MPMin
-
Posts
262 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by MPMin
-
-
1 hour ago, Ghideon said:
On page 3 it was concluded that forces between cables mounted in a rig does not generate propulsion.
On 7/8/2019 at 6:47 PM, Ghideon said:1: Ampère's_force_law Special_case: Two straight parallel wires, currents in wires makes them attract or repel. In this case there is a force F acting on the left cable, and an equal force F in the opposite direction acting on the right cable. If cables are mounted on a common rig the force is an internal stress on the rig. No propulsion will occur. But since current is switched of very fast this situation is not applicable, we look at the second case.
Yet, many pages later you keep on repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
On 7/18/2019 at 9:53 PM, MPMin said:I am using the below link as the reference:
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.
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?
15 hours ago, MPMin said: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.
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.
0 -
On 7/19/2019 at 8:26 AM, Strange said:
Just leaving the lights on and blocking all the windows but one would generate more force.
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.
On 7/19/2019 at 8:29 AM, MPMin said:(As action and reaction are equal and opposite, I suppose you can think of it the other way round. That would be like saying that a rocket goes because the burning fuel pushes on the front of the reaction chamber but not on the back where the exhaust is(*). Which is not wrong, but is just ... weird. So if you want to think that the craft moves because the EMP pushes on the wire, I guess you can. That doesn't stop it being hopelessly inefficient.)
On 7/19/2019 at 8:29 AM, MPMin said: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!
Scientifically if you can? If you cant then just don’t say anything that’s ok
1 hour ago, Strange said:Your claim that it is irrelevant "because solar" disregards the fact that collecting solar power has costs. If you come along with your design that has an efficiency of say 0.1% (which is probably generous, but as you can't give us any data we'll go with that) and someone else comes along with a craft that has a realistic efficiency (say, 80%). Theirs has a 1 square metre solar panel; yours requires 800 square metres of solar panel, which will cost more to make and vastly more to launch.
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.
1 hour ago, Strange said:I imagine if anyone else has thought about it, they rejected it after a few seconds more thought: "No, that's really silly and wasteful. Why don't we use all of the energy by focusing all the EM radiation on one direction."
I’m assuming you’re saying you don’t know of any other such design?
1 hour ago, Strange said:If you were to enclose your system in a metal box, the thrust would drop to zero. So another factor that you haven't considered is the effect of the infrastructure on the system. As you solar panels will block more of the radiation than your thin wire will, you will actually be generating a thrust in the direction opposite the panels. (And the same applies to any other metal components in the system.)
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.
0 -
23 hours ago, Ghideon said:
Explain what that is supposed to mean.
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
23 hours ago, Ghideon said:Why not?
IKAROS, according to wikipedia
Launch mass 315 kg (694 lb)
DimensionsSolar sail: 14 m × 14 m (46 ft × 46 ft) (area: 196 m2 (2,110 sq ft))
Not too far off...
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?
0 -
4 hours ago, Mordred said:
Here is a far more practical design to give you some better ideas and some useful factors to consider. Including formulas.
Thanks, I’ll check them out.
7 hours ago, Ghideon said:Something like this;
9,08μN/m2∗a=250kg∗8∗10−6⇒a≈220m2
That is the theoretical maximum if sail is operating at 100% efficiency near earth orbit where the irradiance (solar constant) value is 1361 W/m2. Note that in reality you account for angle of the sail and direction of travel etc.
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?
0 -
4 minutes ago, Ghideon said:
[math]9,08 \mu N/ m^{2} * a=250kg*8* 10^{-6} \Rightarrow a\approx 220m^{2}[/math]
I guess not then?
0 -
2 minutes ago, Ghideon said:
What value did you get when you tried? Or, where did you get stuck?
I didn’t try. Are you able to provide a numerical answer to my question?
14 minutes ago, Mordred said:You are aware the solar wind is of the order 10^-9 Newtons/ m^2 at 1au right ?
This is why I didn’t try
0 -
1 minute ago, Ghideon said:
Yes.
The area of the sail is the same as the area of the solar panel, hence cancelled in the calculations.
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?
0 -
6 minutes ago, Ghideon said:
So the drive will slow down the vehicle, not add thrust, compared to a “simple” solar sail.
That’s all very impressive but how have you concluded this without a figure for the reflective surface area of the craft?
0 -
On 7/17/2019 at 3:04 AM, Strange said:
(As action and reaction are equal and opposite, I suppose you can think of it the other way round. That would be like saying that a rocket goes because the burning fuel pushes on the front of the reaction chamber but not on the back where the exhaust is(*). Which is not wrong, but is just ... weird. So if you want to think that the craft moves because the EMP pushes on the wire, I guess you can. That doesn't stop it being hopelessly inefficient.)
