Angle wire resonator as reactionless drive

[goran d]

We have a wire bent in the middle by 90 degrees, fed with electric field. The wire length is much smaller than the wavelength (e.g. 1/10 or 1/5).
The thing is, i did a simulation of an angle wire like this with current source in the middle, using the 4nec2 antenna simulator.
4nec2 uses the nec2 engine, which is widely used. Guess what - the results show negligible current phase shift between the mid-point and the end-points of the wire. Wire was 10cm, frequency 300MHz. Phase shift was less than a degree. This means that the force due to biot-savart law and lorentz force equation will be greater than 0. It will point in the diagonal, to the direction the angle points.
That's because the B-field touching the wire is in Z direction. Each arm gets force perpendicular to it.
The force from the B-field should be greater than expected radiation pressure.
I did a (rough) simulation (the oscillator fed by e-field) and the force was a lot greater than the equivalent radiation.
I used complex linear equation system.
There is also electric force in the same direction, but much smaller.

Although the phases between my simulator and 4nec2 didn't match, this is not surprising, as they were not simulating exactly the same thing.

[dustinthewind]

I am glad you brought this up as I was also contemplating if this was possible.  I was thinking of doing this with a phased antenna array but at a much lower frequency than it was meant to run.  Most of the time the forces will be symmetric so no propulsion but for a fraction of a second when current reverses in one wire the time retarded forces will be non-symmetric.  Your wires are perpendicular and could work with some reduced efficiency, but we could also use two parallel wires with the current only slightly out of phase between the wires.  If we have a wire spacing of 0.0025m or 0.025cm and the speed of light being about 3E8m/s and we are using your frequency of 300MHz or 3E8Hz then c=f*lambda so wavelength is lambda=c/f = 1m.  Normally you would want the wires spaced at 1/4lambda to get projection of radiation for a phased array but you can still get some at lower frequencies if the currents are out of phase.  Normally, for 0.0025m wire spacing we would want a frequency of 3E10Hz or 3*10^10Hz to be a quarter wavelength apart.  Taking the ratio of the wavelengths we get ratio of tau = 3E8/3E10 = 1E-2 seconds so for 0.01 seconds the time retarded force is non-symmetric before returning to being symmetric.  If we are using a sine wave then the current is only a fraction of what it should be = I_max*sin(pi/2*0.01) = 0.015707317311821*I_max but if we use a square pulse that rises rapidly enough then we could get a max current time retarded non-symmetric force interaction for 0.01 seconds which could be used for propulsion.  On the other hand you have to wind so that the static electric effects work with the magnetic other wise you just got another phased array antenna. 

It is interesting to note the forces of the magnetic field in your design you would be observing would be due to electric field tilting which is from other charges approaching a current.  The two forces during the non-symmetric cycle would be 90 degrees out of phase so adding them together you would get a force of 2*F_max*sin(pi/4) = 1.4142 instead of the forces directly adding together.  The time retarded behavior of wires at 90 angles on the other hand I may have to think about as it is not as simple as two parallel wires. 

[oliverio]

I am glad you brought this up as I was also contemplating if this was possible.  I was thinking of doing this with a phased antenna array but at a much lower frequency than it was meant to run.  Most of the time the forces will be symmetric so no propulsion but for a fraction of a second when current reverses in one wire the time retarded forces will be non-symmetric.  Your wires are perpendicular and could work with some reduced efficiency, but we could also use two parallel wires with the current only slightly out of phase between the wires.  If we have a wire spacing of 0.0025m or 0.025cm and the speed of light being about 3E8m/s and we are using your frequency of 300MHz or 3E8Hz then c=f*lambda so wavelength is lambda=c/f = 1m.  Normally you would want the wires spaced at 1/4lambda to get projection of radiation for a phased array but you can still get some at lower frequencies if the currents are out of phase.  Normally, for 0.0025m wire spacing we would want a frequency of 3E10Hz or 3*10^10Hz to be a quarter wavelength apart.  Taking the ratio of the wavelengths we get ratio of tau = 3E8/3E10 = 1E-2 seconds so for 0.01 seconds the time retarded force is non-symmetric before returning to being symmetric.  If we are using a sine wave then the current is only a fraction of what it should be = I_max*sin(pi/2*0.01) = 0.015707317311821*I_max but if we use a square pulse that rises rapidly enough then we could get a max current time retarded non-symmetric force interaction for 0.01 seconds which could be used for propulsion.  On the other hand you have to wind so that the static electric effects work with the magnetic other wise you just got another phased array antenna. 

