Electromagnetic Space Drive

In summary, according to this article, research is being done on an electromagnetic propulsion system that may violate conservation of momentum. If it turns out to work, it would be a better option than chemical rockets because it doesn't require excessive disposal and has a shorter travel time.
  • #1
SkepticJ
244
1
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
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.
 
  • #3
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?)
 
  • #4
ronryan85, ask bob lazar
 
  • #5
RonRyan85 said:
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.
 
  • #6
that would be the gravitya wave and the gravityb wave of course
 
  • #7
Mk said:
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)
 
  • #8
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?
 
  • #9
Loren Booda said:
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
 

1. How does an Electromagnetic Space Drive work?

The Electromagnetic Space Drive, also known as an EM drive, works by using microwave radiation to create thrust. This thrust is created by bouncing microwaves back and forth inside a closed chamber, causing a difference in radiation pressure that propels the drive forward.

2. What are the potential applications of an Electromagnetic Space Drive?

An Electromagnetic Space Drive could potentially be used for long-distance space travel, as it does not require traditional fuel sources and could continuously generate thrust. It could also be used for satellite propulsion and in deep space missions.

3. What makes the Electromagnetic Space Drive different from other propulsion systems?

The main difference between an Electromagnetic Space Drive and other propulsion systems is that it does not require any propellant to generate thrust. This sets it apart from traditional chemical rockets and even ion thrusters, which rely on fuel sources.

4. Is the Electromagnetic Space Drive a feasible technology?

While there have been successful tests and demonstrations of the Electromagnetic Space Drive, its feasibility is still a topic of debate among scientists. Some argue that it goes against the laws of physics, while others believe that it could be a revolutionary propulsion system.

5. What are the potential challenges of using an Electromagnetic Space Drive?

One potential challenge of using an Electromagnetic Space Drive is its low thrust-to-weight ratio, meaning it may not be able to produce enough thrust to support larger spacecraft. There are also concerns about the reliability and longevity of the drive's components in harsh environments of space. Additionally, more research and testing is needed to fully understand the technology and its potential impact on space travel.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
980
Replies
22
Views
1K
Replies
61
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
869
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
820
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
17
Views
1K
Back
Top