-
Action Without Reaction Symmetry For EM Space Propulsion Thruster technology. by leo vuyk on 15 Aug, 2017 14:14
-
see also: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319123343_Action_Without_Reaction_Symmetry_For_EM_Space_Propulsion_Thruster_technology
or: http://vixra.org/pdf/1708.0170v1.pdf
According to Quantum FFF model (Function Follows Form at the quantum level) the magnetic quantum field has always TWO different rigid string shaped monopole vector components: a North- and a South ( N+S) vector field component.
Two different monopole stringy particle are also suggested for the dual electric quantum field, equipped with Plus and Minus vector components.
Based on observation of iron filing-powder patterns close to direct currents in a wire, it is assumed that these monopole ( N+S) particle/ wave dualities travel only locally parallel to each other without a magnetic field effect inside the oscillating Axion-Higgs field.
This in contrast with the natural opposing curvature of the so called B field. .
As a result, the magnetic field strength- created by the wire itself-locally drops down to zero, with a up to zero reduced Lorentz force on the iron filing atoms.
As a consequence, this is in contradiction with Maxwell’s magnetic field formulas around an electric direct current wire and I call it the “tubular local magnetic dropping zone” ( dead zone) around the electric wire, which can be used for reaction less drive propulsion and Levitation in combination with different forms of tubular or spiral magnets.
Magnet optimization is suggested to form spiral configurations of high performance magnet plating with spiraling electric coils in between.
The Lorentz force created on the wire by the static magnetic field of the tubular or spiral magnet (s) is supposed to be the only force in the system, by the absence of a reaction force on the magnet due to the local magnetic dropping zone.
Three circular anti-Maxwell propulsion systems in triangle configuration, should be enough to create stable piloting and flight Experiments with coiled magnetized iron tubes has already shown this new physics reaction less propulsion effect.
-
#1 by Bob012345 on 15 Aug, 2017 18:07
-
I'm interested in the idea of electromagnetic based propellent-less propulsion however I looked at your paper and it's mainly an alternative theory of everything. It's too complicated and introduces far too many concepts to follow so I have no way to evaluate it. The paper should focus on what it says and not try to present an alternative view of all of physics. Also, I looked at your youtube video and only saw a slight swinging motion which doesn't suggest new physics.
If you have any compelling experimental data, just describe those experiments please. Thanks. -
#2 by leo vuyk on 16 Aug, 2017 07:23
-
Bobo: To understand my thruster, you need also understand my magnetic monopole theory.
Here I post an additional poster about the microcopic monopole field around the rigid propeller shaped Fermion with double spin.
To keep it short termed:
My monopole theory is based on the propeller geometry of fermions and derived geometry of photons as a dynamic collision product between the oscillating massless Axion-Higgs field and Fermions with double spin axes.
So, There is geometry and dynamics below there, and also multiverse particle guidance, but that comes later perhaps..
-
#3 by leo vuyk on 16 Aug, 2017 07:33
-
For a different lay out o my article, ( easier to read perhaps) see also: http://vixra.org/pdf/1708.0170v1.pdf
-
#4 by leo vuyk on 16 Aug, 2017 07:54
-
see also this one.
-
#5 by leo vuyk on 16 Aug, 2017 07:59
-
And this one.
-
#6 by meberbs on 16 Aug, 2017 15:07
-
First, you need to be aware that magnetic monopoles have never been detected, despite efforts to search for them. There are good theoretical reasons to expect them to exist, but there is currently no evidence for them.
You are throwing around a lot of terms like "propeller geometry of fermions" and "multiverse particle guidance" that sound like gibberish (talking about the shape of things that experiments all show as point particles). These phrases do not mean anything to anyone else, and using them without any attempt at an explanation makes it sound like you don't actually want to communicate, just to scare people off from actually thinking about what you are saying and just blindly agreeing with you because you used fancy words.
If you really want to be helpful, describe an experiment (as simple as possible) that would test your theory.
Beyond that, you appear to be proposing a new theory of everything, which means there is a boatload of existing physics you have to eventually show your theory as consistent with.
P.S. there is a "modify" button on posts, and 1 post can have multiple attachments, no need for 4 posts in a row. -
#7 by leo vuyk on 16 Aug, 2017 15:54
-
Mebebrs , Thanks for your advice. perhaps this poater will clear some uncertainty about the experimental set up. the steel tube is diameter: 28mm. the coppe caged magnets are diam 25mm.
-
#8 by Bob012345 on 16 Aug, 2017 16:01
-
Bobo: To understand my thruster, you need also understand my magnetic monopole theory.
Here I post an additional poster about the microcopic monopole field around the rigid propeller shaped Fermion with double spin.
To keep it short termed:
My monopole theory is based on the propeller geometry of fermions and derived geometry of photons as a dynamic collision product between the oscillating massless Axion-Higgs field and Fermions with double spin axes.
So, There is geometry and dynamics below there, and also multiverse particle guidance, but that comes later perhaps..
Sorry, I don't mean to be rude but your theory is a rabbit hole I just don't wish to crawl into. It's too complex, introduces too many concepts and the diagrams are impossible to follow. It would take months for me just to get familiar with your terminology and concepts. But if you have found a real EM thruster, I'm very interested so please show us the data. Thanks. -
#9 by meberbs on 16 Aug, 2017 17:04
-
Mebebrs , Thanks for your advice. perhaps this poater will clear some uncertainty about the experimental set up. the steel tube is diameter: 28mm. the coppe caged magnets are diam 25mm.
That really doesn't explain much of anything, other than that you are using magnets and electromagnets. -
#10 by leo vuyk on 16 Aug, 2017 19:26
-
As engineer, I am surely a stranger in your field
-
#11 by meberbs on 16 Aug, 2017 19:37
-
As engineer, I am surely a stranger in your field
My field is engineering. Engineering requires a lot of physics, so I have a good background there as well, but you have not provided explanations or descriptions sufficient for either perspective.