We know that on the electromagnetic wave propagation path, the direction of electric field at a point changes periodically. If there is a charged object at the point also changes its charge property periodically with the same frequency, then the electric field force direction on the object will not change. Therefore, the object will do directional movement. Based on this, it is possible to design a spacecraft without propellant. And the calculation suggests that the thrust can be much higher than radiation pressure. With the Electromagnetic Momentum Conservation Equation, this paper also proves that in a limited space, momentum can be not conserved although it is still conserved in the whole universe.
Quote from: ZhixianLin on 12/11/2015 08:29 amWe know that on the electromagnetic wave propagation path, the direction of electric field at a point changes periodically. If there is a charged object at the point also changes its charge property periodically with the same frequency, then the electric field force direction on the object will not change. Therefore, the object will do directional movement. Based on this, it is possible to design a spacecraft without propellant. And the calculation suggests that the thrust can be much higher than radiation pressure. With the Electromagnetic Momentum Conservation Equation, this paper also proves that in a limited space, momentum can be not conserved although it is still conserved in the whole universe.Thank you for your contribution There are several issues for discussion on your report, for example, to pick one:If a force were to be produced, then work would be done when the electromagnetic engine moves in space (Work = Force * displacement). If the force is produced without energy radiation (or mass outflow), the work is performed without spending energy. Then, the proposed electromagnetic device would be a perpetual-motion machine.It is curious that proponents of propellant-less electromagnetic space propulsion that don't rely on external fields for propulsion, like electromagnetic tethers, etc., seem to avoid the consequence of their device being a perpetual motion machine. If the device is a perpetual motion machine, it could be used for energy purposes here on Earth, and such discussions (of using their electromagnetic self-accelerators for energy production on Earth instead of for transportation purposes) are avoided.
On the topic of conservation of momentum. I have a problem with what happens when two gases of different temperature mix. If you conserve kinetic energy, then the mixed gas has more potential momentum than both gases had previous to mixing,KE = ρ2/2Mass . For a gas the KE is potential directional momentum as it can be given direction by letting it go through an orifice such as a rocket nozzle. Attaching an example using Helium to avoid some complications if you use gases that have higher adiabatic indexes, not that I don't think it applies to all matter that are in the gaseous state of matter.
Quote from: Rodal on 12/18/2015 03:14 pmQuote from: ZhixianLin on 12/11/2015 08:29 amWe know that on the electromagnetic wave propagation path, the direction of electric field at a point changes periodically. If there is a charged object at the point also changes its charge property periodically with the same frequency, then the electric field force direction on the object will not change. Therefore, the object will do directional movement. Based on this, it is possible to design a spacecraft without propellant. And the calculation suggests that the thrust can be much higher than radiation pressure. With the Electromagnetic Momentum Conservation Equation, this paper also proves that in a limited space, momentum can be not conserved although it is still conserved in the whole universe.Thank you for your contribution There are several issues for discussion on your report, for example, to pick one:If a force were to be produced, then work would be done when the electromagnetic engine moves in space (Work = Force * displacement). If the force is produced without energy radiation (or mass outflow), the work is performed without spending energy. Then, the proposed electromagnetic device would be a perpetual-motion machine.It is curious that proponents of propellant-less electromagnetic space propulsion that don't rely on external fields for propulsion, like electromagnetic tethers, etc., seem to avoid the consequence of their device being a perpetual motion machine. If the device is a perpetual motion machine, it could be used for energy purposes here on Earth, and such discussions (of using their electromagnetic self-accelerators for energy production on Earth instead of for transportation purposes) are avoided.... unless electricity in > work out....I don't think that you are right that an electromagnetic drive is a perpetual motion device. If, for example, the QV receives energy, it is obvious why this is a nonconcern.