It is interesting to note the forces of the magnetic field in your design you would be observing would be due to electric field tilting which is from other charges approaching a current.  The two forces during the non-symmetric cycle would be 90 degrees out of phase so adding them together you would get a force of 2*F_max*sin(pi/4) = 1.4142 instead of the forces directly adding together.  The time retarded behavior of wires at 90 angles on the other hand I may have to think about as it is not as simple as two parallel wires.

If you were traveling at 99.99999% c, from one end of a 90 degree bent were toward the vertex, I believe the other wire would be observed as almost parallel.  Yes?  (A parallel line appears to never intersect. The time experienced by an electron traveling down a wire would be "almost forever", thus it would appear as parallel with slight immeasurable convergence over  the timeframe in relativistic terms from the reference frame of the electron.

[dustinthewind]

I am glad you brought this up as I was also contemplating if this was possible.  I was thinking of doing this with a phased antenna array but at a much lower frequency than it was meant to run.  Most of the time the forces will be symmetric so no propulsion but for a fraction of a second when current reverses in one wire the time retarded forces will be non-symmetric.  Your wires are perpendicular and could work with some reduced efficiency, but we could also use two parallel wires with the current only slightly out of phase between the wires.  If we have a wire spacing of 0.0025m or 0.025cm and the speed of light being about 3E8m/s and we are using your frequency of 300MHz or 3E8Hz then c=f*lambda so wavelength is lambda=c/f = 1m.  Normally you would want the wires spaced at 1/4lambda to get projection of radiation for a phased array but you can still get some at lower frequencies if the currents are out of phase.  Normally, for 0.0025m wire spacing we would want a frequency of 3E10Hz or 3*10^10Hz to be a quarter wavelength apart.  Taking the ratio of the wavelengths we get ratio of tau = 3E8/3E10 = 1E-2 seconds so for 0.01 seconds the time retarded force is non-symmetric before returning to being symmetric.  If we are using a sine wave then the current is only a fraction of what it should be = I_max*sin(pi/2*0.01) = 0.015707317311821*I_max but if we use a square pulse that rises rapidly enough then we could get a max current time retarded non-symmetric force interaction for 0.01 seconds which could be used for propulsion.  On the other hand you have to wind so that the static electric effects work with the magnetic other wise you just got another phased array antenna. 

It is interesting to note the forces of the magnetic field in your design you would be observing would be due to electric field tilting which is from other charges approaching a current.  The two forces during the non-symmetric cycle would be 90 degrees out of phase so adding them together you would get a force of 2*F_max*sin(pi/4) = 1.4142 instead of the forces directly adding together.  The time retarded behavior of wires at 90 angles on the other hand I may have to think about as it is not as simple as two parallel wires.

If you were traveling at 99.99999% c, from one end of a 90 degree bent were toward the vertex, I believe the other wire would be observed as almost parallel.  Yes?  (A parallel line appears to never intersect. The time experienced by an electron traveling down a wire would be "almost forever", thus it would appear as parallel with slight immeasurable convergence over  the timeframe in relativistic terms from the reference frame of the electron.

I think I am not understanding what your getting at.  I thought for copper that the electron velocity is very slow.  Like milimeters/second for DC current.  On the other hand maybe your referencing by 99.999%c as the wave speed in copper?  Not sure what that is.  Supper conductors do have electron velocities at high speeds.  There are fewer free electron Cooper pairs to super-conduct so to get the same current their charges have much higher velocity.    I am not really sure this person has a way to really make the current in the wires out of phase other than the delay in information between the wires as the distance grows.  If there is something to it then maybe it would have relation to the EM drive as its walls are tapered at an angle also. 

