About to make thrust in vacuum medium.

There is microwave thrust invented by NASA, But the thrust is about close to 90mN from 1KW energy. The thrust done by microwave radiation. I wanna talk about other kind of thrust that can be produce by mechanically moving parts. Is it invented ? I found it on internet but no result. There is battery operated rocket on internet with exhaust and hot gas comes out from it, but I want to know about exhaustless engine. Thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Done to death before, the last (apart from this one) thread on that topic being: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/electromagnetic-drive-produces-thrust-in-vacuum-nasa.145905/

Notice you have not come back to comment here:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...ergy-is-it-possible-to-distroy-energy.154156/
Does that mean all your questions were answered satisfactorily? If not, respond there not here.

[Oh - didn't catch first time that you want examples of *mechanical* 'reactionless' propulsion device. Try learning basic mechanics - especially Newton's 3 laws of motion. It will be interesting to see if this thread remains in current sub-forum.]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Vacuum medium" is a self-contradiction: the vacuum contains no medium because it is a vacuum.

Unconfirmed at best and since the concept explicitly violates conservation of momentum, I won't be holding my breath.

No, that would violate conservation of momentum too.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are right sir ! I knew the rest mass of photons. And I was really trying to find out the possibility of this thrust. But it doesn't work. What the fun ! Thanks.

 

(First tip - click on reply button when replying to a particular post. It avoids ambiguity as to who is referring to who about what.)
There is a connection between rest mass of photon (zero) and 'it doesn't work'? Are we talking electromagnetism or mechanical contraption here? The latter was your real query, yes? Try and write clearly and unambiguously - otherwise it imposes an unfair burden on reader who is forced to make guesses as to intent.

 

It was about mechanical.

 

So, having presumably come across alt-sci sites where e.g. 'Dean Drive' and/or Eric Laithwaite's 'gyroscopic reactionless propulsion' came to your enthusiastic attention, there has been a sober reflection based on validity of Newton's 3rd law: 'For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction'. Which means shifting weights around in any manner whatsoever within a closed system cannot induce a net change in momentum. Good.

 

I was trying with solid state. It was able to make thrust 1-4 step to forward. But after that it is only able to make thrust to previous.

 

My translation: There was external motion of housing for part of cycle, which reversed exactly for remainder of cycle. Yep, that's allowed - parts of the whole can move temporarily in a given direction, but the whole cannot gain velocity/momentum overall. Asymmetric vibrations can fool balances etc. and give false positives.

If in doubt, house the contraption inside a container sufficiently closed to eliminate 'propeller effect' (something Laithwaite failed to do), mount on a soft cushion to absorb vibrations, and in turn float that on a boat in a pool of still water. If the boat moves from rest and 'sails' across the pool however slowly, and there is no wind or perceptible asymmetric water wave motion owing to asymmetric vibrations - you will have overthrown Newton!

 

You cannot move a spacecraft (very far) by means of movements of internal weights. As soon as the internal weight stops moving, motion of the spacecraft in the direction opposite that of the moving weight will be halted. If the weight goes in a circular path, what you have there is a gyroscope, not a spacecraft, and it may wobble a bit, but it won't go anywhere further than the diameter of the circular trajectory. You have to provide an action to get a reaction. It's Newton's third law of motion. Reactionless thrust, like perpetual motion machines, are an impossibility in this universe.

However, if the walls of the spacecraft are thermally insulated from each other AND the vacuum outside is not complete, you CAN obtain thrust by the following means:

Attach a FRICTION MOTOR inside one of the insulated walls. Operate the motor in a manner to produce HEAT that penetrates to the outside of the wall in empty space. When the wall has been sufficiently heated, molecules of any gas impinging the outside of the wall of the spacecraft will pick up sufficient energy to leave the wall at a velocity that is faster than the velocity they had coming in, and so long as the other walls of the spacecraft remain sufficiently insulated from the motor and relatively cool, this is equivalent to THRUST from the heated wall.