that don't rely on external fields for propulsion, like electromagnetic tethers, etc.,
you are not right
Pardon me Dr. Rodal? "I do not think you are right ... [content]" does not constitute me saying "You are not right." There is no more clear way to express an opinion than the preface "I do not think that." I genuinely question why you edited my quote and why you read my post in such a fashion, and the only inference that seems reasonable is that you have no interest in engaging with me.If you think an emdrive as conceived on this forum is a perpetual motion device, please explain to me the fashion in which you could extract energy from the following device, and assume it does not push against an external field. One has an emdrive that weighs 1kg and travels 1m over a table's surface when 1000000 watts is supplied to the antenna. (For reasons of simplicity, let's say that this is a burst of RF impulse, not constantly applied.) I think it becomes clear that a such-described drive does not constitute a perpetual motion schema in any case, until the power efficiency reaches a certain figure (that is, the point at which spent electrical energy exceeds the potential kinetic energy of the drive. Up until this point it is just in theory a momentum transfer.) So if I am wrong you should be able to point out why I am wrong under the confines of this thought experiment. I have a feeling you are about to tell me that there is no known method of converting electrical energy directly to kinetic potential-- which we both full well as adults understand-- which is not the debate at hand.The question is whether such a device that actually does so would constitute by definition a "perpetual energy machine." In this sense I hope I am wrong. No issues there. Feel free to tell me so if it is your opinion that's the case. That's how we have a dialogue right?
Quote from: oliverio on 12/18/2015 11:06 pmPardon me Dr. Rodal? "I do not think you are right ... [content]" does not constitute me saying "You are not right." There is no more clear way to express an opinion than the preface "I do not think that." I genuinely question why you edited my quote and why you read my post in such a fashion, and the only inference that seems reasonable is that you have no interest in engaging with me.If you think an emdrive as conceived on this forum is a perpetual motion device, please explain to me the fashion in which you could extract energy from the following device, and assume it does not push against an external field.One has an emdrive that weighs 1kg and travels 1m over a table's surface when 1000000 watts is supplied to the antenna. (For reasons of simplicity, let's say that this is a burst of RF impulse, not constantly applied.) I think it becomes clear that a such-described drive does not constitute a perpetual motion schema in any case, until the power efficiency reaches a certain figure (that is, the point at which spent electrical energy exceeds the potential kinetic energy of the drive. Up until this point it is just in theory a momentum transfer.) So if I am wrong you should be able to point out why I am wrong under the confines of this thought experiment. I have a feeling you are about to tell me that there is no known method of converting electrical energy directly to kinetic potential-- which we both full well as adults understand-- which is not the debate at hand.The question is whether such a device that actually does so would constitute by definition a "perpetual energy machine." In this sense I hope I am wrong. No issues there. Feel free to tell me so if it is your opinion that's the case. That's how we have a dialogue right?Oliveiro, don't you understand that this thread is about ZhixianLin's proposal ?Have you read ZhixianLin's paper?ZhixianLin's paper is NOT about the EM Drive, nor is my post about the EM Drive.
Pardon me Dr. Rodal? "I do not think you are right ... [content]" does not constitute me saying "You are not right." There is no more clear way to express an opinion than the preface "I do not think that." I genuinely question why you edited my quote and why you read my post in such a fashion, and the only inference that seems reasonable is that you have no interest in engaging with me.If you think an emdrive as conceived on this forum is a perpetual motion device, please explain to me the fashion in which you could extract energy from the following device, and assume it does not push against an external field.One has an emdrive that weighs 1kg and travels 1m over a table's surface when 1000000 watts is supplied to the antenna. (For reasons of simplicity, let's say that this is a burst of RF impulse, not constantly applied.) I think it becomes clear that a such-described drive does not constitute a perpetual motion schema in any case, until the power efficiency reaches a certain figure (that is, the point at which spent electrical energy exceeds the potential kinetic energy of the drive. Up until this point it is just in theory a momentum transfer.) So if I am wrong you should be able to point out why I am wrong under the confines of this thought experiment. I have a feeling you are about to tell me that there is no known method of converting electrical energy directly to kinetic potential-- which we both full well as adults understand-- which is not the debate at hand.The question is whether such a device that actually does so would constitute by definition a "perpetual energy machine." In this sense I hope I am wrong. No issues there. Feel free to tell me so if it is your opinion that's the case. That's how we have a dialogue right?