I guess it just got me thinking about an idea that relates to the phased array antenna and using lower frequencies. 

Edit2: Ok Oliverio, I see what you mean.  So, it would be wave velocity. 

[oliverio]

I am glad you brought this up as I was also contemplating if this was possible.  I was thinking of doing this with a phased antenna array but at a much lower frequency than it was meant to run.  Most of the time the forces will be symmetric so no propulsion but for a fraction of a second when current reverses in one wire the time retarded forces will be non-symmetric.  Your wires are perpendicular and could work with some reduced efficiency, but we could also use two parallel wires with the current only slightly out of phase between the wires.  If we have a wire spacing of 0.0025m or 0.025cm and the speed of light being about 3E8m/s and we are using your frequency of 300MHz or 3E8Hz then c=f*lambda so wavelength is lambda=c/f = 1m.  Normally you would want the wires spaced at 1/4lambda to get projection of radiation for a phased array but you can still get some at lower frequencies if the currents are out of phase.  Normally, for 0.0025m wire spacing we would want a frequency of 3E10Hz or 3*10^10Hz to be a quarter wavelength apart.  Taking the ratio of the wavelengths we get ratio of tau = 3E8/3E10 = 1E-2 seconds so for 0.01 seconds the time retarded force is non-symmetric before returning to being symmetric.  If we are using a sine wave then the current is only a fraction of what it should be = I_max*sin(pi/2*0.01) = 0.015707317311821*I_max but if we use a square pulse that rises rapidly enough then we could get a max current time retarded non-symmetric force interaction for 0.01 seconds which could be used for propulsion.  On the other hand you have to wind so that the static electric effects work with the magnetic other wise you just got another phased array antenna. 

It is interesting to note the forces of the magnetic field in your design you would be observing would be due to electric field tilting which is from other charges approaching a current.  The two forces during the non-symmetric cycle would be 90 degrees out of phase so adding them together you would get a force of 2*F_max*sin(pi/4) = 1.4142 instead of the forces directly adding together.  The time retarded behavior of wires at 90 angles on the other hand I may have to think about as it is not as simple as two parallel wires.

If you were traveling at 99.99999% c, from one end of a 90 degree bent were toward the vertex, I believe the other wire would be observed as almost parallel.  Yes?  (A parallel line appears to never intersect. The time experienced by an electron traveling down a wire would be "almost forever", thus it would appear as parallel with slight immeasurable convergence over  the timeframe in relativistic terms from the reference frame of the electron.

I think I am not understanding what your getting at.  I thought for copper that the electron velocity is very slow.  Like milimeters/second for DC current.  On the other hand maybe your referencing by 99.999%c as the wave speed in copper?  Not sure what that is.  Supper conductors do have electron velocities at high speeds.  There are fewer free electron Cooper pairs to super-conduct so to get the same current their charges have much higher velocity.    I am not really sure this guy has a way to really make the current in the wires out of phase to be honest but I guess it got me thinking about what might be possible with a phased array.

For all intents and purposes, I think maybe an electron moves through copper at c.  It is not actually the case, but electron pressure propagates through an open current at c, though individual electrons do not.

Thus, electron movement that contributes to electromagnetic events in copper could be thought of as moving through the metal at close to c.

[oliverio]

I am glad you brought this up as I was also contemplating if this was possible.  I was thinking of doing this with a phased antenna array but at a much lower frequency than it was meant to run.  Most of the time the forces will be symmetric so no propulsion but for a fraction of a second when current reverses in one wire the time retarded forces will be non-symmetric.  Your wires are perpendicular and could work with some reduced efficiency, but we could also use two parallel wires with the current only slightly out of phase between the wires.  If we have a wire spacing of 0.0025m or 0.025cm and the speed of light being about 3E8m/s and we are using your frequency of 300MHz or 3E8Hz then c=f*lambda so wavelength is lambda=c/f = 1m.  Normally you would want the wires spaced at 1/4lambda to get projection of radiation for a phased array but you can still get some at lower frequencies if the currents are out of phase.  Normally, for 0.0025m wire spacing we would want a frequency of 3E10Hz or 3*10^10Hz to be a quarter wavelength apart.  Taking the ratio of the wavelengths we get ratio of tau = 3E8/3E10 = 1E-2 seconds so for 0.01 seconds the time retarded force is non-symmetric before returning to being symmetric.  If we are using a sine wave then the current is only a fraction of what it should be = I_max*sin(pi/2*0.01) = 0.015707317311821*I_max but if we use a square pulse that rises rapidly enough then we could get a max current time retarded non-symmetric force interaction for 0.01 seconds which could be used for propulsion.  On the other hand you have to wind so that the static electric effects work with the magnetic other wise you just got another phased array antenna. 

