Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Professor Mega-Mind on 08/11/2018 01:49:51

Title: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 08/11/2018 01:49:51
Are Reactionless Drives really , physically possible ?  Argument is put forth here that , contrary to popular belief , they actually , genuinely are .  Though the engineering of Norman Dean proved fruitless , the equivalence principle of Albert Einstein  (E=MC2) made the possibility of producing thrust through uni-directional elimination/conversion of energy a credible concept .  As with airplanes , what once seemed absurd is now most definitely possible .
Pro and con views welcome .
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: wolfekeeper on 08/11/2018 02:56:48
Nope. They violate both conservation of energy and conservation of momentum. If you could build them, then you have created a potentially infinite power source.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 08/11/2018 04:52:11
..............Drifting in space .
Let me postulate a possible exception , the man in a box (drifting in space) .
Picture , if you will , a large steel box , floating in space .  In the middle stands an astronaut .  In his right hand he holds a 20lb sandbag , in his left a 20lb steel ball .  When his timer dings , he throws both objects at the opposing walls .  The sandbag hits the right wall , goes "splat" , deposits %55 of it's kinetic energy into the wall , %45 into friction heat , then slowly drifts back to the 'stronut .  The steel ball bounces off the left wall , deposit-ing %2 of it's kinetic energy into the wall , and reversing it's flight with %98 of it's initial kinetic energy intact .  It then strikes a sandbag mounted on the right wall , depositing %55 of that %98 KE into the right wall .  It then drifts back to the "stronut" . Of all the energy he mustered for his simultaneous throws , only %1 went into pushing the left wall , ~%55 went into pushing the right wall , the rest became omni-directional waste heat .  The result is that the box slowly drifts to the right , without ejecting any reaction mass .  Repeating the process would result in a small rate of acceleration .  This would definitely qualify as a reactionless drive .
A repetitive motion system , losing some of it's kinetic energy uni-directionally , experiences an effective "push" from the remaining  kinetic energy .  Energy conversion is the key .  E=MC2 is proven out .  Long live the "Epstein Drive" !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/11/2018 20:25:16
Have you considered  doing some study, rather than posting stuff that doesn't work?
Let's start by considering the steel ball.
You throw it at the wall and it bounces off.
Let's make the arithmetic easy.
The ball has a mass of 1Kg and you throw it at 1 m/s
And let's assume that the rest of the apparatus has a total mass (including you) of 100 Kg.

And, you specified that it  keeps 98% of its  energy.
To a good approximation, if it loses 2% of its kinetic energy then it loses 1% of its velocity.

Also, let's start with the whole rig not moving (from our PoV)

You throw the ball.
The laws of physics say that momentum is conserved. The ball goes one way, you go the other. (You may remember that you didn't understand why I suggested you thought about standing on a skateboard and throwing a heavy bag)

(For the minute, I'm ignoring the fact that you throw a sandbag the other way. I will come back to that.)
The next thing we need to consider is whether or not your feet slip. (again, I will come back to this)
For the sake of making things easy, we can assume that you are wearing magnetic boots or something, so you are stuck to the "floor" of the box.

So, when you throw the ball it goes one way, and you go the other (and you drag the box with you).
We can calculate how fast you + the box move from the conservation of momentum.
The system starts from zero velocity and thus a total of zero momentum
The ball gets +1  Kgm/s of momentum. So the box + you must get a momentum of -1Kgm/s so that the sum is still zero.
And, if you and the box weigh 100 Kg then your velocity must be 1/100 m/s.

You are now drifting slowly to one side and the ball is moving to the other.

This continues until the ball hits the wall of the box.
It rebounds.
It had a momentum of 1 kgm/s and it finished going the other way at 99% of the  original speed.so it now has -0.99 Kgm/s
So the change in momentum is 1.99 Kgm/s
And, again, momentum is conserved so, if the ball's momentum changes by 1.99 Kgm/s  then the box must also change by the same amount (but in the opposite direction.)
So the 100 Kg box must have a change of velocity of 1.99/100 Kgm/s
Previously, it was drifting at 1/100 m/s
It's now drifting in the opposite direction at (1.99-1)/100 m/s i.e. 0.99/100 m/s

Imagine you decide to catch the ball.
It currently with a momentum of -0.99 kgm/s and it ends (from your PoV) with a momentum of zero.

