IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?

[George1]

Any opinions related to our theoretically and experimentally proved principle of operation of a reactionless drive?

[George1]

Any opinions, objections, recommendations or confirmations related to our theoretically and experimentally proved principle of operation of a reactionless drive?

[agor95]

What no electric heater in any of the posts and nothing to do with Bessler's Wheel.

Time to ignore I think.

All the best folks

[George1]

1) Why to ignore? Yes, the electric heater and the reactionless drive system are two different things. We are only trying to consider them simultaneously.
2) Besides the electric heater and the reactionless drive system are two non-standard conceptions that are not in accordance (for the present) with some official scientific postulates. And this forum as a whole is dedicated to non-standard technology conceptions of any kind (not only Bessler wheel), doesn't it?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

[George1]

Do you have any objections against our theoretically and experimentally proved principle of operation of a reactionless drive?
Looking for ward to your answer.
Regards,
George

[ME]

George1, just a question.

You mentioned the RF-resonant thruster (aka EmDrive) as an example of a reactionless drive.
Why would the EM-drive be reactionless?

Regards, Marchello E.

[Silvertiger]

ME the EM drive has no propellant fuel, and therefore no reactive mass, which in and of itself is a null and moot point since no such drive exists that works. :)

[ME]

That seems an issue of semantics.
It may technically not use "fuel", or be called "fuel", but it does need a power supply that either depletes or chemically recombines.
Fuel could be used to charge this power supply.

I actually wonder how George came up with the idea that it may relate to some zigzagging motion.

[Silvertiger]

In this case they're strictly limiting the term to define a liquid propellant that exchanges its mass in the form of combustion to produce thrust, which is based solely on the expulsion of mass, and it is the transfer of the momentum which produces the thrust in all rockets. A rocket must lose mass in order to move. Reactionless means it doesn't produce thrust via momentum exchange defined in N3.

[ME]

The definition of 'fuel' may be restricted but the EMDrive is not producing EM-waves out of nothing (though it looks like a hat)
A power source is still required and thus depletes so it's not a PMM when it "fuels" the magnetron.
The major benefit of course is that it can be replenished easily when it arrives at a new Star.

If it can really get there is another question.
Let's say it could then I don't see how it would be reactionless.
The motion is either a reaction to created and expelled virtual particles, or to riding a wave that it needs to continuously uphold, or to leaked EM that's used as thrust, or to the heated chamber where the back area radiates the most infrared, or...

I must admit that with the little I can grasp I already fail to understand how it could maintain a standing wave in a locally stationary chamber while producing a constant Doppler shift and not lose photons to the side walls each time it lowers in frequency (and thus energy, and thus momentum).
So actually I think that when it's losing energy anyway and there's less of it at the front then why not shape the cavity as a parabolic reflector and push all the EM straight back without complicated losses. Could even be modulated while it's doing that.

Perhaps not exactly what Newton had in mind while drafting his laws.
And while it may be new and odorless, Newton didn't think-up solar-sails either. And the working principle is N3 too.

But how do we even start to compare that quantum-EM-puzzle to George's mechanism that goes on a wibbly-wobbly-rails?

[Silvertiger]

It's considered reactionless because photons have no mass; only objects that have mass can satisfy N3 for an "equal and opposite reaction." As far as comparing that to the wibbly wobbly concept, I don't have a clue, unless he somehow manages to violate N3 and transfer momentum with an unequal exchange of mv...plus, the em drive doesn't work anyways lol, at least not yet...and mostly because of N3, because for now, mass must be expelled for propulsion in space. If there was a way for his concept to transfer momentum from one mass to another, extract mechanical energy for work, AND manage to have the same amount of mv returned in tbe exchange, THEN the comparison could be made, and N3 would be violated.

[George1]

Please have a look at https://overunity.com/17817/is-this-a-r ... 40751/#new. This is the last today's post of 03:12:26 PM.

[George1]

Hi guys,
Actually I am also not very familiar with the THEORETICAL principle of operation of the EmDrive as it is much different from the zigzag conception. If somebody is familiar with the theoretical principle of operation of the EmDrive, then I would like to ask him/her to explain it to us in a simple and understandable manner.
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

[Silvertiger]

George1 You have a gun. You fire it. It recoils. Why? Because momentum was transferred between the bullet and the gun by the propellant of gun powder, which provided the thrust for the bullet. The equation for momentum is mass times velocity; P=mv. Now, we have something called the law of conservation of momentum, which states that the net exchange must cancel. So with the gun and the bullet, the exchange of momentum can be expressed simply by "Mv=mV," where you have a big mass (the gun) traveling at a very small velocity (the recoil), and a very small mass (the bullet) traveling at a very high velocity.

If a gun were "reactionless," there would be no exchange of momentum, and so there would be no recoil...which is not possible. The people who believe that a reactionless drive is a possibility are in for an exercise in futility. If I put you in space without propulsion, you would be stranded, and unable to go anywhere. You would have to actually throw something in the opposite direction of the direction you want to go - and that is what Newton's third law is: for every action, there is a reaction in the opposite direction. This is what propulsion is in space, the expulsion of propellant (like throwing something) mass in order to move.

The EM Drive assumes that a net difference in unequal emissions of coherent radiation in opposite directions will produce a net thrust (force). However, radiation is nothing but photons, which are energized quanta that have NO mass, and therefore cannot "push" anything whatsoever. This is why such a drive will NEVER work.

Yes, photons have momentum, but their momentum is based on a field of charge rather than mass. For example, photons have less momentum at lower frequencies than they do at higher ones. As an exception to the rule, photons can move something with solar sails, but it takes the radiation of the Sun to do it (which is an entire discussion in and of itself). So even if an EM Drive produced a net force, it would be so tiny that it couldn't even be used to move a paperclip, much less a spacecraft! :)

[ME]

Actually I am also not very familiar with the THEORETICAL principle of operation of the EmDrive as it is much different from the zigzag conception.

George, it was your own proposed similarity.

A similar phenomenon is the so
called EmDrive propulsion system
please look at emdrive.com) invented by
Roger Shawyer. The EmDrive machine also
breaks the law of conservation of linear
momentum.

So even if an EM Drive produced a net force, it would be so tiny that it couldn't even be used to move a paperclip, much less a spacecraft!

I don't think the EM-drive (in it's core concept) is reactionless either. But when it would be reactionless then it doesn't really matter how little to still be a major discovery.
The same counts for perpetual motion. As long as a machine is able to continuously overcome friction and perpetuate all by itself then it's also a discovery of a phenomenon considered impossible.

The enormous benefit of electro-magnetic propulsion is that it can be recharged (fuel up) easily with a solar panel when it arrives at a new star. At least it doesn't have to scout for squashed dead dinosaurs and plants first.

Photon thrust example. As it is, because the shown source is still (unfortunately!) separated from the 'vehicle' and fixed in space the current result is shown to be twice as high. It ain't much yet, but it is a start.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QICCrlmBjvY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzLEK8Zq7Pk