It is interesting to note the forces of the magnetic field in your design you would be observing would be due to electric field tilting which is from other charges approaching a current.  The two forces during the non-symmetric cycle would be 90 degrees out of phase so adding them together you would get a force of 2*F_max*sin(pi/4) = 1.4142 instead of the forces directly adding together.  The time retarded behavior of wires at 90 angles on the other hand I may have to think about as it is not as simple as two parallel wires.

If you were traveling at 99.99999% c, from one end of a 90 degree bent were toward the vertex, I believe the other wire would be observed as almost parallel.  Yes?  (A parallel line appears to never intersect. The time experienced by an electron traveling down a wire would be "almost forever", thus it would appear as parallel with slight immeasurable convergence over  the timeframe in relativistic terms from the reference frame of the electron.

I think I am not understanding what your getting at.  I thought for copper that the electron velocity is very slow.  Like milimeters/second for DC current.  On the other hand maybe your referencing by 99.999%c as the wave speed in copper?  Not sure what that is.  Supper conductors do have electron velocities at high speeds.  There are fewer free electron Cooper pairs to super-conduct so to get the same current their charges have much higher velocity.    I am not really sure this person has a way to really make the current in the wires out of phase other than the delay in information between the wires as the distance grows.  If there is something to it then maybe it would have relation to the EM drive as its walls are tapered at an angle also. 

I guess it just got me thinking about an idea that relates to the phased array antenna and using lower frequencies. 

Edit2: Ok Oliverio, I see what you mean.  So, it would be wave velocity.

I think a superconducting field just loses fewer electrons along the way, and thus works faster for anything where bitrate is important. For something like thrust I believe they would only scale the efficiency of electrons in->force out.

[meberbs]

There is a simple answer to any configuration of wires, charges, currents, magnets, etc. that claims "reactionless drive":

All proposed "self-acceleration" will be equivalent to the reaction from emitted photons. (Most will actually be less efficient than a photon thruster due to emitting radiation in more than one direction.)

This is because the derivation of momentum storage in E-M fields assumes conservation of momentum.

For any ideas like this to be productive, they either should come with an experimental demonstration of greater thrust than an equivalent power laser, or a new theory of Electromagnetism that would allow it to work. The new theory of electromagnetism would have to be able to replicate all known results including special relativity, photon energy and momentum, etc. It would then need a specific description of how and under what conditions it would diverge from the classical E-M theory.

Note that if you come up with a design that you calculate to be a nearly ideal photon thruster at microwave frequencies, it means you invented a highly directional antenna, which may be useful for space communications. This would be a useful discovery, but would be better for "advanced concepts" than "new physics"

If you calculate better than a photon thruster using Maxwell's equations, it means you did your math wrong.

[oliverio]

There is a simple answer to any configuration of wires, charges, currents, magnets, etc. that claims "reactionless drive":

All proposed "self-acceleration" will be equivalent to the reaction from emitted photons. (Most will actually be less efficient than a photon thruster due to emitting radiation in more than one direction.)

This is because the derivation of momentum storage in E-M fields assumes conservation of momentum.

For any ideas like this to be productive, they either should come with an experimental demonstration of greater thrust than an equivalent power laser, or a new theory of Electromagnetism that would allow it to work. The new theory of electromagnetism would have to be able to replicate all known results including special relativity, photon energy and momentum, etc. It would then need a specific description of how and under what conditions it would diverge from the classical E-M theory.

