Novel methods for propelling a rocket

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Rocket Paul, Sep 23, 2017.

  1. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,629
    Regardless of where the thrust is applied the Earth's escape velocity remains the same. If you don't achieve that then you don't get into orbit.
    Thus your contention is not only wrong it's ridiculous.

    If the exhaust is at the back end then the "lifting" is from the back end.

    Absolute crap. If there's no reaction then there's no movement. If there's movement then there's a reaction.

    No.
    You've already been given some reasons (one of my first posts in this thread) why thrust applied at the "front end" (which isn't a feature of your system anyway) is less efficient than that at the back. If it's less efficient then you need more thrust - larger/ more powerful engines.

    Because whatever "details" you have are predicated entirely on ignorance and wishful thinking.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Confused2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    429
    Attempting to counter one misunderstanding with another is probably unhelpful. 'Escape velocity' is (by definition) the velocity required for an unpowered object to leave (say) the surface of the Earth and not return (ignoring any (for example) air friction). Rockets are (by definition) 'powered'. There may be good reasons for wanting to get a rocket to as low a gravitational field as possible as quickly as possible but I don't think either Sarkus or Rocket Paul have looked at them.
     
    Sarkus and exchemist like this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,988
    This seems to be a case of moving the goalposts.
    Originally, the claim seemed to have more to do with getting extra thrust from magnets.
    Now it seems to have switched to an apparent gain in stability.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,988
    True.

    Only temporarily.

    Yes. You must reach escape velocity before you run out of fuel. The amount of fuel is limited - since adding more increases the mass of the rocket, requiring more fuel to lift it.

    Some day, when we have a much more efficient source of propulsion, we could, if we chose, rise out of the atmo at 1 mile per hour - and go all the way to the Moon at 1 mile per hour.
     
  8. Rocket Paul Registered Member

    Messages:
    56
    Okay cards on the table.......when I first came here I wanted to see what some clever people would think of a new type of drive using 2 platforms 1 inside the other I had to use a some kind of craft to explain the theory so I chose a rocket, I am not really interested in anything else other than does the system work have we got propulsion movement or not and are we picking the rocket up from the top all be it the tail pipe is at the back, I think if you look at or try the test I suggested then I think you have to agree that you have a force at the back of the pipe your hand and equal transferred force to the front at the point of contact to the craft I really don't see how anyone can argue with that.
    Because we are using 2 platforms engine and craft then we can levitate the craft with energy between the repelling magnets, because the point of contact to the craft from both platforms is the top of the craft then if you can manage the amount of control to the engine (thrust) you can now lift the rocket in to orbit at 1 mile per hour because its no longer top heavy with our lift at the top, example you can float a balloon in to space.

    I think without being able to show you guys the bigger picture and show you guys what this all means its been very difficult to explain, I am not a rocket scientist but just trying to get a new type of propulsion theory realized but for most it can't even seem to take off the ground so I guess I have failed here, its a pity because I was hoping to get someone on my side who understands the science and help get the system built and moving, part of the bigger picture is gulp...flying cars if a much smaller similar system was installed to a car with some more modifications installed, I am not answering any questions on the car here because of patent rights, so I will read your replies but I doubt if I will be answering them.
     
  9. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,921
    This is the crux of the problem. You cannot get someone 'on your side' that understands science because people that understand some science can see that your idea will not work as you envision.

    You think you have a great idea and do not want to have to admit that it is not a good way to make a propulsion system, so instead of listening to what people are telling you, you are clinging to your original idea. That is going to get you no where.

    Good luck on your endeavors and if this patent idea is a kind of retirement plan - I recommend investing in a 401K!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,629
    And, cleverly, you've ignored everything those clever people told you.

    Because you're clueless.

    It's NOT "two platforms".

    No.

    No.

    No.

    The "lift" is not at the top.

    But I have been. Your idea is worthless.

    The ONLY person here that doesn't understand the science is you.

    No.
     
  11. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,456
    Yes, thanks, you are quite correct. School boy error on my part, probably distracted by the *ahem* brilliance of RP's idea.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    But no excuses.
     