So it must transfer -0.99 Kgm/s of momentum to you + the box. And that's exactly the same momentum that you + the box had- but in the opposite direction
So. after that the box+ you + the ball have zero momentum.
You end up not moving

The same would be true if the velocity change was some other fraction, rather than 99%
So, for example, your sandbag wastes 45% of the energy as heat.
So it keeps 55% as KE.
So the velocity must fall to about 74% of the original velocity.
So, you can repeat exactly the same calculation as I did before but replace every instance of .99 with .74
And, in the end you will get the same outcome; when you catch the bag after it bounces, all the momentum changes cancel out and the overall effect is zero.

So it doesn't matter if you throw the two things in opposite directions at the same time- neither of them "knows" about the other, so they can't change their behaviour because of the other throw.
The only difference it makes is we no longer need to fix your feet to the floor.

You don't seem to understand that momentum is conserved, even when energy is lost as heat.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 08/11/2018 21:47:12
Your entire Oedapis Rex up there is badly flawed .  It's missing the counter-throw designed to obviate that very problem .  Use the complete architecture , and the stro-nut stays put .  Everything then works as I claimed .
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/11/2018 21:49:27
Your entire Oedapis Rex up there is badly flawed .  It's missing the counter-throw designed to obviate that very problem .  Use the complete architecture , and the stro-nut stays put .  Everything then works as I claimed .
P.M.

No, it doesn't, but if you want to show that I'm wrong....
Show your working.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 09/11/2018 00:45:46
Personally , I've got a room in my head .  If you need to see these things physically , google up free-piston or opposed-cylinder engines , and study the forces they produce .
......P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/11/2018 07:21:06
Show your working.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 09/11/2018 16:00:51
................Gloating Time !
Wikipedia once again !
Look up "Opposed Cylinder Engine"
or Kontra Engine by Karl Benz .
Specifically designed to cancel out opposing forces within the engine .  This is why it is the preferred engine for general aviation .  Can't have our airplanes getting pushed sideways , now can we ?
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/11/2018 19:17:53
Show YOUR working.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 09/11/2018 20:47:47
I'm letting Karl Benz speak for me right now , since my engine would fundamentally be along the lines of his .
P.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 09/11/2018 23:38:06
I'm letting Karl Benz speak for me right now , since my engine would fundamentally be along the lines of his .
P.

His engine doesn't violate conservation of momentum, so if he's "speaking" for you, it's to say that your idea doesn't work.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/11/2018 23:41:57
since my engine would fundamentally be along the lines of his .
No, it is not.

Please show YOUR working
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 10/11/2018 01:06:51
Just refer to "Reactionless Drives Possible ?" dated today at 2000hr .
P.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 10/11/2018 02:37:40
Excuza !
Go to "Best Spaceship Design" , dated 11/9/18 at 2000 hrs .
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 10/11/2018 20:46:52
......Perfectly Inelastic Collision.
www.tutorvista.com/physics/basic-laws-of-physics
 Here is a top-notch breakdown of the physics processes involved .  It makes clear how the opposing impacts can be radically different in kinetic energy transfer (impact) .
Unequal impacts = push/thrust .
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/11/2018 21:03:31
Excuza !
Go to "Best Spaceship Design" , dated 11/9/18 at 2000 hrs .
P.M.
Why?
What would be the point ain looking at your nonsense there?


......Perfectly Inelastic Collision.
www.tutorvista.com/physics/basic-laws-of-physics
 Here is a top-notch breakdown of the physics processes involved .  It makes clear how the opposing impacts can be radically different in kinetic energy transfer (impact) .
Unequal impacts = push/thrust .
P.M.
You seem not to grasp the fact that you are arguing with a bunch of people who could have written a better web page than that.