Quote from: Rodal on 12/18/2015 03:14 pmQuote from: ZhixianLin on 12/11/2015 08:29 amWe know that on the electromagnetic wave propagation path, the direction of electric field at a point changes periodically. If there is a charged object at the point also changes its charge property periodically with the same frequency, then the electric field force direction on the object will not change. Therefore, the object will do directional movement. Based on this, it is possible to design a spacecraft without propellant. And the calculation suggests that the thrust can be much higher than radiation pressure. With the Electromagnetic Momentum Conservation Equation, this paper also proves that in a limited space, momentum can be not conserved although it is still conserved in the whole universe.Thank you for your contribution There are several issues for discussion on your report, for example, to pick one:If a force were to be produced, then work would be done when the electromagnetic engine moves in space (Work = Force * displacement). If the force is produced without energy radiation (or mass outflow), the work is performed without spending energy. Then, the proposed electromagnetic device would be a perpetual-motion machine.It is curious that proponents of propellant-less electromagnetic space propulsion that don't rely on external fields for propulsion, like electromagnetic tethers, etc., seem to avoid the consequence of their device being a perpetual motion machine. If the device is a perpetual motion machine, it could be used for energy purposes here on Earth, and such discussions (of using their electromagnetic self-accelerators for energy production on Earth instead of for transportation purposes) are avoided.The energy has been output when the electromagnetic wave source emits electromagnetic wave. And the metal panel absorb energy from the electromagnetic wave. So it is not a perpetual motion machine, the energy is from the electromagnetic wave source.
Quote from: ZhixianLin on 12/19/2015 12:06 amQuote from: Rodal on 12/18/2015 03:14 pmQuote from: ZhixianLin on 12/11/2015 08:29 amWe know that on the electromagnetic wave propagation path, the direction of electric field at a point changes periodically. If there is a charged object at the point also changes its charge property periodically with the same frequency, then the electric field force direction on the object will not change. Therefore, the object will do directional movement. Based on this, it is possible to design a spacecraft without propellant. And the calculation suggests that the thrust can be much higher than radiation pressure. With the Electromagnetic Momentum Conservation Equation, this paper also proves that in a limited space, momentum can be not conserved although it is still conserved in the whole universe.Thank you for your contribution There are several issues for discussion on your report, for example, to pick one:If a force were to be produced, then work would be done when the electromagnetic engine moves in space (Work = Force * displacement). If the force is produced without energy radiation (or mass outflow), the work is performed without spending energy. Then, the proposed electromagnetic device would be a perpetual-motion machine.It is curious that proponents of propellant-less electromagnetic space propulsion that don't rely on external fields for propulsion, like electromagnetic tethers, etc., seem to avoid the consequence of their device being a perpetual motion machine. If the device is a perpetual motion machine, it could be used for energy purposes here on Earth, and such discussions (of using their electromagnetic self-accelerators for energy production on Earth instead of for transportation purposes) are avoided.The energy has been output when the electromagnetic wave source emits electromagnetic wave. And the metal panel absorb energy from the electromagnetic wave. So it is not a perpetual motion machine, the energy is from the electromagnetic wave source.To be explicit, and make transparent the energy conservation issue with your device, we need you to write down the expression that, according to your theory, relates:1) the resulting force from your drive to 2) the Power Input to your drive(I did not find such equation, or a discussion of energy conservation, in your paper).Thanks.
...You can find the equations in my paper.1) the resulting force from your driveThe equation (2-8) is the force2) the Power Input to your driveThe power input depends on E0 and I0, that is the power of electromagnetic wave source and inductive circuits connected with the metal panel. From the equation (2-8), we can see that if we do not changed E0 and I0, but only reduce the the angular frequency ω of electromagnetic wave, the force can also be increased. That means we do not need to increase the power of electromagnetic wave source and inductive circuits, but only reduce the frequency of electromagnetic wave, the force can also be increased.