Note that if you come up with a design that you calculate to be a nearly ideal photon thruster at microwave frequencies, it means you invented a highly directional antenna, which may be useful for space communications. This would be a useful discovery, but would be better for "advanced concepts" than "new physics"

If you calculate better than a photon thruster using Maxwell's equations, it means you did your math wrong.

Honest question: could it not be possible to make an energy-variant configuration of some manner demonstrate almost exclusively near-field properties and minimal far-field ones?  It seems to me, analytically speaking, that a photon imparts momentum poorly because far-field effects travel far (sorry for the tautology), not... hard?  The near field would seem to be what an em-propellant should seek to vary.

[oliverio]

To expand briefly on the above, and I may be wrong, it is the case that the photons of the near field and the far field are essentially the same but operating in different configuration.  It seems as though an antenna emits near-field photons, but as you scale the power of the antenna, this effect becomes far less noticeable.  As I understand as well, a photon emitted by the near field essentially pushes back on the radiator as it enters the far field. 

So if one could make a directional antenna that only operates in the near field, it should have a greater thrust than the photon rocket, yes?

[meberbs]

To expand briefly on the above, and I may be wrong, it is the case that the photons of the near field and the far field are essentially the same but operating in different configuration.  It seems as though an antenna emits near-field photons, but as you scale the power of the antenna, this effect becomes far less noticeable.  As I understand as well, a photon emitted by the near field essentially pushes back on the radiator as it enters the far field. 

So if one could make a directional antenna that only operates in the near field, it should have a greater thrust than the photon rocket, yes?

The phrase "only operates in the near field" does not make any sense.

Near field is complicated for all but the simplest antennas, since there are various effects that cancel out such as a photon being emitted from one part of the antenna, only to be absorbed by another part.

Far field is easier to work with for most applications and includes ALL of the photons that actually escape from the antenna. If these are not symmetrically distributed, then the device is a directional antenna, and photon thruster.

The portions of the near field that do not make it to the far field all represent internal interactions between portions of the device and they all cancel (equal and opposite reactions). The far field is therefore the only thing necessary to consider when determining the reaction of the device.

The reason photon thrusters are inefficient is due to the Energy momentum relation for all massless particles in special relativity: E = p*c. (E is energy, p is momentum, c is speed of light (a big number))

If you want a better EM drive than that, you need to find some kind of modification to the known physical laws. As I said above, this means either a theory that reduces to the existing theory under nearly all cases (because existing theory woks very well), or an experimental result that can't be explained by existing theory.

[oliverio]

To expand briefly on the above, and I may be wrong, it is the case that the photons of the near field and the far field are essentially the same but operating in different configuration.  It seems as though an antenna emits near-field photons, but as you scale the power of the antenna, this effect becomes far less noticeable.  As I understand as well, a photon emitted by the near field essentially pushes back on the radiator as it enters the far field. 

So if one could make a directional antenna that only operates in the near field, it should have a greater thrust than the photon rocket, yes?

The phrase "only operates in the near field" does not make any sense.

Near field is complicated for all but the simplest antennas, since there are various effects that cancel out such as a photon being emitted from one part of the antenna, only to be absorbed by another part.

Far field is easier to work with for most applications and includes ALL of the photons that actually escape from the antenna. If these are not symmetrically distributed, then the device is a directional antenna, and photon thruster.

The portions of the near field that do not make it to the far field all represent internal interactions between portions of the device and they all cancel (equal and opposite reactions). The far field is therefore the only thing necessary to consider when determining the reaction of the device.

The reason photon thrusters are inefficient is due to the Energy momentum relation for all massless particles in special relativity: E = p*c. (E is energy, p is momentum, c is speed of light (a big number))

If you want a better EM drive than that, you need to find some kind of modification to the known physical laws. As I said above, this means either a theory that reduces to the existing theory under nearly all cases (because existing theory woks very well), or an experimental result that can't be explained by existing theory.

I certainly follow your logic, I think you're a very sensible poster on this forum. For that reason let me request that you humor my inquiry a bit further.

At or before the border between near and far field, which I understand as gradient, force imparted by photons falls off at a less exponential rate than within what is firmly the far-field.