We know this stuff.
That's why we know you are talking nonsense.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 10/11/2018 21:20:35
I haven't seen anything impressive yet , just undo criticism of an impressive idea !  It's a simple matter of kinetic energy transfer , which I already broke down .  I have NOT seen any numerical rebuttal yet ! 
Impress me and I'll eat my hat !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 10/11/2018 21:50:27
I have NOT seen any numerical rebuttal yet ! 

You are shifting the burden of proof.

It's not up to your detractors to prove you wrong, it's up to you to prove yourself right. This is why we continually ask you to show momentum calculations.

......Perfectly Inelastic Collision.
www.tutorvista.com/physics/basic-laws-of-physics
 Here is a top-notch breakdown of the physics processes involved .  It makes clear how the opposing impacts can be radically different in kinetic energy transfer (impact) .
Unequal impacts = push/thrust .
P.M.

Ironic that your posted website has the following statement written on it as a law of physics:

Quote
3) Newton's third law of motion
Newton's third law tells that, every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/11/2018 21:59:04
I haven't seen anything impressive yet
Yes you have.
I provided one.
You didn't understand it, but that's hardly my fault.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/11/2018 22:01:12
It's a simple matter of kinetic energy transfer , which I already broke down . 
No.
It does not matter how many times you say that, it will not be true.
You need to do the momentum calculation.
A ship can lose energy to the rest of the universe by radiating heat.
It can't lose momentum without something to push.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 11/11/2018 01:21:24
Momentum = Mass Velocity .
Two ships are inside a giant box , they launch from opposite sides , tethered to giant reels .  Before they collide , the reel-drags activate , bringing the ships to a halt .  Their momentum drops to zero , the box never had any .  Where the bleep did the momentum go !? Come on , I know you got this !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 11/11/2018 01:37:34
Momentum = Mass Velocity .
Two ships are inside a giant box , they launch from opposite sides , tethered to giant reels .  Before they collide , the reel-drags activate , bringing the ships to a halt .  Their momentum drops to zero , the box never had any .  Where the bleep did the momentum go !? Come on , I know you got this !
P.M.

Assuming that your two ships were identical to each other, then the entire box-ship system had zero momentum throughout your entire scenario. Each individual ship has momentum when considered in isolation, but the fact that they are traveling in opposite directions from each other means that they cancel each other's momentum contribution out from the viewpoint of the entire system. Momentum is a vector quantity: it has both magnitude and direction. The momentum of this system was zero from the beginning to the end.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 11/11/2018 03:30:27
So NOW the overall system is the point ! 
Haha !
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 11/11/2018 03:43:03
So NOW the overall system is the point ! 
Haha !

It always was.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2018 09:43:17
Where the bleep did the momentum go !?
Wrong question.
Where did it come from?
The ship moved forward because its propellers  pushed the water backwards.
That water pushed on the big box.
And the momentum of the water + box + ship system never changed.

But, if there was just 1ship in the box and you were watching carefully from the outside, you would see the box move one way when the ship moved the other way.
Then, when the ship stopped- because it dropped anchor, or the rope went taught or even it just shut off the engines + coasted to a halt; the momentum would be transferred back to the box+ship+water system.
And the box, as viewed from the outside would stop moving.

The box would have moved slightly (in the opposite direction to the ship).
The centre of gravity of the whole system would have stayed still throughout the process.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 11/11/2018 12:19:08
"It can't lose momentum without something to push ." Your words .
My words : The space-ship's momentum was transferred into additional momentum of the elec-trons , atoms , and molecules , of the reel-drag mechanism .  Heat stores a LOT of energy , that is why a little fuel goes such a long way . 
"Hey Rocky , watch me pull some momentum out of my hat !" .
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2018 12:24:54
My words : The space-ship's momentum was transferred into additional momentum of the elec-trons , atoms , and molecules , of the reel-drag mechanism .  Heat stores a LOT of energy , that is why a little fuel goes such a long way . 

