Electrostatic Pulse Engine

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Joeblow93132, Jan 5, 2002.

  1. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    I am hoping that some lead will turn to gold. That is at least possible (but not profitable) Turning inertia on and a off wnhen it will reward you is not veven possible. You can not violate fundamental laws of physics and conservation of momentum is perhaps the most fundamental of all.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Hi Prosoothus,
    Have you quantified the resulting force yet? Ie have you figured out how much impulse you can get from a given energy input?

    After considering your correct objections to my previous post, I'm thinking that you might find that the force resulting from your engine might be the same force that you get from directing the pulses out the back of the craft (from the momentum of the electromagnetic waves).
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. TheBipolarProject Registered Member

    Electric field Theory

    The field you speak of only exist with an equal or proportionate opposite. Otherwise the field would not exist, or would collapse.

    Two objects with opposite poles, creating a field of opposition.

    If you generate a electrical field, then for the field to reach the other plate, you could not turn off one side and still make it to the other. The field is either "Connected" Or not. Without one or both, either don't exist.

    No singularly exerts a field of energy, without inteaction of mass of another object, or another field, which is created by the other. These things happen simultainiously, which creates a measurable field.

    Why does an electron stay in place of is structure of an atom. The slower by product of energy has been compressed from a field created by the electron, and will remain intact as long as both exist in the same space at the same time. Without mass, you have no Electron, with electrons and other electrically charged particles you have no mass.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member


    I hope that this isn't the case, but it's possible. If the virtual photons of the electric field have momentum like electromagnetic photons, and an electrostatic interaction occurs at the second plate, then the resulting force would be equal to the force generated by the electrostatic interaction.

    If no electrostatic interaction occurs at the second plate, and the virtual photons of the electric field do have momentum, then the resulting force would be very small. If this was the case, the device would not only be impractical because of the tiny force generated, but inefficient since a lot of energy would be wasted generating that tiny force.

    It all comes down to a fundamental question: What happens when a detached electric field hits a charged object? If an electrostatic interaction occurs between the field and the object, then this device should work.
  8. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member


    First of all, welcome to Sciforums.

    The statement you made above might be true, but nobody really knows exactly how the electrostatic, or magnetic, interaction works. One of the models that I read about was that the electromagnetic forces are generated by an exchange of "virtual" photons. Since these "virtual" photons are independent particles, one would assume that they continue to exist independently of the source that originally created them. So, if these independent virtual photons exist, and they travel at the speed of light, then it is possible to create a detached electric, or magnetic, field. Of course, we still wouldn't know what happens when a detached electric field hits a charged object, or a detached magnetic field hits a magnet, until we actually tested it.

    Some say that a charged object does not create an electric field unless another charged object is close by. So if one electron was the only thing in the universe, then it wouldn't be generating an electric field at all. I don't agree with this model because if it were the case, there would have to be a way for a charged object to "know" that another charged object is close by in order to start generating the field. It seems that this model would require an interaction of at least two types of particles: one type to communicate from a charged object to another charged object that it is nearby, and the second type of particle to actually generate the attraction, or repulsive, force between the two charged objects. This to me seems very unlikely.
  9. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Certainly traveling electromagnetic fields carry linear momentum and can be used to achieve thrust. Near the Earth it is practical to make a "solar sail" spacecraft. (One was launched a few years back, but had some technical problem, which I forget. - Perhaps the sail failed to properly deploy and few solar photons were reflected. Note when you reflect a photon 180 degrees the increment in momentum your space craft gets is twice that of the photon and solar sail system requires no energy expended by the space craft, but is very slow acceleration. It has also been suggested a perhaps the safest way to deflect a meteor or comet that is on an Earth collision course. Another safe way is to fly space craft alongside the approaching object and let the gravity force between the two change the orbit. Probably neither of these will be possible for long enough time. Then pulsed laser blasts from a near-by space craft flying with it can make micro-jets of surface material apply thrust to the object to modify its orbit in less time.)

    There is slight thrust whenever a space craft send a radio / micro wave beam back to a ground station on Earth.

    Again if this is not the idea of this thread (I have not read it plan as trust 100% in the law of conservation of momentum) and no EM beam is directed rear-ward then the concept is impossible. One does not need to look at any of the details of switching fields on and off.
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2008
  10. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    We know that two charged objects exert a pair of forces (equal and opposite) on each other. I would hypothesize that a charged object and a detached field cannot exert a pair of forces (equal and opposite) on each other, because the detached field is not anchored to anything but empty space.

    To demonstrate this, we start with two charged objects, A and B, seperated by a rigid beam. This beam-assembly is floating on a frictionless surface. The two charged objects are exerting a pair of forces on each other (they are either attracting or repelling each other).

    Next, we turn off the charge at A, and the detached field will either propagate toward B for some time (based on the speed of light, for example), or it will disappear instantaneously. Since the beam assembly does not lurch in either direction, we surmise that the electric field must have collapsed instantaneously.

    We further surmise that all fields (electric, magnetic, gravitational...) collapse instantaneously.

    We do not surmise that all fields are formed instantaneously. The field could have formed by propagating outward at c in all directions, and we could still have the same results.

