Movement... yes. Lightspeed... not really Congratulations, you have (re)created the triphasic motor. In fact, that's the idea behind most of electric motors used in industry today. The difference is that they use magnetic fields rather than electrostatic. Theroretically you can increase the speed by increasing the frequency of the oscillating field. But there are several physical and mechanical limitations that will prevent you from even getting close to a minimum fraction of lightspeed. Anyway, it is a fine idea, but someone already came up with it more than 100 years ago. Regards Alex
Alex, There are many differences between a triphasic motor and the electrostatic pulse engine. One of the major differences is that a triphasic motor has moving parts, while the electrostatic pulse engine does not.
Alex will be deeply distressed if somehow coerced to give specific reasons to try to prove any similarity to a "triphasic" motor. There is none. Except for the basic factor that both are electromagnetic devices. One of the foremost failures of this physics forum and its administrator is that ignorant kibbitzers are freely permitted to post unfounded criticisms . Like Elvis said, " a little less unproven criticism , a little more specific facts, please."
Uno Hoo, I agree with you, but Alex's post doesn't bother me because I see that it's his first post on sciforums. I was like him when I first joined sciforums. I learned over the years to try to exclude anything personal from my posts, and to argue any disagreement with logic. I'm sure that with time, Alex will do the same.
working pulse engine Your ideas are sound, and it does work. I have built a working model (small scale) which powers a car about the size of a childrens pedal car. I solved the problem with flipping the pulse between the two sets of isolated cylinders which power a crank with a fuel injector like apparatus and some simple programing on my lap top. the problem isn't getting the engine to work, it's getting enough power to the crank to make it move along at any sort of speed other than snail. by the way...this was already patented and actually put into use on a small scale experiment in Germany in 1989:.
jve001, Welcome to Sciforums. Can you give me a little bit more info about the device you made? Does it work using pulsing magnetic, or pulsing electrostatic, fields? Do you have any more information about the German patent you mentioned?
I have not read much here, but just want to point out that no net thrust is possible. Proof: Imagine the entire apparatus is entirely contained in box "B" which is at rest in frame "A." Included in the box B is a clock that turns it on at t = 0. If it begins to accelerate in frame "A" you have made momentum with no external force applied to box B. Most likely your conceptual errors relate to neglect of Newton's third law. I.e. any force applied to one plate has a equal and opposite reaction force.
Billy T, The object of this device is to create an action/reaction force between the second plate and the "detached" electric field from the first plate, instead of creating an action/reaction force between the two plates. The question is how much force is created when a "detached" electric field hits a charged object. It could be small, like light hitting an object, or it could be large, like the electrostatic interaction. I'm hopping that it's the latter.
Exactly the opposite of the force involved in making the "detached" electric field to begin with. When the field is made, it will push back on the originating plate with exactly the same force that it later applies to push forward on the receiving plate. Try as we might, we haven't yet found a way around Newton's very inconvenient 3rd law.
this thread is such obvious nonsense that I have not wasted time to read the details, not even as much as Pete has. It is basically the same idea that by pulling upwards on my shoes the vertical force will make me fly as high as I wish. You will note in my post I did NOT say anything about the reaction forces on plates or applied to electric fields -I am ignorate about your design details - I just know there is an equal and opposite force applied somewhere. Where is no more important than the color of my shoes or whether or not their laces are leather or stings. Details I need not know to be sure I can not fly up by pulling on them. THERE IS NO NET FORCE IN ANY DESIGN OF A CLOSED SYSTEM THAT CAN MAKE IT ACCELERATE. In addition to violation of Newton's third law, there would also be a violation of conservation of energy. Again imagine the box I suggested surrounding your entire system, electric fields and all. If it has any mass then from no work done on the box it acquires 1/2 M V^2 kinetic energy by "magic" - I do not think so. - Not necessary to worry about the shape of the electrode, how they are charged for how long or any other details. Just as the color, size or type of my shoes, etc. need not be known to confidently state that without some external force applied to me and /or my shoes, I will remain on the ground, no mater how hard I pull up on the shoe laces or how I might modulate that tugging amplitude with time. This threat is too dumb to send to the cesspool - even there they have some standards.
Pete, When the "detached" electric field is generated at the first plate, the second plate is not charged yet. Therefore, there is no electrostatic interaction between the "detached" electric field and the second plate, and therefore no force. Only when the "detached" electric field begins hitting the second plate does the second plate charge up, pushing, or pulling, the "detached" electric field. Since the electric field is now "detached" from the first plate, and therefore the first plate is no longer charged, there is only an interaction between the second charged plate and the "detached" electric field.