So here is a thought experiment which I take to be nonparadoxical to you, but it is not so to me:

A laser is attached to (perhaps by a rod) and aimed at an ideal photodiode positioned at the edge of the near-field gradient. The momentum of the photons leaving the laser (inside the near field, right?) should be higher than the ones being "caught" by the photodiode. If this were the case, would it accelerate in open space?

[ZhixianLin]

Do you have any pictures of your drive? Any drive base on radiation pressure will not be better than a photon thruster. You can refer to my drive: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38996.0

[oliverio]

Do you have any pictures of your drive? Any drive base on radiation pressure will not be better than a photon thruster. You can refer to my drive: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38996.0

I don't have a drive, only a thought experiment.  I'll make it a bit more relatable.

Imagine you have a cylindrical cavity with endplate injection, but one endplate is made from a perfect reflector and the opposite endplate is made from a perfect photodiode (which is returned to the antenna's powersupply) . Assume that the cavity is about as long as the near-far field boundary.  So if the photons on one side (the photodiode) are far-field particles they ought to possess less momentum but equal energy to the photon that left the far-field.  However, as this photon is absorbed by the photodiode, and electricity is generated, the momentum imparted to the photodiode should be less than the momentum of the emitted photon.

Now, side wall pressure may invalidate that-- but now I then ask the following: if the cylinder has tapered walls, is it not the case that from a photon's reference frame, there exists a geometry of frustrum such that relativistic length contraction would make the frustum's walls appear straight to an observer?

[ZhixianLin]

Do you have any pictures of your drive? Any drive base on radiation pressure will not be better than a photon thruster. You can refer to my drive: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38996.0

I don't have a drive, only a thought experiment.  I'll make it a bit more relatable.

Imagine you have a cylindrical cavity with endplate injection, but one endplate is made from a perfect reflector and the opposite endplate is made from a perfect photodiode (which is returned to the antenna's powersupply) . Assume that the cavity is about as long as the near-far field boundary.  So if the photons on one side (the photodiode) are far-field particles they ought to possess less momentum but equal energy to the photon that left the far-field.  However, as this photon is absorbed by the photodiode, and electricity is generated, the momentum imparted to the photodiode should be less than the momentum of the emitted photon.

Now, side wall pressure may invalidate that-- but now I then ask the following: if the cylinder has tapered walls, is it not the case that from a photon's reference frame, there exists a geometry of frustrum such that relativistic length contraction would make the frustum's walls appear straight to an observer?

My drive does not need relativity. If your design need relativity, then I can not explain.

[oliverio]

Do you have any pictures of your drive? Any drive base on radiation pressure will not be better than a photon thruster. You can refer to my drive: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38996.0

I don't have a drive, only a thought experiment.  I'll make it a bit more relatable.

Imagine you have a cylindrical cavity with endplate injection, but one endplate is made from a perfect reflector and the opposite endplate is made from a perfect photodiode (which is returned to the antenna's powersupply) . Assume that the cavity is about as long as the near-far field boundary.  So if the photons on one side (the photodiode) are far-field particles they ought to possess less momentum but equal energy to the photon that left the far-field.  However, as this photon is absorbed by the photodiode, and electricity is generated, the momentum imparted to the photodiode should be less than the momentum of the emitted photon.

Now, side wall pressure may invalidate that-- but now I then ask the following: if the cylinder has tapered walls, is it not the case that from a photon's reference frame, there exists a geometry of frustrum such that relativistic length contraction would make the frustum's walls appear straight to an observer?

My drive does not need relativity. If your design need relativity, then I can not explain.

I'm pretty sure that's a weakness, not a strength. Electromagnetic events should be considered relativistic.

[meberbs]

To expand briefly on the above, and I may be wrong, it is the case that the photons of the near field and the far field are essentially the same but operating in different configuration.  It seems as though an antenna emits near-field photons, but as you scale the power of the antenna, this effect becomes far less noticeable.  As I understand as well, a photon emitted by the near field essentially pushes back on the radiator as it enters the far field. 

So if one could make a directional antenna that only operates in the near field, it should have a greater thrust than the photon rocket, yes?