  12. Rocket Paul Registered Member

    Messages:
    56
    Dywyddyr
    The only person who is replying clever is you that's all I seem to get is rubbish no..no..no without any real reason to your answers, okay let me ask you this if we work from the front fixed magnet to free moving magnet, if we had a huge repelling field between both magnets then whats stopping the free moving magnet being repelled back to the bottom of the craft action and equal opposite reaction causing cancellation to the craft, could it be that the rocket is making platform 2.
     
  13. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,223
    I see the sarcasm went over your head...

    I'm sorry Rocket Paul, but it seems you have jumped into the deep end of the pool before learning how to swim (or even float). I and others have tried several times to help you understand why your idea simply will not work, and you either cannot understand, or refuse to do so.

    If you did all this - you would have at best no difference in actual thrust from the propelling engine than you would using a solid connection (such as the body of the rocket), and at worst would have consumed a large portion of your lifting capacity with useless weight.

    There are three primary things you need to consider when getting from ground to orbit - Thrust, Weight, and Resistance. Adding magnets does nothing for Thrust or Resistance, and adds unnecessary weight.
     
  14. Rocket Paul Registered Member

    Messages:
    56
    Thank you Dywyddyr
    I did not expect any extra thrust I was asking is the rocket (engine) is not acting as a second platform stopping cancellation to the craft.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2017
  15. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,921
    Huh?
     
  16. Rocket Paul Registered Member

    Messages:
    56
    Hi Origin all I am asking is why have we not got two platforms...so lets try and move the craft using just magnets, looking from the fixed magnet there is no propulsion to the craft because of equal and opposite reaction one magnet at the top and one free moving magnet forced to the bottom cancellation, but if you add a second platform that can stop the free moving magnet being forced to the bottom this is why the engine is acting as platform 2 free moving but not fixed.
     
  17. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,223
    What platform would you use to house that magnet, and what do you do once the magnets are far enough apart that they can no longer interact (or their interaction is cancelled out by gravity)?

    As you said already - an engine (in this case, a rocket engine).

    However, as you also acknowledged, the engine would have to overcome the force of the magnet pushing back in order to move the craft any useful distance.

    So... at this point, once the magnets stabilize at their nominal distance (which would vary based on load, strength of the magnets, etc), the engine has to do the same amount of work for the given weight of the craft as it would were it attached directly to the craft via a solid connection (such as today's rockets are).

    The difference is, you have added the weight of a bunch of magnets, which reduces your cargo capacity. You have also reduced the stability of the rocket, because a magnetic connection isn't "solid" and could result in unwanted, uneven application of force (thrust) against the rocket, making steering much more complicated (if not downright impossible in certain situations)
     
  18. Rocket Paul Registered Member

    Messages:
    56
    Hi Kittamaru good answer but still not what I am asking have we or have we not got 2 platforms ??. if not why.
     
  19. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,223
    Currently rockets are a single platform (well, the payload portion is- there are boosters that could be considered a separate platform with additional engines). However, no, they are all firmly attached until they are no longer needed, and not connected via magnets.

    As to why - structural integrity is the big one. Rockets undergo a, and this is a highly scientific term here, metric fuck-tonne of force during liftoff and reentry, to the point that things can very easily shear off if not firmly attached (and sometimes still do).
     
  20. Rocket Paul Registered Member

    Messages:
    56
    Thanks but I am asking about my proposed system the rockets we use now are as you say 1 platform thrusters are the same 1 platform.
     
  21. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,223
    At present, no, we don't use your system at all, for several reasons. First and foremost, it is far easier to "push" the rocket than to "pull" it, due namely to how force and stress is transmitted through materials (it's far simpler to apply a large amount of force to the back of something heavy rather than to build a sufficiently strong anchor from which to pull it)
     
  22. Rocket Paul Registered Member

    Messages:
    56
    Still not answered my question, I can't move on to the next question until its answered properly and not just no, why dodge the question I have not mentioned pull.
     
  23. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,223
    I'm not trying to dodge anything - please rephrase the question, because apparently, at this point, I haven't the foggiest idea what your question is.

    If you mean this question, then as I explained in my first response - no, there is no "second platform". It's all securely connected.
     

Share This Page