Propulsion by Cosmic Particle Deflection: A New Idea?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

This discussion explores the concept of using cosmic particle deflection as a means of propulsion for spacecraft. Participants consider the theoretical implications, potential mechanisms, and challenges associated with this idea, including its feasibility in interstellar space.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a spacecraft design utilizing a long magnet and a reflector to deflect charged cosmic particles, suggesting it could generate net thrust without the need for propellant.
  • Another participant argues that the proposed mechanism resembles a perpetual motion machine, asserting that it would require a biased magnet to direct particles in one direction, which is not feasible.
  • A later reply introduces the concept of a Bussard ramjet as a related idea, questioning whether the original proposal aligns with this established concept.
  • Another participant critiques the original idea, stating that while using cosmic rays for propulsion is not entirely impossible, the proposed design would not work effectively due to the random deflection of particles in multiple directions.
  • This participant suggests an alternative approach involving a spacecraft designed to absorb incoming particles and describes a complex mechanism that could theoretically produce a small amount of net thrust, although they emphasize that the forces involved would be negligible.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility of using cosmic particle deflection for propulsion. There is no consensus on the viability of the original proposal, with some participants challenging its assumptions and others suggesting alternative mechanisms.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the original proposal, including the dependence on the behavior of charged particles and the challenges of achieving a net thrust in practice. The complexity of the proposed mechanisms and the assumptions about particle interactions remain unresolved.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in theoretical propulsion methods, cosmic physics, and the challenges of spacecraft design may find this discussion relevant.

udtsith
Messages
53
Reaction score
1
What about the attached as a means of propulsion? It would be a spacecraft with a long magnet in the front. Attached on one side by boons the magnet would have a reflector/deflector or shield of some type e.g. aluminum. In interstellar space there would be charged cosmic particles moving in random directions. Given that charged particles are deflected perpendicularly to their trajectory, and per the right hand rule it would be in a uniform direction. So, would this generate net thrust for the spacecraft ? Obviously the benefits would seem to be many... such as not needing to take propellant, being shielded to some extent by radiation, and...hmmm not needing to bring your own energy? momentum would be conserved.
 

Attachments

  • spcraft.jpg
    spcraft.jpg
    14.7 KB · Views: 804
Physics news on Phys.org
Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...
 
What you propose, if possible, would be a perpetual motion machine. It can't work because it would require a biased/monopole magnet to only direct particles in one direction. There is no such thing.

Since we do not allow discussion of perpetual motion machines, this thread is closed. I recommend you peruse this site for more information on general concepts and explanations of similar unworkable devices (like the permanent magnet motor):

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Hoophy and berkeman
After extensive Mentor discussion, we believe that there are some important points that can be discussed about the OP's question. Thread is re-opened for those non-PMM discussions. :smile:
 
The flux of cosmic rays is tiny. While it is not completely impossible to use them to get some net force, a device as simple as your sketch doesn't work - for every particle deflected in one direction you would also have particles deflected in other directions. And if you try to stop those, you stop the other particles as well.Here is an extremely inefficient approach that generates net thrust: Make your spacecraft out of (ideal) material that absorbs all incoming particles that hit it anywhere. Have a single curved tunnel go through the spacecraft , with a uniform magnetic field parallel to the curvature vector, the magnetic flux return happens somewhere inside the spacecraft . The spacecraft absorbs radiation uniformly apart from two exceptions: (a) electrons with a specific velocity entering at one side, passing through the tunnel and getting deflected towards the center of curvature, and (b) ions entering at the other side with a type-dependent specific velocity, passing through the tunnel and getting deflected in the same way.

If the spacecraft is in a frame with isotropic flux, it produces a bit of net thrust: half of the momentum change in the tunnel (the other half is balancing the lack of absorbing particles coming from a particular direction).

If the spacecraft has some speed relative to the frame of isotropic flux already, then the absorption will slow the spacecraft , and the flux of particles going through the tunnel goes down a bit - the spacecraft has some limited maximal speed that depends on its geometry and details of the particle flux. Note that during the acceleration process, in the frame of isotropic flux, the spacecraft slows down some particles (those going through the tunnel) that fly in the direction of the spacecraft more than simple absorption would, which provides both energy and momentum.

The overall forces are completely negligible.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
933
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
7K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K