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!
0 -
2 minutes ago, Mordred said:
Look up the definition of the unit Newton. "the SI unit of force. It is equal to the force that would give a mass of one kilogram an acceleration of one meter per second per second, and is equivalent to 100,000 dynes."
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.
0 -
9 hours ago, Mordred said:
Secondly 0.02 N won't move a 250 kg craft
In the context that’s been set here, are you sure?
3 hours ago, Ghideon said:In addition to questions by other members above:
Is the rig lifted into space using conventional methods and then accelerated by force that is provide by the rig?
I think you are mixing things. Force is not related to time the way you use it. If I push with 1N of force for 1 miniute or for 1 hour does not matter, it is still 1 Newton. Maybe you are looking for some other quantity?
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.
6 hours ago, Strange said:I think you should read back. The force on the craft is not the same as the force on the wires.
As the wires are part of the craft, how is this so?
0 -
2 minutes ago, Mordred said:
So one wire pushes against the other but both are fixed in their distance correct ?
That won't work it won't matter how strong the field is with that scenario.
You should read back
0 -
I am using the below link as the reference:
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
0 -
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
0 -
23 hours ago, Mordred said:
Or even decided on a tonnage of your craft? You didn't agree with the low ball park of 10 tons. Without some value of weight it would be impossible to calculate the required thrust and the required amount of tesla needed.
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.
This reference suggests the average mass of a remote sensing satellite was about 226.1kg in 2015
0 -
Ok I will
0 -
7 hours ago, Ghideon said:
1: If you manage to create a strong magnetic field, it will work against the incoming solar radiation, preventing your rig from collecting it? (Edit: light is not affected by the field and can reach the rig)
2: Where are you going to fly? Towards the sun is not possible since you have to fight the incoming radiation and away from the sun there will be less energy to collect.
3: If you manage to collect energy from the sun and waste nearly all of it in all directions, why is that a good idea?
If my system can generate enough thrust, 1, 2 and 3 wont be a problem.
0 -
18 minutes ago, Ghideon said:
Can’t you try to look it up in case you still don’t understand after 7 pages of analysis of your specific idea and explanations of physics in general? Anyway:
I did look It up:
18 minutes ago, Ghideon said:A propellantless drive is not necessarily reactionless when it constitutes an open system interacting with external fields
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.
0 -
7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:
YOU CAN'T BREAK THE LAW...
I’m pretty sure I’m not trying to break the law
0 -
1 minute ago, dimreepr said:
I'll take your word for that; did you learn?
I’m trying to but It’s hard to learn when explanations aren’t provided with the statements given
0 -
5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:
You don't seem to be asking...
If you read back you’ll see that I did ask
0 -
4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:
Many many times, as has others; You should be grateful they have remained so patient...
Are you saying I’m not allowed to ask for clarity on statements made with no explanation?
0 -
23 minutes ago, Strange said:
I said the force on it is irrelevant. (That is just the reaction force to the thrust being generated.)
You’ve said what you think it is but you still haven’t explained how It’s irrelevant?
25 minutes ago, Strange said:It has complex electronics to generate precisely timed pulses.
That doesn’t mean it has moving parts thought so this comment is just meaningless in context.
27 minutes ago, Strange said:I gave you a diagram and asked you to work out the actual efficiency.
(I deliberately used a vague reference because, as noted earlier, you have provided no details to be analysed.)
You provided just one other drawing as a deliberately vague reference and asked me to do an efficiency comparison? Why would you do this?
39 minutes ago, Strange said:Using a propellent just gives you more thrust (than electromagnetic radiation) because the energy density of matter is much greater. By a factor of about 1016 (that's lot more than a gazillion).
Can you provide a reference for this? (Anything can be more than a bogus number )
41 minutes ago, Strange said:If you don't want to use propellant, but just rely on electromagnetic radiation, then that is fine. You can do that. There are systems that do. You just need a sensible (ie. not stupidly inefficient) way of doing it (eg. solar sail, laser, etc)
Have you considered that my system could potentially produce more thrust than those other systems? It could possibly generate a gazallion times more thrust.
51 minutes ago, Strange said:Based on the fact that there are far better ways of producing a solar-powered craft that uses no propellant.
What facts are you basing this on when the system I’m proposing didn’t even exist to your knowledge a few days ago?
0 -
2 hours ago, Ghideon said:
If you think it is reactionless you need to understand.your idea better. It is not reactionless.
Please tell me what defines a reactionless drive or please tell me how idea isn’t a reactionless drive?
0
Can you move in space?
in Modern and Theoretical Physics
Posted
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.