You really need to get to grips with the idea that energy doesn't have a direction but momentum does.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 11/11/2018 12:49:04
That one direction becomes many directions when the object's momentum is transferred to a multitude of electrons .  Heat is normally omni-directional .
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2018 13:23:34
That one direction becomes many directions when the object's momentum is transferred to a multitude of electrons . 
How?
In every single collision of every atom or electron momentum is conserved- essentially if the impact came in from the left, there's no way to stop it being unsymmetrical.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 11/11/2018 13:47:48
It is not so simple on the atomic level .  The shock of impact causes vibrations and shock waves to propagate back and forth throughout the material .  The components of the material may also shift around , rearranging their directional orientations in the process .  Lastly , electrons in an electron shell act more like a trapped wave , than a circling particle .  They do not preserve directionality the way a free electron does .  This is why when you apply  a disc brake , the resulting heat is omni-directional .
P.M.   
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2018 14:43:30
They do not preserve directionality the way a free electron does . 
Yes they do.
Because, at every single stage, momentum is conserved.
You still insist on muddling energy (which is dissipated) and momentum (which isn't- leading to you going over the handlebars if your bike stops suddenly).

All you did then was patronisingly try to say that you are right because you are right.

That's not going to work on a  science web page.
You need to admit that you are incapable of doing the maths.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 11/11/2018 18:48:18
Your Humble-Pie awaits at "What is the best..." .
Also , they're just different descriptors .  Kinetic energy is simpler to phrase , as in KE=MV .
Calculators , get used to them !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2018 20:46:00
Also , they're just different descriptors
No. They are fundamentally different things- as I already explained. Momentum has a direction; energy does not.
Your Humble-Pie awaits at "What is the best..." .
I didn't see any.
I just saw you showing that you can't do high school maths.
Calculators , get used to them !

Unlike you, I am well enough used to them to recognise that they don't really do mathematics.
They do arithmetic.
So, once again,
please show us your calculations of the momentum transfers in the scenario you put forward.

Also, don't waste time posting anything else.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 11/11/2018 21:54:36
Time for YOU to vacate , since you keep begging me to .  Your arguments have NOT disproven MY process , only misrepresented certain parts of it . Your H.S. math has been based on these mis-representations , while mine is based upon obvious , rock-solid , "Arithmetic" .  It's kind of hard to deny that 2 + 2 = 4 , now isn't it ?  To the readers out there , I say "Dive right in and do it yourselves , just use the straght-forward process AND math I've laid out , and you should get observable results .  Ignore the negatives and their smokescreens , and you should be good to go !
P.M.
P.S.- I work Sundays !
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2018 22:10:49
It's kind of hard to deny that 2 + 2 = 4 , now isn't it ? 
Nobody sought to do that.
However if someone asks you "what do you get if you multiply 3 by 4?" and you reply
"2+2=4 ", you have sill given the wrong answer.

It's not that you get the arithmetic wrong. It is that you are doing the wrong arithmetic.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 11/11/2018 22:33:14
Well , be that as it may , 99MJ still outweighs 1MJ any day of the week .  I stand by that fundamental logic , especially since no one has debunked my actual design .  I've been researching it for enough years !  I'm a good sport though , and am willing to entertain others presumptions and beliefs , as long as they don't  bite at me too hard !
P.M.
Note - I consider the "vacate" talk a form of running away .
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 11/11/2018 23:10:07
Kinetic energy is simpler to phrase , as in KE=MV .

That is not the correct equation for calculating kinetic energy. The correct equation is KE = (1/2)mv2. The equations for momentum and kinetic energy are not synonymous.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 11/11/2018 23:37:22
I said the full equation earlier , that's just the idea , which by the way , I stated for the easy understanding of the uninformed !
P.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 12/11/2018 01:27:38
I stated for the easy understanding of the uninformed !

