MPMin

Ive assumed the native voltage of the solar panels of around 24 volts. If using more than one solar panel they can be wired in series to increase the voltage if required. Ive assumed a 10mm solid copper wire with the temperature of outer space reducing the resistance. The battery component would depend on the purpose of the craft in terms of where it needed to go how much time out of direct sunlight etc. lets assume 50kg for batteries. But with all the variables in mind there’s two ways you can look at this, you can just assume my craft will be perfect reflector and find every reason to shoot it down or you could try and be practical and make practical assumptions to explain why it would or wouldn’t work. If this assumption was made at every new innovation, nothing new would ever be tried.

Yet, many pages later you keep on repeating the same mistakes over and over again. The calculation is pointless from a propulsion perspective. It is useless for reasons stated over and over again in this thread. How many more pages are required before you are able to provide some kind of progress in the discussion?  And you have calculated that a solar panel with surface area less than 1m2 will produce the electricity required for the EMPs? As stated earlier, you can't use more energy than the sun is able to provide. Edited 20 minutes ago by Ghideon No. Over and over again you suggest or think the forces act on each other at the same time. As the emp is detached from wire A before arriving at wire B the force of the two wires can not counteract each other as they do not occur at the same time. If you think this wont work show me the reference to where it has been documented that pulsing emp between fixed wires wont work. As I’ve been trying to point out, I don’t think this has been tried before and until it has, there is no actual evidence that it wont work. So while you are able to assume my craft is the perfect reflector (which is still amusing to me) why not entertain the possibility that pulsing an emp between wires could generate propulsion unless you have direct evidence that it does not. And by the way I’m sure you can work out the order of magnitude from any assumed percentage of efficiency, can you not? And whilst you all harp on about from which aspect you consider the force is generated from, for over ten pages it has been shown to not be the key point. To really illustrate my point that you all haven’t really thought about this design thoroughly, if the propulsion is just unbalanced radiation escaping out the back, whats happening in the second phase of the propulsion where the current in wire A is reversed for the incoming emp from wire B? It would appear that you haven’t really considered my design properly before making your opinions.

And don’t snipe with unsubstantiated and non scientific remarks and then hide behind the ‘straw man’ accusation. You clearly use this as a tool undermine people and then make out its them who are the antagonisers. Everything you have said about my design has had absolutely no scientific basis, you’ve been shooting from the hip and condescendingly at that. Scientifically if you can? If you cant then just don’t say anything that’s ok What are you basing this on, where are your numbers? Ive given you the figures, I’ve even mathematically refuted the claim that my craft is more of a reflector than not - which was clearly suggested before, perhaps you didn’t pick up on that? And yet you still revert back to the ‘six of one half dozen of the other’ pointless argument of where the force actually comes from when you yourself said it doesn’t matter if its a reaction or counter reaction, right? The real point here is there is a force being generated that’s far greater than the solar radiation hitting it. I’ve shown you mathematically and yet you still continue to shoot my design down with snide remarks instead of actual science. If you can tangibly support anything you say please do. I’m assuming you’re saying you don’t know of any other such design? You know full well this would make it a closed system which would defy Newton’s Law so why go there? And I’ve already demonstrated that my design will be able produce more force than 220m2 of solar panels, if you wanted to actually prove me wrong with science, why don’t you calculate how much power my design would need and how much surface area of solar panels it would take to run it, then perhaps there’d be some substance to your claims instead of assuming I haven’t considered the effect of the infrastructure.

I was just having a chuckle at how my design has been regarded as hopelessly inefficient but when it comes to it being a reflector (which it isn’t) its regarded as being 100% efficient. I didn’t know that i knew how to create the perfect reflector all this time Why not: because having a sail on my design would contradict what you’re saying about the counter effect of solar radiation and that’s assuming you want to travel towards the sun. If we were talking about travelling away from the sun, the optional addition of sail might help... a little. However, as I’ve never mentioned having a sail i would not compare my design to a craft that had a sail as its main propulsion. As my design is based on a craft of about 250kg, It would be unlikely for it have a surface area greater than 1m2 facing the sun, so even if it was the absolute perfect reflector, its still producing 220 times more force than the solar radiation pressure acting upon it at 1AU. Further more, my design’s efficiency could potentially be improved by bringing the parallel wires closer together. Id also like to know if anyone else has proposed the concept of pulsing an emp between fixed parallel wires before? I’m curious to know what’s been said in other discussions - or could this be the first of its kind?

Thanks, I’ll check them out. Thank you for your answer. Even though you applied the absolute worst case scenario in terms of the craft being a 100% efficient reflector (I like how efficiency is on your side when you want it to be) do you think a 250kg craft is likely to have a 220 square metre surface area facing the sun even if it was a perfect reflector?

I guess not then?

I didn’t try. Are you able to provide a numerical answer to my question? This is why I didn’t try

Ok, I get what you are trying say, but to help me understand it better, could you please tell me what the reflective surface area of the craft (or sail, same effect) would have to be to accelerate a 250kg mass at 8x10^-6ms/s with solar radiation?

That’s all very impressive but how have you concluded this without a figure for the reflective surface area of the craft?

As you said yourself, it’s action and reaction, it’s just a point of view - are you now able to explain how the force on the wires OR the reaction force created by the wires is not the same as the force on the craft? Or do we need to spend another ten pages of my statements being deliberately taken out of context to try to invalidate what I’ve been saying all along!

Doesn’t your reference mean that a=F/m? 1ms/s = 1N / 1kg? 8x10^-6ms/s = 0.002N/250kg? Also, if you apply this force over time it will continue to gain momentum.

In the context that’s been set here, are you sure? Yes the rig is lifted into space by conventional methods and then accelerated by the force generated by the rig. Perhaps I am missing something or not understanding the basic concept of physics, I thought that a = F/m, where a constant force is applied to a mass it causes it to accelerate, the longer you accelerate a given mass the faster it goes over time thus time does matter. If this is not correct please explain what it should be. As the wires are part of the craft, how is this so?

You should read back

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

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

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

Ok I will

If my system can generate enough thrust, 1, 2 and 3 wont be a problem.

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 by definition then mine isnt reaction less for that definition alone, my system isn’t breaking Newton’s third law.

I’m pretty sure I’m not trying to break the law

I’m trying to but It’s hard to learn when explanations aren’t provided with the statements given

If you read back you’ll see that I did ask

Are you saying I’m not allowed to ask for clarity on statements made with no explanation?

You’ve said what you think it is but you still haven’t explained how It’s irrelevant? That doesn’t mean it has moving parts thought so this comment is just meaningless in context. You provided just one other drawing as a deliberately vague reference and asked me to do an efficiency comparison? Why would you do this? Can you provide a reference for this? (Anything can be more than a bogus number ) Have you considered that my system could potentially produce more thrust than those other systems? It could possibly generate a gazallion times more thrust. What facts are you basing this on when the system I’m proposing didn’t even exist to your knowledge a few days ago?

Please tell me what defines a reactionless drive or please tell me how idea isn’t a reactionless drive?