Quote from: ZhixianLin on 12/19/2015 02:44 am...You can find the equations in my paper.1) the resulting force from your driveThe equation (2-8) is the force2) the Power Input to your driveThe power input depends on E0 and I0, that is the power of electromagnetic wave source and inductive circuits connected with the metal panel. From the equation (2-8), we can see that if we do not changed E0 and I0, but only reduce the the angular frequency ω of electromagnetic wave, the force can also be increased. That means we do not need to increase the power of electromagnetic wave source and inductive circuits, but only reduce the frequency of electromagnetic wave, the force can also be increased.So am I correct in interpreting your equation as stating, that for A) constant power input, and B) constant angular frequency ω of electromagnetic wave, your theory gives a constant force to the spaceship, and hence that for constant mass of the spaceship (since you propose a propellant-less device that does not ejects any mass), you are proposing that for constant power input, the spaceship will achieve constant acceleration ?
Quote from: Rodal on 12/19/2015 02:50 amQuote from: ZhixianLin on 12/19/2015 02:44 am...You can find the equations in my paper.1) the resulting force from your driveThe equation (2-8) is the force2) the Power Input to your driveThe power input depends on E0 and I0, that is the power of electromagnetic wave source and inductive circuits connected with the metal panel. From the equation (2-8), we can see that if we do not changed E0 and I0, but only reduce the the angular frequency ω of electromagnetic wave, the force can also be increased. That means we do not need to increase the power of electromagnetic wave source and inductive circuits, but only reduce the frequency of electromagnetic wave, the force can also be increased.So am I correct in interpreting your equation as stating, that for A) constant power input, and B) constant angular frequency ω of electromagnetic wave, your theory gives a constant force to the spaceship, and hence that for constant mass of the spaceship (since you propose a propellant-less device that does not ejects any mass), you are proposing that for constant power input, the spaceship will achieve constant acceleration ?Yes, if power and angular frequency ω of electromagnetic wave are both constant, the force should be constant.
Quote from: ZhixianLin on 12/19/2015 03:06 amQuote from: Rodal on 12/19/2015 02:50 amQuote from: ZhixianLin on 12/19/2015 02:44 am...You can find the equations in my paper.1) the resulting force from your driveThe equation (2-8) is the force2) the Power Input to your driveThe power input depends on E0 and I0, that is the power of electromagnetic wave source and inductive circuits connected with the metal panel. From the equation (2-8), we can see that if we do not changed E0 and I0, but only reduce the the angular frequency ω of electromagnetic wave, the force can also be increased. That means we do not need to increase the power of electromagnetic wave source and inductive circuits, but only reduce the frequency of electromagnetic wave, the force can also be increased.So am I correct in interpreting your equation as stating, that for A) constant power input, and B) constant angular frequency ω of electromagnetic wave, your theory gives a constant force to the spaceship, and hence that for constant mass of the spaceship (since you propose a propellant-less device that does not ejects any mass), you are proposing that for constant power input, the spaceship will achieve constant acceleration ?Yes, if power and angular frequency ω of electromagnetic wave are both constant, the force should be constant.The same way a generator produces constant "energy" with constant power input to the rotor, an electromagnetic drive should achieve constant "momentum" per constant power input. This should not even really be conceived of as acceleration, because acceleration is the thing that imparts momentum, not the same thing as momentum.
Quote from: Rodal on 12/19/2015 02:50 amQuote from: ZhixianLin on 12/19/2015 02:44 am...You can find the equations in my paper.1) the resulting force from your driveThe equation (2-8) is the force2) the Power Input to your driveThe power input depends on E0 and I0, that is the power of electromagnetic wave source and inductive circuits connected with the metal panel. From the equation (2-8), we can see that if we do not changed E0 and I0, but only reduce the the angular frequency ω of electromagnetic wave, the force can also be increased. That means we do not need to increase the power of electromagnetic wave source and inductive circuits, but only reduce the frequency of electromagnetic wave, the force can also be increased.So am I correct in interpreting your equation as stating, that for A) constant power input, and B) constant angular frequency ω of electromagnetic wave, your theory gives a constant force to the spaceship, and hence that for constant mass of the spaceship (since you propose a propellant-less device that does not ejects any mass), you are proposing that for constant power input, the spaceship will achieve constant acceleration ?If you're about to argue this creates a over unity, please explain how a photon rocket does not suffer from the same over unity.
If you're about to argue this creates a over unity, please explain how a photon rocket does not suffer from the same over unity.