Which means you told them the wrong thing.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 12/11/2018 01:32:58
The basic idea of energy content depending on mass and speed is correct .
P.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 12/11/2018 01:58:41
The basic idea of energy content depending on mass and speed is correct .
P.

Stating it as mass multiplied by velocity, however, is incorrect and should therefore never be stated in that way.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/11/2018 20:02:18
Note - I consider the "vacate" talk a form of running away .
We didn't so much ask you to g. we asked you to come back... when you had time to post something useful.

I stand by that fundamental logic ,
Fine. Go and apply it to the question I keep asking in the other thread.

I stated for the easy understanding of the uninformed !
Is that self referential, or is there some group who you wish to remain uninformed or what?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: alancalverd on 13/11/2018 20:55:14
Momentum is a vector. Energy is not. Momentum is conserved.You need to alter the momentum of an object to make it move. You can't do this by jumping around inside it.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/11/2018 22:19:41
..............Drifting in space .
Let me postulate a possible exception , the man in a box (drifting in space) .
Picture , if you will , a large steel box , floating in space .  In the middle stands an astronaut .  In his right hand he holds a 20lb sandbag , in his left a 20lb steel ball .  When his timer dings , he throws both objects at the opposing walls .  The sandbag hits the right wall , goes "splat" , deposits %55 of it's kinetic energy into the wall , %45 into friction heat , then slowly drifts back to the 'stronut .  The steel ball bounces off the left wall , deposit-ing %2 of it's kinetic energy into the wall , and reversing it's flight with %98 of it's initial kinetic energy intact .  It then strikes a sandbag mounted on the right wall , depositing %55 of that %98 KE into the right wall .  It then drifts back to the "stronut" . Of all the energy he mustered for his simultaneous throws , only %1 went into pushing the left wall , ~%55 went into pushing the right wall , the rest became omni-directional waste heat .  The result is that the box slowly drifts to the right , without ejecting any reaction mass .  Repeating the process would result in a small rate of acceleration .  This would definitely qualify as a reactionless drive .
A repetitive motion system , losing some of it's kinetic energy uni-directionally , experiences an effective "push" from the remaining  kinetic energy .  Energy conversion is the key .  E=MC2 is proven out .  Long live the "Epstein Drive" !
P.M.
OK, in the other thread you can now see the calculation which shows that an elastic collision transfers more  momentum than an inelastic one.

So this idea of the OP's is dead because it relies on "Of all the energy he mustered for his simultaneous throws , only %1 went into pushing the left wall , ~%55 went into pushing the right wall , " when the push against the left wall is actually stronger than the push against the right.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 13/11/2018 22:34:00
Aaargh , my diaghram's still sore from the last yuck-fest !  Incredible how 1% becomes greater than 55% with your math , think I'll stick with 2 + 2 = 4 .  It works for me !
P.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/11/2018 22:55:40
Aaargh , my diaghram's still sore from the last yuck-fest !  Incredible how 1% becomes greater than 55% with your math , think I'll stick with 2 + 2 = 4 .  It works for me !
P.
Thanks for clarifying that you find actual physics "Incredible".
That's why you get stuff utterly wrong.

You really need to either find out the difference between momentum and energy or stop posting about things where that difference matters.

(BTW, have you noticed that none of the grown-ups agrees with you?)
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 14/11/2018 00:20:52
The established Massive Wall effects are not my creation .  I'm thinking you are confusing a fast reflection for a heavy one .
P.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/11/2018 07:27:10
The established Massive Wall effects are not my creation
Nobody said they were.
It's just that you don't know how to use them correctly.