The phrase "only operates in the near field" does not make any sense.

Near field is complicated for all but the simplest antennas, since there are various effects that cancel out such as a photon being emitted from one part of the antenna, only to be absorbed by another part.

Far field is easier to work with for most applications and includes ALL of the photons that actually escape from the antenna. If these are not symmetrically distributed, then the device is a directional antenna, and photon thruster.

The portions of the near field that do not make it to the far field all represent internal interactions between portions of the device and they all cancel (equal and opposite reactions). The far field is therefore the only thing necessary to consider when determining the reaction of the device.

The reason photon thrusters are inefficient is due to the Energy momentum relation for all massless particles in special relativity: E = p*c. (E is energy, p is momentum, c is speed of light (a big number))

If you want a better EM drive than that, you need to find some kind of modification to the known physical laws. As I said above, this means either a theory that reduces to the existing theory under nearly all cases (because existing theory woks very well), or an experimental result that can't be explained by existing theory.

I certainly follow your logic, I think you're a very sensible poster on this forum. For that reason let me request that you humor my inquiry a bit further.

At or before the border between near and far field, which I understand as gradient, force imparted by photons falls off at a less exponential rate than within what is firmly the far-field.

So here is a thought experiment which I take to be nonparadoxical to you, but it is not so to me:

A laser is attached to (perhaps by a rod) and aimed at an ideal photodiode positioned at the edge of the near-field gradient. The momentum of the photons leaving the laser (inside the near field, right?) should be higher than the ones being "caught" by the photodiode. If this were the case, would it accelerate in open space?

There isn't more momentum in the photons in the near vs far field. An object placed within the near field would have additional forces on it due to the additional fields, but this works both ways. Induced currents and charge distributions in the object would interact with the rest of the device, changing the near field, and possibly the far field as well.

For a different example that might help clarify (or maybe this will confuse things more):

Two electric charges placed near each other will have near field interactions due to Coulomb forces. These forces can be described in terms of "virtual photons." Virtual particles are a quantum mechanical representation of forces, and follow different rules than standard particles. Quantum is weird and subtle, so I won't try to explain the details here, but I will say that in some senses virtual particles aren't "real," they are just the way action at a distance forces are represented in QED. What is relevant is that the speed of light delay is equivalent between the two particles, so the momentum will appear to have been exchanged directly between the particles without having been stored in the fields. Even in different reference frames, this will end up being consistent (although magnetic fields will also appear in the reference frames where the particles are not initially at rest. ) Accelerating charges produce real photons that radiate. Real photons actually have momentum stored in their fields, and need to be accounted for in a momentum balance.

The details get very confusing, so when analyzing a device, it is easiest to just use the fact that classical electrodynamics (which inherently includes special relativity) is a self-consistent theory that conserves both energy and momentum. (Using the definitions for energy and momentum stored in the fields). A sufficiently detailed analysis will always show that the net forces on all of the objects in the near field exactly balances with the photon momentum emitted in the far field.

[oliverio]

Thanks for the reply meberbs, this makes sense that the forces experienced in the near-field aren't the same as a classical "baseball gets thrown" analogy for particles.

The transition point does not happen at a specific time and place, though, right?  As I understand, this is because the zone is a product of gradient self-interference. Does this not imply that we could, by exact positioning of a photodiode, control which virtual photons self-interfere before all photons have actually left it, and create nonsymmetric but conserved forces?  (In this context the photodiode is somewhere between the near field and the far field.)

[dustinthewind]

There is a simple answer to any configuration of wires, charges, currents, magnets, etc. that claims "reactionless drive":

All proposed "self-acceleration" will be equivalent to the reaction from emitted photons. (Most will actually be less efficient than a photon thruster due to emitting radiation in more than one direction.)

This is because the derivation of momentum storage in E-M fields assumes conservation of momentum.

For any ideas like this to be productive, they either should come with an experimental demonstration of greater thrust than an equivalent power laser, or a new theory of Electromagnetism that would allow it to work. The new theory of electromagnetism would have to be able to replicate all known results including special relativity, photon energy and momentum, etc. It would then need a specific description of how and under what conditions it would diverge from the classical E-M theory.