Is this the kind of thrust you were looking for? You could also heat the wall with microwaves, and that would work just as well.

 

Microwave thrust ! Does it work sir ? It could be infrared or other kind of electro magnetic wave. But why the microwave ? August 2015 I saw about it on internet and I knew the rest mass of photon is 0. Thanks.

 

Tip #2 - It's commonly done but bad form to hijack your own thread. Which by your own admission was concerned with hoped-for *mechanical* means of violating conservation of momentum. Best then to either start a new thread dedicated to the EM case, or preferably, join in on the latest existing one already devoted to that issue - link given in post #2 above. And do make an effort to first at the least skim through all the (meaningful) posts there.

 

Thank you sir ! But I didn't . I'm not able to do that. Its gone to fun. Before your first comment to my thread, I knew about microwave thrust and rest mass of photons. I was thinking that how can it possible because its rest mass is 0. But after sometimes I thought that I know a little bit of physics, so may be it is possible and its about 4 months ago. When you posted your first comment I was looking at http://www.sciforums.com/threads/electromagnetic-drive-produces-thrust-in-vacuum-nasa.145905/ and saw some comments about it that ' it doesn't work' ...etc. And I discovered other kind of something from those comments. May be 3 years ago, I saw on internet about a thrust that solar panels can move through the vacuum when photon strikes on it. But now I'm thinking about photo electric effect that when a photon strikes on electron it gains kinetic energy..but the rest mass of photon is 0. But it is atomic that I know a little bit. Thanks.

 

--=-->
--=--=-->
-->--=--=-->
-->-->--=--=-->
-->-->-->--=--=

There's always SOMETHING to discover. If THE SAME entity from one line is chosen and applied to another line, no matter how many times the process is repeated THE SAME will be found. Put simply in a logical progression if a number of things are equal then the answer will be EQUAL (to the first and all other points within the progression.) ANY equal point should produce a result but the process can reveal and pose such interesting answers and questions that you probably will wish for your study to never end. Personally I am still uncertain as to whether we are actually responsible for DISCOVERY or CREATION. Perhaps both (and all others included.)

However I do not know why I am explaining logical progression: the student has become the master!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I believe it's time for us to play "crack" deal or no deal. IF the money was NOT in the box you selected, which box would you have chosen instead...??? Where would I be without Noel???

 

OK well as you probably know then a photon despite zero rest energy has nonzero momentum |p| = hf/c, which allows for 'radiation pressure' hence solar sails etc.

You probably discovered the consensus view is the idea runs against prevailing physical theory i.e conservation of momentum as absolute principle. And that various experimental findings apparently contrary to that are disputed as to reliability, and competency of teams making such claims. Some of us keep an eye out for any further developments, but most consider the endeavor hype/beat-up and not worth further scrutiny. Up to you to make your own judgement - but to be an informed one you should really study EM theory. There are 'delicate issues' of interpretation involved and that's all I will say there.

Glad if I was of some help. Solar sails rely on so-called light pressure i.e. the momentum change induced in the sail by recoil/reflection of photons from the sail reflecting surface. That is conservation of momentum in action - applied to *an open system*. Photoelectric effect involves both momentum and energy transfer between photon and ejected electron, but there is a complication owing to metal work function. In any case there is no violation of conservation of momentum.
Regarding your question in #11, the example given was an extremely inefficient means of generating lopsided radiation (heat) - basically a crude form of so-called 'photon rocket'. It of course conforms to conservation of momentum - the exhaust product being heat radiation.

 

Off your meds is it?! This and your last post appears to be pure disruption not even worthy to be called trolling. Hope admin do something quick!

 

Thank you sir ! I'm trying to understand your comments. I will replay later.

 

However I do not know why I am explaining logical progression: the student has become the master!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

[/QUOTE]
Oh my god ! I'm scared.

 

I don't know sir. But the black hole was real before discover it. Happy new year !