I'm thinking you are confusing a fast reflection for a heavy one .
There is no difference.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 14/11/2018 17:07:15
Doode ,
Your own formulas tell you that very hard ( glass ) objects rebound from a massive-plate with ~90% of their initial kinetic energy !  Trying to confuse , with scrambled-up exponential equations , does not change the fundamental kinetic energy imbalance !  Lets take a glass ball : K.E. after rebound=90%.
Now Bean Bag : .002 freakin' % !
Even a daft wank_r can tell that the beanbag put a helluva hit on the wall , while the glass ball reflected back with little energy exchange !  BY THE BOOK , the 55%/45% split in K.E. means that 55 was transferred to the Massive Plate when they "bonded" , 45 became "molecular" momentum  ( heat ) , in that process .  Said heat is then radiated to the universe as EMR (photons) , with neglegible effect upon the momentum of anything ! 
 It's time to stop screaming " I do formulas better than you ! " , and acknowledge the creative-mechanical genius which birthed this triumph ! 
OK , 90% humbles .002% hugely !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/11/2018 20:05:13
rying to confuse , with scrambled-up exponential equations ,
None of the equations contains any exponential function.
Your own formulas tell you that very hard ( glass ) objects rebound from a massive-plate
They don't say anything about hardness.
ven a daft wank_r can tell that the beanbag put a helluva hit on the wall ,
Yes, but a clever one knows that , if the ball and the beanbag started with the same momentum (same mass, same speed) te ball transfers more momentum to the wall than the bag does.

I realise you can't understand this but it's a standard result in physics (and you even know about and accept it for photons), so you really should learn to accept it.

Transfer of momentum and transfer of heat are independent processes, so all this stuff is just dross.
.
BY THE BOOK , the 55%/45% split in K.E. means that 55 was transferred to the Massive Plate when they "bonded" , 45 became "molecular" momentum  ( heat ) , in that process .  Said heat is then radiated to the universe as EMR (photons) , with neglegible effect upon the momentum of anything ! 
 It's time to stop screaming " I do formulas better than you ! " , and acknowledge the creative-mechanical genius which birthed this triumph ! 
OK , 90% humbles .002% hugely !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 15/11/2018 21:48:55
Howdy ,
 P=mv also prove me out !  It says that if the hard ( glass , steel , etc. ) ball bounces back at 90% of the striking speed , then it retains 90% of it's starting MOMENTUM !  That only leaves 10% to be transferred to the Massive Plate !  The soft beanbag,  however , transfers ~70% of it's momentum to the Massive Plate .  This is because it has a much longer contact time , spread out over a much larger contact area .  This means it gives a much more extensive push to the wall overall , transferring much more momentum and kinetic energy in the process . 
 You need to drop the photon physics for this , and use a Table of Coefficient of Restitution for different materials .  That will back up my Reply#49 , and highlight the difference between lightwave reflection, and bulk matter rebound .  Right now , all I'm hearing is a Scottie dog yipping out a bunch of put-downs, and misrepresentations !  Stop misleading the readers , and use honest reasoning and basic math to make your points ! Fingers stuck in ears , while head shakes violently , and mouth spews nah-nah-nah-nah , does not impress anyone .  Neither does pretending that you've somehow "won" your argument , it just looks "jejeune" !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 15/11/2018 22:03:00
It says that if the hard ( glass , steel , etc. ) ball bounces back at 90% of the striking speed , then it retains 90% of it's starting MOMENTUM !

90% of its starting speed? I thought you said that it bounces back with 90% of its kinetic energy? Velocity and kinetic energy are not the same thing nor do they change at the same rate.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/11/2018 22:04:01
P=mv also prove me out !  It says that if the hard ( glass , steel , etc. ) ball bounces back at 90% of the striking speed , then it retains 90% of it's starting MOMENTUM !  That only leaves 10% to be transferred to the Massive Plate !

No.
As I explained, momentum is a vector quantity like velocity.
If a ball is rolling along a table from right to left I need to push on it (leftward) to stop it.
When I stop it, it has zero momentum and it has transferred its original momentum to me (and, unless i'm on a skateboard or something the momentum is also transferred through me to the world).
And, if I want it to reverse its original movement, I need to push it again (leftward) just as hard as I had to to stop it.

