Twin Electromagnetic Thruster

[Iggyz]

The Twin Electromagnetic Thruster (fig. 1) consists of two vacuum cylinders with a 90-degree bend and a friction-less surface. Each of the cylinders contains an aluminum ball.

Each end of the cylinder is fitted with an electromagnet (A, B, C, D).

TET hopefully works as follows:

Electromagnets A and B simultaneously launch their respective aluminum ball (fig. 1). The balls are intercepted by electromagnets C and D and the spaceship moves in the desired direction of travel (white arrow).

Next, electromagnets C and D simultaneously launch their ball (fig. 2) and the space ship continues to travel in the direction of the white arrow. Electromagnets A and B intercept their individual ball and restart the cycle.

For this to work:

1. The forces that are generated when electromagnets A and B launch or intercept their individual ball have to negate each other.

2. The balls have to be launched at the same time, with the same force and travel at the same speed.

3. In order to generate thrust the centrifugal forces generated by the balls have to negate each other as much as possible. The black arrows in fig. 1 and 2 show the direction centrifugal forces might pull when a ball travels in the direction of a red arrow.

It looks like the centrifugal forces negate each other. The centrifugal forces either seem to pull the cylinders towards each other or push them apart.

Maybe it is more efficient to fit two maglev-tracks inside a vacuum container (fig. 3 and 4) each levitating an aluminum shuttle. The maglev-tracks are used for levitation only. The aluminum shuttles and are propelled in the same as the aluminum balls. Using maglev technology might minimize vibrations and heat development.

Can thrust be generated this way? Please let me know what you think.

[rakaydos]

Can thrust be generated this way? Please let me know what you think.

We've been over this a dozen times or so.

1) is the device intended to violate conventional physics?
2) is there mass leaving the device?

If the answer to both is "no" then you do not generate thrust.

[volker2020]

The Twin Electromagnetic Thruster (fig. 1) consists of two vacuum cylinders with a 90-degree bend and a friction-less surface. Each of the cylinders contains an aluminum ball.

Each end of the cylinder is fitted with an electromagnet (A, B, C, D).

TET hopefully works as follows:

Electromagnets A and B simultaneously launch their respective aluminum ball (fig. 1). The balls are intercepted by electromagnets C and D and the spaceship moves in the desired direction of travel (white arrow).

Next, electromagnets C and D simultaneously launch their ball (fig. 2) and the space ship continues to travel in the direction of the white arrow. Electromagnets A and B intercept their individual ball and restart the cycle.

For this to work:

1. The forces that are generated when electromagnets A and B launch or intercept their individual ball have to negate each other.

2. The balls have to be launched at the same time, with the same force and travel at the same speed.

3. In order to generate thrust the centrifugal forces generated by the balls have to negate each other as much as possible. The black arrows in fig. 1 and 2 show the direction centrifugal forces might pull when a ball travels in the direction of a red arrow.

It looks like the centrifugal forces negate each other. The centrifugal forces either seem to pull the cylinders towards each other or push them apart.

Maybe it is more efficient to fit two maglev-tracks inside a vacuum container (fig. 3 and 4) each levitating an aluminum shuttle. The maglev-tracks are used for levitation only. The aluminum shuttles and are propelled in the same as the aluminum balls. Using maglev technology might minimize vibrations and heat development.

Can thrust be generated this way? Please let me know what you think.

I hope this is a genuine question, but unfortunately the answer is no. What this device manages to do, is vibrating and creating heat. Nothing else.
If you do the integrals about the movement, you will find out, that all forces in the end will cancel each other out. When translating the energy at the bend it will create an impulse down, and you will create an ideally identical impulse up, when the ball hit the top.

This is fundamental physics, so no chance to beat the system.

[Iggyz]

The Twin Electromagnetic Thruster (fig. 1) consists of two vacuum cylinders with a 90-degree bend and a friction-less surface. Each of the cylinders contains an aluminum ball.

