davenn said:
we have tried to explain to your that your idea won't work in the way you think it will, you won't listen
so it is REALLY difficult to reason with someone with a closed mind to reality
No you heaven't. You explained that something I never said or proposed wouldn't work, and I agree with you. You are absolutely correct, it's just that what your are refuting has nothing to do with my idea. You guys are literally pulling off a straw man argument after I said several times you got it wrong and now it's also ad hominem. I'm not closed to reality, I'm just struggling here to correctly translate my idea to you.
davenn said:
in opposite directions so that it will collide with the other side of the sphere that is inside of ... there is NO THRUST, no forward motion
I never said it's inside the sphere, it's outside of it. See? You are not really reading what I write. A permanent magnet is outside of the sphere (i stated this very clearly). And it
does generate thrust. Every time you have a need to mention cell towers and antenna, keep in mind my idea is very roughly about an EXTERNAL,
disconnected magnet.
davenn said:
unfortunately the full paper is behind a paywall
but good luck doing that outside a multi-million $$ lab
It's not behind a paywall, but you do have a reading and comprehension problem. Anyway, thank you, I appreciate the article.
Drakkith said:
I'm sorry but you cannot create an electromagnetic field from a spacecraft which then moves the spacecraft that generated it. Not without interacting, in some fashion, with an external object. Otherwise it would be a violation of conservation of momentum (in that you have generated net momentum in one direction without also generating momentum in the opposite). Given that you probably won't be near to any large objects in space, something must be directed opposite the direction the spacecraft travels. That's got to be either radiation, in which we already have several plausible propulsion options such as lasers/masers, or matter, such as a standard rocket engine or an ion engine.
OK, this is useful and way more in line with the proposed idea. I get this part with the conservation of momentum and I have to admit I hope(d) there might be some way to avoid this law, but it's unlikely there is some trick. Basically I'd be stuck with a very large gauss gun where I'd have to have a "bullet" which would be internally accelerated to some high velocity and then also detonate. That's not very elegant or safe :(
Nugatory said:
And by Newton's third law there would be an equal and opposite force on whatever was generating the field, you don't get any net thrust out of the system. To get thrust, you have to send something out the back.
This is not really a problem,
I'm just looking for the easiest way of what that something is. It was never my idea that this field appears magically out of the thin air. General idea is to have some sort of an electric drive that generates a useful force, unlike what ion engines can do. Sure, chemical stuff does way better, but I'm not interested in that.
Nugatory said:
You're working with electrical and magnetic fields, so that something is going to be electromagnetic radiation; one way or another, your drive is going to end up being some kind of antenna generating some kind of EM beam.
Sure, in the same sense that a solenoid inside a generator is an antenna, but unless it caused gamma ray bursts it would probably not be much of a problem.
Nugatory said:
You've mentioned magnetic and electric pulses several times. There's no such thing, only electromagnetic pulses. You can't have a sudden change (which is what a pulse is) in the electrical field without a corresponding change in the magnetic field, and vice versa. And an electromagnetic pulse is EM radiation, which is why everyone reading this thread is thinking on terms of EM radiation.
True, but everyone else here interpreted my words with cell tower EM and this is NOT what I meant. It's more in line with bar magnet and iron interaction. I really don't know how to make this clear to some people here. I do know that it's just electromagnetic field and the mentioned corresponding changes (basically LC circuit interaction), but practically there is some difference in having a van de graaf generator and a bar magnet.
Nidum said:
This is just another version of the man pulling himself up by his bootstraps concept .
It's not. I literally mentioned this several times, including in the original post where i mentioned for this reason specifically that the pulse generating device can't be connected to the cone. Brush up on your reading skills before quick judgments.