So, to get it to change direction I have to add twice as much momentum as I did to merely stop it.

Well, in the same way, bouncing off a big heavy thing also has to supply twice as much momentum as hitting the heavy thing and stopping.
The change of momentum is twice the momentum that the ball originally had.
And, since momentum is conserved, if the "wall" or whatever bounces the ball back, the change in its momentum (like that of the ball) is twice that of the incoming ball.

How did you come to the conclusion that science has been getting it wrong all this time?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/11/2018 22:05:19
Right now , all I'm hearing is a Scottie dog yipping out a bunch of put-downs, and misrepresentations !  Stop misleading the readers , and use honest reasoning and basic math to make your points ! Fingers stuck in ears , while head shakes violently , and mouth spews nah-nah-nah-nah , does not impress anyone .  Neither does pretending that you've somehow "won" your argument , it just looks "jejeune" !
Are you looking in the mirror?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 16/11/2018 02:54:02
Good one Scooby !
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/11/2018 07:25:51
Good one Scooby !
Thanks for clarifying your ability to hold a rational discussion.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/11/2018 00:34:35
Good one Scooby !
Have you forgotten that you are expected to respond to valid criticism of your posts, or are you just trolling?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 17/11/2018 02:10:37
I no work hear , I jest play hea-yar !
Besides , it's tit-for-tat I believe .
.....................Argument .
We are at an impasse because you erroneously assume that you must impart energy in order to reverse a glass ball's direction . That is false; a Massive Steel Wall  will reflect the ball very well , without any energy input at all .  Momentum vector may reverse , but kinetic energy content will remain almost the same as before rebound . Your refusal to acknowledge the C.of R. tables is both disturbing , and disheartening .  "Valid Criticisms" would encompass the accepted scientific and technical inter-relationships and values , and involve them with full accuracy and  context .  Omission and mis-representation only convince me that that conversation is not worth pursuing .  Now then , convincing ARITHMETIC if you please !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/11/2018 11:53:49
We are at an impasse because you erroneously assume that you must impart energy in order to reverse a glass ball's direction .
I made no such assumption.
You Are wrong- as usual.
Would you like to try again?
Your refusal to acknowledge the C.of R. tables is both disturbing , and disheartening . 
It's not that I don't acknowledge the table of them.
The fact is that the values do not actually matter much.
Materials exist with CoR near zero (such as porridge or velcro); and materials exist with CoR near 1 (such as hard steel or glass).
I even used examples of such materials in my calculations.
So, the data in the table was never in question.

So, once again, the problem is not with me.
The problem is that you don't understand what the issue is. You think the problem is somehow going to change if I acknowledge the existence of a table of data.
But I never questioned or doubted that tabel, did I?

Go on, show where I said that the table was wrong.


I pointed out that you do not understand the data, but that's a separate issue.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 18/11/2018 05:45:47
.Best Spaceship Design has the friction drive .
P.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/11/2018 09:10:52
.Best Spaceship Design has the friction drive .
P.
There is no friction in space.
The worst spaceship has your "friction drive"

This entire thread arose from your steadfast refusal to actually find out what the science tells you.
And that is because you are too dim to realise that you know too little.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 18/11/2018 09:12:27
Consider it a long-term research project .
D.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: opportunity on 18/11/2018 09:15:53
Your tone suggests its a non-event, right?

Live there.

That's scary though....eliminating the possibility.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: opportunity on 18/11/2018 09:16:48
That's so...."I need to believe in the big bang"......
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/11/2018 09:25:21
Consider it a long-term research project .
D.
If you refuse to learn- as you did- it's going to be very long term and not much research.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 18/11/2018 17:56:40
It's time to stop screaming " I do formulas better than you ! " , and acknowledge the creative-mechanical genius which birthed this triumph ! 

..............Illusion......
Alright , I have to backtrack a bit .  Convertalot is backing up that 2x bit , counter-intuitive though it is .

