this case unless you intend to have a large current and a weak magnetic field. And if you want to calculate the force on the cable due to the magnetic field then the E field can be neglected. If you know the dimensions it might be easier/more practical to use length and current instead of charge "q" and velocity "v". But that is just details, the formula seems ok for the force on the current carrying cable due to magnetic field. Incorrect. The purpose of the speculations section is "checking peoples work" or "have our idea checked". Unfortunately that means you are sometimes stuck with amateurs like me, the professionals seems not t be very interested. An alternative is to write a scientific paper and have it peer reviewed by professionals working for a journal.

Not sure about "anchor", intuitive answer is "no" but clarification might be needed. By "anchor" you mean can gyros be used to make it harder to move something, like an anchor prevents a shop from drifting away? Gyros are harder to rotate but not harder to move. Yes. One example is the Kepler spacecraft. What makes this interesting is that two of it's four gyros broke down and required a lot of investigations how to adjust observations according to that fact. That means that there is lots of documentation about the performance of the gyros, their issues and various attempts at workarounds. AFIK Kepler had four gyros (wikipedia/Reaction_wheel) and failure of two severely affected, but did not put an end to the mission to hunt for exo-planets. @Dave Wave here are some references that may be interesting from an engineering point of view: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/kepler/nasa-ends-attempts-to-fully-recover-kepler-spacecraft-potential-new-missions-considered https://www.nasa.gov/content/kepler-mission-manager-update-preparing-for-recovery https://www.nasa.gov/content/ames/kepler-mission-manager-update-k2-has-been-approved A space based device to detect gravitational waves needs stability and gyroscopes are one option. But could the gyroscopes them self be used for more than stability? Interesting question that I do not have an opinion* at the moment. I think the question could be phrased like: does rotating gyros, when affected by a passing gravitational wave, add any value when trying to detect the wave? Does general relativity, when applied to rotating mass, make any predictions that would favour detections? I have no answer at this time but I find the question interesting. Other members will probably have answers. *) If I had to make an educated guess I would say "no, gyros does not add value regarding the detection except for stability". But that opinion has about zero scientific value.

Ok! The box is a thought experiment intended to help with the discussion. Not a claim about the device. I have read what you state but I have trouble understanding some of it. So I ask for clarifications. Your drawing does not show ejection of mass. It shows currents that seem to be circulating in the system. Where is mass ejected, never to be returned to the system? Momentum of ejected mass will generate thrust. If mass is returned or kept in the system momentum conservation says there is no thrust on the system.

Thanks. I found some interesting info* about the Biefeld-Brown Effect and Corona Wind Phenomena that I'll try to read later. Probably not connected to the idea above, but interesting. I've seen videoclips of small levitating devices** but not bothered to check the basic principles behind it. Back to the original problem Can we get a simplified view of just the parameters involved in the calculation you need help with? The original sketch give an idea but I have trouble seeing which current(s) you want to take into account. *) Referenced paper(s) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion-propelled_aircraft and a list of different propulsion concepts **) One was an Myth Busters episode

Thanks. In principle an acceleration of charged particles would generate some small amount of thrust. So if the device would work as in the picture, accelerating charged particles down the device would be pushed upwards by some force. But I suspect the force will be very small. How is the air charged?

Are the electrons "permanently" ejected from the system or are they circulating in the system? Thought experiment, in addition to @studiot's queries. Your device is in a closed, blue box (picture below). The box has low mass to not interfere with the device's capacity. "The Device" means everything that is required for it to operate. Power sources, cables etc. There is no connection to the outside of the box; no electro magnetics, cables, noting. The device is started (via a timer since it is not readable from outside the box). If the device works as you intend it to do, will the box rise into the air, pushed by your device inside it?

I am familiar with Lorentz force. This is the formula: Your formula: Vector dot product and vector cross product is not the same. So the answer to: The answer is that your calculation is incorrect. But I asked "if the dot in the calculations imply dot product or cross product for the vectors" in case it was just a typo you made. I think we had this discussion in another thread. (Cherry) picking one concept from physics, such as Lorentz Force, does not remove the need to account for other concepts or laws, such as conservation of momentum or an equal and opposite force .

Ok. Can you provide a calculation of the amount of momentum you expect? Does the dot in the calculations imply dot product or cross product for the vectors?

I am applying the basic laws of Newton. This is speculations: provide supporting evidence for your claim. I do not have to provide evidence for Newton's laws.

Possibly, a picture of the relevant forces and calculations would help.

Your green vectors seems ok, I was confused by different types of transformers! A shell type transformer would have the magnetic flux in the direction shown by green arrows. Sorry for confusion. It does not affect this comment: Your assumption is wrong. There cannot be a net force on the system as it is configured in the picture above.

I will try that* just for fun. But since this is your thread and your idea you have to provide the evidence. So again: Can you provide some source supporting your claim that joints will break? *) Side note: It's is called "reverse leg press calf raises" if someone wants to google. I will no document my falsification of the claim. Pictures and/or videos of my (ugly) bare feet will probably break several forum rules.

Please provide the math supporting your claims. (Trying to avoid issues by raising questions does not work)

I also not that there is no B vector in image 5. Is that intended? Yes that would be good.

B-field direction (green): both arrows should have same direction.

Unfortunately the above is wrong according to basic physics. Please provide the calculations here so we can point at possible misunderstandings. Suggestion: since you have an interest in physics (in this case classical mechanics and the laws of Newton) how about posting questions in the mainstream sections instead of making claims that are obviously incorrect? Edit: Can you provide some source supporting that claim? I tried in the gym in one of the leg press machines. No, the load did not break the joints.

If forces are not balanced then the body is accelerating down through the earth. Does that match your observations?

Yes. Which confirms point. What measurement do you propose that can verify that my opinion about "design" and "purpose" is failed and need to change and your opinion is the correct one?

I do not know an exact answer. But I do not think the consensus at this time include meaning as part of the theory. How does a meaningless vs a meaningful universe look like? What if I think life is a meaningless purpose? Is that a counterexample invalidating your idea? How does one test that your definition of meaningful and purpose is the best one?