Billy T, Newton's third law only applies to mass, and the reason it does is because you can't turn inertia on or off. It's always on. On the other hand, you can turn electric fields on and off. There's a big difference between an electric field hitting a charged object, and an electric field hitting an uncharged object. By simply charging, or discharging, an object you can control the force that an external electric field has on that object. This is something you can't do with mass. As for the law of conservation of energy, imagine that you have two highly negatively charged spheres at close proximity to each other. There will be a constant force between the spheres, but the force isn't resulting in a loss of energy. As a matter of fact, as long as the excess electrons can't leave the spheres, and the spheres remain the same distance from each other, the force will last for eternity. All that I'm trying to do is to make this "eternal" force push, or pull, on only one sphere by switching on and off the charges of both spheres.
When the field is generated, the field applies a force to the first plate without interacting with the second plate. Just like when the 'detached' field arrives at the second plate as you describe it: the field applies a force to the second plate without interacting with the first.
If you stretch a rubber band between two nails on a wall, does it 'interact' with the nails? How would you get the 'stretch' in this band, into another rubber band? Your engine seems to imply it can do something along these lines, 'without interacting' with the equiv. of a 'stretch' in something - an electric field in a plate, in your case. But the mechanics are where, exactly?
Pete, I don't think that I agree with your first statement. I don't believe that when an object is charging, that the electric field it is producing is pushing against the object that is creating it. And even if it does, wouldn't the fact that the electric field is moving away in all directions from the object result in a net force of zero on that object?
And if you could succeed in accellerating that sphere (or both of them) with no external to the system force doing work on your system, then you have make kinetic energy from nothing. - A clear violation of the conservation of energy. You are trying to pull yourself up by your boot staps. Some external force must do work to accelerate you. I will not bother to look into your details, but you seem to want to pulse some EM fields to get an impulse - perhaps the sillness of this idea is more obvious to you if the EM field is that of a flash light turned on and off inside a space ship. Yes when you turn it on aimed at the rear there is an impulse forward and it is exaclty cancelled when the beam hit the rear wall. Yes you can wiggle that space ship - throwing a ball at the rear will too; but Nothing you can do without an external force applied will accelerate it to higher energy state. The details do not matter.
Hello All, I'm no physicist but I think you are missing something important Billy T. There is a force external to the pulse engine itself. It's the power source for the engine. Be it chemical in the form of a battery or whatever, there has to be something that charges the sphere to create the initial pulse. The analogy of the fan on a sail boat is more apt than trying to literally fly by pulling on the seat of your pants. The problem with the fan analogy is that the fan moves the air by hitting it (linear kinetic) and then the air hits the sail (linear kinetic). The electric pulse engine transforms the energy, as I understand it as an educated layman, from EMF to electro-static (charged transmitting sphere) to electro-magnetic (as the pulse hits the charged receiver) to linear kinetic (repulsive interactions move the sphere). The linear kinetic energy just has to be sufficient enough overcome the inertia of the entire vehicle. A car takes potential energy (gas), transforms it into chemical energy (the bang in the piston), then to linear kinetic energy (piston goes down) to rotational kinetic energy (crank shaft turn the wheels). No one outside the car needs to push it. The rotational force is sufficient to over come it's "desire" to remain at rest. Some of the elements are external to engine itself, potential electrical energy in form of a storage cell, or something. The basic thing is the changing form of the energy. Potential to something to Kinetic. When the forces remain the same, then they cancel, when they change form they don't. I also disagree with a flat statement that something is impossible. Things are often declared impossible, until it's done. "Mr. Bell, do you propose to string a wire to every household in America?" "Mr Wright, If man were meant to fly, God would have given him wings." The list continues. This is a pretty new idea, even if this thread was started in 2002. I, personally, would like to read more about jve001's machine and design. Cheers.
There can be huge waste of stored energy, even by a million mice running on tiny wheels making electric power. That does not violate fundamental physical laws; Nor does it provide any "external force." PS: I forgot to welcome you here - I do now. Also if there were a stern mounted electric fan blowing air into a big spinacher sail out front (none of the typical air foil sails even up) which way to you think the sailboat would move? (ASSUMING there is zero natural wind) Before you answer foolishly "forward" consider fast baseballs being thrown into that spinacker sail, instead of the fan's wind, but 1 of every 10 balls misses it entirely.
Billy T, What if you can turn the inertia of the air off when the fan blows it, but then turn it back on when the air hits the sail? This is in essence what I hope this device will do. I'm hoping that, by pulsing the electric (or magnetic) field, this device will only generate an electrostatic interaction at the second plate, instead of at both plates.