Each end of the cylinder is fitted with an electromagnet (A, B, C, D).

TET hopefully works as follows:

Electromagnets A and B simultaneously launch their respective aluminum ball (fig. 1). The balls are intercepted by electromagnets C and D and the spaceship moves in the desired direction of travel (white arrow).

Next, electromagnets C and D simultaneously launch their ball (fig. 2) and the space ship continues to travel in the direction of the white arrow. Electromagnets A and B intercept their individual ball and restart the cycle.

For this to work:

1. The forces that are generated when electromagnets A and B launch or intercept their individual ball have to negate each other.

2. The balls have to be launched at the same time, with the same force and travel at the same speed.

3. In order to generate thrust the centrifugal forces generated by the balls have to negate each other as much as possible. The black arrows in fig. 1 and 2 show the direction centrifugal forces might pull when a ball travels in the direction of a red arrow.

It looks like the centrifugal forces negate each other. The centrifugal forces either seem to pull the cylinders towards each other or push them apart.

Maybe it is more efficient to fit two maglev-tracks inside a vacuum container (fig. 3 and 4) each levitating an aluminum shuttle. The maglev-tracks are used for levitation only. The aluminum shuttles and are propelled in the same as the aluminum balls. Using maglev technology might minimize vibrations and heat development.

Can thrust be generated this way? Please let me know what you think.

I hope this is a genuine question, but unfortunately the answer is no. What this device manages to do, is vibrating and creating heat. Nothing else.
If you do the integrals about the movement, you will find out, that all forces in the end will cancel each other out. When translating the energy at the bend it will create an impulse down, and you will create an ideally identical impulse up, when the ball hit the top.

This is fundamental physics, so no chance to beat the system.

Thank you. It is a genuine question.

[Paul451]

The Twin Electromagnetic Thruster (fig. 1) consists of two vacuum cylinders with a 90-degree bend and a friction-less surface. Each of the cylinders contains an aluminum ball.

No-one has pointed out the specific issue with your device, just the general "ya canna break the laws of physics" principle.

The problem is that while you're focusing on the momentum transferred at the top of the device when the balls are stopped, you're ignoring where the momentum comes from to change the direction of the balls from horizontal to vertical. The horizontal deceleration cancels out the horizontal acceleration from magnet A or B, however the vertical component does not cancel out yet. (Nor is it cancelled out by the second pipe.) As the balls are curved from horizontal to vertical, the pipe gains an opposite vertical momentum (opposite the white arrow). That vertical momentum exactly matches and opposes the momentum transfer that happens at the top of the system when the balls are stopped by the magnets C or D. As a result, all the momentum exchanges cancels out internally, with no net external velocity. The device just vibrates back and forth.

Having two pipes/balls doesn't change this. It just makes it harder for you to follow.

In fact, the curve itself is entirely unnecessary. In terms of energy/momentum, the system is just a straight vertical pipe with a magnet at either end, bouncing a ball vertically back and forth. All you've done with the curves is to add irrelevant steps until it's just complex enough that you can't keep track of all the momentum exchanges/amounts, but still simple enough for you to think you are keeping track of them all, leaving you with the perception that one of the exchanges is unbalanced and the overall system can accelerate without ejecting mass. That tends to be the problem with any proposed reactionless drive. (How complex it needs to be before it confuses the proponent will vary, but the claimed impulse is always caused by them accidentally ignoring part of the reaction.)

[Iggyz]

The Twin Electromagnetic Thruster (fig. 1) consists of two vacuum cylinders with a 90-degree bend and a friction-less surface. Each of the cylinders contains an aluminum ball.

No-one has pointed out the specific issue with your device, just the general "ya canna break the laws of physics" principle.