Note that if you come up with a design that you calculate to be a nearly ideal photon thruster at microwave frequencies, it means you invented a highly directional antenna, which may be useful for space communications. This would be a useful discovery, but would be better for "advanced concepts" than "new physics"

If you calculate better than a photon thruster using Maxwell's equations, it means you did your math wrong.

I have to apologize for commenting here without fully understanding the original posters exact device.  I guess I was just a bit excited that it sounded similar to something I had been mulling over.  I have to agree with the above comment in that I think if greater than photon propulsion would work then we would not be pushing with light any more and we would need something else we were pushing against.  A prime candidate would be time and space which would be related to gravitational effects.  That suggest some how uniting electromagnetism with Einstein time retarded field solutions of general relativity probably, which at the moment is a bit beyond me.  One video I know of probably get into it a bit.  Here: I will also post an image of one reason I think that a phased array antenna (see image) only give photon propulsion [even though they operate in near field] because the capacitance effect (charge separation) provides opposing propulsion to the inductive magnetic effects.  You have to take into account time delayed information.  How that would relate to the original posters device, and any theory behind it, I could not say. 

I am curious to ask the original poster "goran d" as to what the non-symmetric forces his simulation estimated at a set current.  If they are large enough then it probably wouldn't be hard to test with an actual experiment.  It is possible the simulator may be at fault or the programming/constraints are off (math is wrong?)

[goran d]

This is because the derivation of momentum storage in E-M fields assumes conservation of momentum.

If the derrivation of momentum storage assumes the conservation laws, then you are deriving it from the combination of Maxwell Equation and Conservation Laws.
This is not the same as getting the conservation laws from only Maxwell's equations.

So, the conclusion that Maxwell Equations imply Conservation Laws is false.
You can't first assume something and then prove it on the basis of the assumption.

[meberbs]

Thanks for the reply meberbs, this makes sense that the forces experienced in the near-field aren't the same as a classical "baseball gets thrown" analogy for particles.

The transition point does not happen at a specific time and place, though, right?  As I understand, this is because the zone is a product of gradient self-interference. Does this not imply that we could, by exact positioning of a photodiode, control which virtual photons self-interfere before all photons have actually left it, and create nonsymmetric but conserved forces?  (In this context the photodiode is somewhere between the near field and the far field.)

You are correct, there is no sharp cutoff, just a point where the near field effects become negligible for a given definition of negligible.

The forces will always be balanced, as long as you include the momentum stored in the fields. You can't get away from momentum conservation, and the only way to get EM momentum away from the rest of the device is through photons. You can redirect the photons in specific directions, but not get better ratios of energy to momentum.

This is because the derivation of momentum storage in E-M fields assumes conservation of momentum.

If the derrivation of momentum storage assumes the conservation laws, then you are deriving it from the combination of Maxwell Equation and Conservation Laws.
This is not the same as getting the conservation laws from only Maxwell's equations.

So, the conclusion that Maxwell Equations imply Conservation Laws is false.
You can't first assume something and then prove it on the basis of the assumption.

Conservation laws all derive from Noether's theorem (although most of the conservation laws were being used well before this theorem was proven).

It is not difficult to find situations in electrodynamics that forces do not appear to be equal and opposite when you consider only the momentum changes in the charged particles. Reconciling this with conservation of momentum, requires that momentum be also stored in the fields. When deriving the equation for momentum in the fields, it is therefore already assumed that momentum is conserved.

I am not proving conservation of momentum by assuming it. (that would be the "correct" usage of "begging the question" by the way). I am pointing out that conservation of momentum is embedded in the way that momentum is assigned to the fields. Maxwell's equations plus conservation of momentum yield equations for the momentum stored and transported by EM fields. Lots of very smart people have reviewed that derivation, and there are no flaws in it. These equations when used correctly cannot yield a result that violates conservation of momentum, because they were derived from conservation of momentum. The "proof" of conservation of momentum is Noether's theorem given the appropriate symmetry (plus it is generally taken as a fundamental law anyway based on all the experimental observations ever made).