Does the Electromagnetic Space Drive Really Defy the Laws of Physics?

[SkepticJ]

This, unless I'm mistaken, violates conservation of momentum. Why then is research being done on it?: http://science.howstuffworks.com/electromagnetic-propulsion.htm

If it doesn't violate anything, and if it turns out to work, then how does it work exactly? I'm puzzled.

 

[Crosson]

This, unless I'm mistaken, violates conservation of momentum.

As far as they describe it in that article, I agree that it violates conservation of momentum.

 

[RonRyan85]

There is lots of talk about our chemical rockets being obsolete and
we need something better to take their place. There are: nuclear,
small electronic/plasma drives and what else? What do you think we
will someday use to get to Mars and beyond? (Too bad StarTreks space-
ship stardrives are not ready to use. What drives those mysterious
UFOs some people claim we have captured and are back engineering?)

 

[yourdadonapogostick]

ronryan85, ask bob lazar

 

[Mk]

There is lots of talk about our chemical rockets being obsolete and
we need something better to take their place. There are: nuclear,
small electronic/plasma drives and what else? What do you think we
will someday use to get to Mars and beyond? (Too bad StarTreks space-
ship stardrives are not ready to use. What drives those mysterious
UFOs some people claim we have captured and are back engineering?)

I wouldn't talk like that 'round these here parts part'ner.

And chemical rockets are NOT obsolete.

If you don't understand why, feel free to ask or comment and we will happily enlighten you. Not to fiercely of course.

 

[Kakarot]

that would be the gravitya wave and the gravityb wave of course

 

['anybody']

And chemical rockets are NOT obsolete.

If you don't understand why, feel free to ask or comment and we will happily enlighten you. Not to fiercely of course.

okay, I actually don't understand why they're not obsolete. chemical rockets have been used since the 1950's without much change, have they not? They burn thousands of pounds of fuel, require excessive disposal of materials, and at a high cost. Has nothing changed? Even commercial jet technology hasn't found much advancement. The only supersonic jet was based on 1960s and 1970s technology, and was retired because of maintenance costs.

I recently found a book that had photocopied patents in it describing what seemed to be human-invented UFO type drives and enclosures. One of them, as the author put it, was nothing short of a star-trek style impulse drive. I was and still am completely amazed. The book is called The UFO Technology Hacker's Manual. You can download the PDF. Could somebody please look over it and tell me what's wrong, and what I don't seem to get about this technology? I'm not well versed in physics, so I kind of need a bit of help, because I was convinced (of the technological ability), but everybody here seems the opposite...

and after you're done explaining what's wrong with the electromagnetic drives, I'd still like to know why chemical rockets aren't obsolete already. Thank you to whoever can manage to answer me - in simple terms...like I said, haven't taken physics yet, I just know what seems logical to me, and whatever I've been taught up till now (9th grade)

 

[Loren Booda]

The "non-steady state condition" hypothesized seems easy enough to construct and test. I would not be surprised if there exist several widely differing designs of propulsion that claim similar efficiencies in attaining near-light speed. Examples available now may include fission-driven engines.

Have you ever calculated the g-forces present when accelerating to near light speed over distances like those to the nearest stars? Do you know of the dangers a grain of dust presents when approaching c?

 

['anybody']

The "non-steady state condition" hypothesized seems easy enough to construct and test. I would not be surprised if there exist several widely differing designs of propulsion that claim similar efficiencies in attaining near-light speed. Examples available now may include fission-driven engines.

Have you ever calculated the g-forces present when accelerating to near light speed over distances like those to the nearest stars? Do you know of the dangers a grain of dust presents when approaching c?

The drive that the author said was his preference for a deep space drive, the Taylor engine, puts out about 29,900 kps, or 10%c. To compensate the G forces and magnetic fields, one of the patents contain a protective enclosure - patent # 5,269,482. Also, the fact that there is an atmosphere above Earth would restrict high speed travel within the atmosphere and a slow acceleration could help ease the G forces associated in deep space.

I think the one problem would be the strength of the hull plating, needing to withstand pieces of matter, such as grains of dust at high speed.

If I'm wrong (as I usually am), please correct me. Thank you