The problem is that while you're focusing on the momentum transferred at the top of the device when the balls are stopped, you're ignoring where the momentum comes from to change the direction of the balls from horizontal to vertical. The horizontal deceleration cancels out the horizontal acceleration from magnet A or B, however the vertical component does not cancel out yet. (Nor is it cancelled out by the second pipe.) As the balls are curved from horizontal to vertical, the pipe gains an opposite vertical momentum (opposite the white arrow). That vertical momentum exactly matches and opposes the momentum transfer that happens at the top of the system when the balls are stopped by the magnets C or D. As a result, all the momentum exchanges cancels out internally, with no net external velocity. The device just vibrates back and forth.

Having two pipes/balls doesn't change this. It just makes it harder for you to follow.

In fact, the curve itself is entirely unnecessary. In terms of energy/momentum, the system is just a straight vertical pipe with a magnet at either end, bouncing a ball vertically back and forth. All you've done with the curves is to add irrelevant steps until it's just complex enough that you can't keep track of all the momentum exchanges/amounts, but still simple enough for you to think you are keeping track of them all, leaving you with the perception that one of the exchanges is unbalanced and the overall system can accelerate without ejecting mass. That tends to be the problem with any proposed reactionless drive. (How complex it needs to be before it confuses the proponent will vary, but the claimed impulse is always caused by them accidentally ignoring part of the reaction.)

Thank you for the feedback Paul451. If I understand you correctly the black arrows pointing out the directions in which the centrifugal forces pulling/pushing are incorrect. A pipe is pushed down the moment a ball leaves the curve and enters vertical part of the tube.

[Paul451]

A pipe is pushed down the moment a ball leaves the curve and enters vertical part of the tube.

No. The pipe starts to be pushed down when the ball starts to be pushed up. Equal and opposite reaction. Ie, as the curve pushes the ball, the ball pushes the curve in the opposite directions. So in order for the ball to be pushed up, the pipe must be pushed down by the same amount.

-- But -- you can treat the curve as if it's an instant reaction, rather than try to work out what's happening at any given instance. You know the momentum of the ball at the beginning and at the end, and so you know what the momentum change must be happening inside the curve (equal and opposite) and therefore to the pipe.

And it's often easier to picture if you separate the velocity/acceleration/momentum into vectors at right-angles to each other. Conveniently, in this case we can use the horizontal and vertical axis of the pipes themselves. So work out the ball's momentum as 1 unit horizontally or 1 unit vertically, and work out the change of momentum at the three sections where the ball's velocity changed (side magnet, curve, top magnet). Once you get your head around that, you can add in the second pipe and see how it doesn't really change anything.

I've tried to show it below, but BBCode tables are... not... good.

Momentum is an arbitrary 1 unit. Horizontal vector is right=positive/left=negative, vertical is up=positive/down=negative.

Starting with the left-hand pipe.

	Change to	the ball	Change to	the pipe	Current mom	entum of ball	Current mom	entum of pipe
Action	Horizontal	Vertical	Horizontal	Vertical	Horizontal	Vertical	Horizontal	Vertical
Initial momentum					0	0	0	0
Firing from magnet A	+1	0	-1	0	+1	0	-1	0
Curving up	-1	+1	+1	-1	0	+1	0	-1
Stopped by magnet C	0	-1	0	+1	0	0	0	0
Firing from magnet C	0	-1	0	+1	0	-1	0	+1
Curving left	-1	+1	+1	-1	-1	0	+1	0
Stopped by magnet A	+1	0	-1	0	0	0	0	0
Final momentum					0	0	0	0

So the pipe and ball start with zero momentum. They exchange momentum as they ball accelerates to the top, then at the top they both have zero momentum again. So the overall device/drive has zero velocity. Then the ball/pipe exchange momentum again as the ball is accelerated back to the bottom, then at the bottom they both have zero momentum. So again, the overall device/drive has zero velocity.

Once this makes sense (if it makes sense), you can add in the second pipe. I don't think it will display properly if I try to do it with a table. Too many columns.