I Is it possible to "violate" momentum at the expense of more energy?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter gggnano
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Momentum
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the feasibility of creating unidirectional movement in a closed cylinder by applying force to a gas or solid ball, drawing parallels to the EmDrive concept. It questions whether continuous energy input can overcome momentum, suggesting that while theoretically possible, it may require increasingly more energy, making it impractical. The conversation highlights the limitations of momentum conservation, stating that any force applied will result in an equal and opposite reaction, maintaining the center of mass. Ultimately, the consensus leans toward the impossibility of achieving perpetual motion or effective propulsion with this method. The thread concludes with a note that discussions on EmDrive are prohibited in the forum.
gggnano
Messages
43
Reaction score
3
TL;DR Summary
Produce thrust in a closed chamber when the opposite momentum is compensated with more energy?
This is in fact a shamelessly simple question to a point the reason it puzzles me is because it's too simple:

So basically you have a closed empty/hollow cylinder filled with either gas or even an ordinary solid ball...and then on the left side of the cylinder you put a force on the "fuel" (gas/ball...) so that it moves to the other side and hits it producing movement. Now, since the ball will come back once it hits the right side then can you produce movement ONLY in one direction for as long as you increase the energy from the left side that pushes the ball?

In fact this idea is very similar to the "emdrive" concept:

http://nerdist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/EmDrive.jpg

Yet I am not sure if the "emdrive" design realizes they will need more and more energy to battle the bouncing wave so perpetuum mobile is impossible?

And if this is possible at tall then you may say it's useless since you need more and more energy to combat momentum yet notice how if you have strong amount of heat but limited amount of fuel this is very useful. For example: you can use million degrees hot nuclear reaction in a rocket but you cannot find fuel in the cosmos to recharge the rocket...well it's not easy...thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can do anything you want if you have a sufficient supply of ""s.

Other than that, from what I can parse, you might consider that "putting a force" on the inside component to make it go to the right will cause the outside component to go to the left. No matter what you do, the centre-of-mass stays in the same place.

(If I remember, correctly) the Em drive is supposed to use some abstract group property of EMR ; the illustration you've linked to simply shows a fancier version of what you've got... which doesn't work.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Ibix
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top