    (My 2 cents).
  11. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    In some sense, neither gravitational nor electric fields exist. (I believe that is the more accepted POV about gravity now days) Of course you can measure both fields but they are really just mathematical constructs. You measure them with a "test charge" which in the case of gravity field is a small mass.

    What is real is that there is an inverse square law force be two "charges" (again I include mass in the term charges in quotes) Thinking that the fields can somehow be real and not just a convenient way to predict the forces a "test charge" would experience, causes a large part of the confusion about "detached fields," the expectation that forces need not always equal and opposite, etc. The field* is more math than real - I.e. the equal and opposite mutual forces are best predicted in a complex configuration of "charges" by first computing the field strength at a point, P, of interest from all the source "charges" and then the force on any "charge" at P can be easily evaluated.

    Don't take "fields" too seriously. They only facilitate the computation of forces, which are always equal and opposite. "Fields" are constructed mathematically to make "action at a distance" disappear under the rug.

    *This true of both electric and gravitational potentials also. –They are great math tools, for computing the equal and opposite forces and /or relative energy levels. You ONLY measure them with a “Test Charge” by measuring the FORCE on it.
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 16, 2008
  12. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member

    Neddy Bate,

    That's one way of looking at at. But what if instead a single interaction between two charged objects, there are two interactions? What if both charged objects are generating particles that possess a kind of "electrostatic momentum", that can be positive or negative, that is being transferred to the other particle? In that case, it may be possible to create an electrostatic force on only one of the two charged objects.

    I'll have to think about you're example. You may have a point. However, I don't agree that fields collapse instantaneously. If a field is traveling away at the speed of light from its source when it's generated, how will the part of the field that may be millions of miles away from the source "know" when the source is switched off? And if the field somehow does know, by what mechanism can that field just turn itself off?
  13. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member

    Billy T,

    Doesn't the inverse square law imply that fields consist of an exchange of particles? After all, isn't surface area of a sphere proportional the the square of its radius?
  14. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    No, & yes that is true.

    The field, F, of an inverse square law point sources is divergence free* for ALL volumes, OF ANY SHAPE or SIZE (including a zero volume point), not containing the source; but that is about all that is implied.

    *I am too lazy to learn to use text notation so in words: "Divergence free" means Del dot F = 0.
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 23, 2008
  15. battman4888 Registered Member

    magnetic works and why

    [COLOR="Teal"]I have been working on this design for 25 years and have a working prototype. A full scale motor. I have many answers to those who want to work together and want to put this engine out in the real world. But, I have been very quiet about this because of the changes I have made.[/COLOR]
  16. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    welcome to sciforums.
    I removed the quote on "Teal" to see it that is a color.

    Do you test your "working prototype" in vaccum? Your link does not work. You are not allowed to make links until you have 10? 20? posts but you can get around that with using "dot' etc. instead of "." etc.
  17. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member

    Wow, talk about an old thread.


    Does your motor work on the same concept as I described in this thread? is it magnetic or electrostatic?
  18. DRZion Theoretical Experimentalist Valued Senior Member

    I'd like to say ahead of time I haven't read the entire thread so I may be stating some things pointed out before. However, I like the way this is set up, I see the same outcome as the OP.

    I'd rather use an astronomy example for this, as it may fit in with some notions already present in readers' heads.

    Rather than using two plates, lets use the earth and the moon. It takes light over a second to travel from the earth to the moon. As astronomy students we know that information from the moon will take at the very minimum 1.2 seconds to reach the earth.

    Suppose that the earth, at the flip of a switch, charges its moon-ward face, and vice versa for the moon. The earth charges first. After 1 second earth time the earth neutralizes, but the moon charges, and after 2.2 seconds earth time the earth receives the moon's electric field. The field is gone in another .8 seconds. As soon as this happens the earth charges again and the cycle repeats.

    From the earth's reference frame, at no point in time when the moon is charged is the earth charged, but from the moon's perspective at all points in time when the earth is charged the moon is charged as well.

    By bringing astronomy into this, I think its easier to see that something which is 'charged' will appear to be charged, and cannot be assumed otherwise without faster than light communication.
  19. DRZion Theoretical Experimentalist Valued Senior Member

    This has me fascinated, I'm reading through the posts.

    Antimode has proposed an easier way to test this. Instead of having some kind of cyclical process, its easier to do it this way-

    charge both plates simultaneously and then neutralize one first. The 'em pulse' acting on the neutralized plate will stop affecting it when it becomes neutralized, which is asymmetrical to the force acting on the still charged plate, the force being present in the e-field still present for distance/c seconds. Although to get any macroscopic force it will have to be done cyclically. The point is that both can be charged up for a longer amount of time, and as long as one is neutralized first the effect should still be present, if my reasoning is correct.

    It also leads to this simpler scenario- when inside of an electric field, what happens when another e-field is formed?

    The new charged particle will immediately feel the push of the already present e-field, while the emitter of the first e-field can only respond within distance/c seconds.

    One way that momentum could be conserved is if the new e-field somehow canceled the original e-field, but this is not the case with e-fields afaik.

    just more questions here I guess

Share This Page