So how did that humble pie taste?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 18/11/2018 18:45:02
Like an English Beat song !
Had to risk pride , to ignore the orthodoxy .  But hey , maybe in 300 years ?
P.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/11/2018 19:28:30
Had to risk pride , to ignore the orthodoxy

Ignoring the orthodoxy is only a good idea if  you  understand it first.
Otherwise you just make a fool of yourself.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 18/11/2018 19:59:56
I'm man enough to risk it . Besides, there's a silver lining to the cloud ; the possibility of future progress along the "Drum-beating" pathway .
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/11/2018 21:43:46
the possibility of future progress
No.
That was ruled out a hundred years ago.
Momentum is a conserved quantity because of one of the symmetries of the universe.

You are being silly again.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 19/11/2018 03:46:43
Ruled out by Bonobos that just left the cave .  Quantum effects may indeed provide a way to displace or  disperse kinetic energy without inducing a reciprocal reaction .  I do not have that lever at hand , but in future , someone will .  There's always a run-around , witness man flying all over the freakin' place !
OK , speech over !  Will be concentrating on reaction drives from now on .
D.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 19/11/2018 07:19:57
.......Reaction vs Reactionless
 Can you choose wisely ?
See "Can An Impulse Engine Be Made ?" .
P.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/11/2018 07:22:03
There's always a run-around , witness man flying all over the freakin' place !
No
You really should learn what you are talking about, rather than posting nonsense.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 19/11/2018 07:24:58
Hold that thought for 300 years !
P.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/11/2018 19:23:34
Hold that thought for 300 years !
P.
Do you think that 2+2=4 will not be true in 300 years?
Or do you understand that mathematical proofs are "forever"?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 19/11/2018 21:39:26
There will be other factors at play then .
P.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/11/2018 22:18:11
There will be other factors at play then .
P.
Yes, but they won't breach the conservation of momentum.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 20/11/2018 03:22:45
True , they would only appear to .  I am off that for now , Earth's technology lacks the grip on space that is necessary to make it work here .  I retire from the attempt .
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: opportunity on 20/11/2018 09:31:21
A reactionless drive is possible in theory, yet it requires eliminating the idea of "antiparticles".

Consider: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

Also consider: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea

Anti-particles aimed to explain the idea of "negative energy", yet we have no proof in science of the existence of anti-particles, because of the annihilation principle with matter. Very convenient, right?

The issue in by-passing the idea of anti-particles is to consider how mass is associated to gravity as negative energy and how this is then associated to EM.

If I may, I've a paper on this: http://vixra.org/abs/1807.0215

Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: opportunity on 20/11/2018 09:40:09
That's my 7th paper.

I'm doing research on the EM drive system currently, using a specifically designed antenna. Microwaves, microwave launcher, coaxial cables, bespoke tubing, the whole thing, like what Eagleworks worked on. I'm getting results like they didn't. For instance, the "pin" in the magnetron launcher chamber, owing to the EM resonance from the feedback of the system, shoots into the magnetron launcher like a bullet, to the point I've had to re-metal the magnetron launcher chamber. I've seen arcing. This is something else. So now I am trying to create the resonance more distal in the tubing structure, which isn't easy. Who can say they've done this research with the same results thus far?

Research has been done by various research agencies, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_vacuum_thruster, yet I have yet to encounter the thrust I have been able to generate thus far in reading the work of others.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: opportunity on 20/11/2018 09:59:47
I've been sitting on the research for months while trying various antenna designs. My aim is to have propulsion in the "greater" chamber, not the chamber closest to the magnetron. That's hard though as it has to be really precision stuff. It's a like a water pipe of EM which fails (EM resonance as G) at its weakest point along the EM route, and even then its not easy to fail there when it does.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: opportunity on 20/11/2018 10:10:17
I thought I could have the paper published by now based on the results in the magnetron launcher chamber, yet I thought I'd try to take it to another level.....a lot harder, and yes, a lot more work.


My point is, "its possible".
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: opportunity on 20/11/2018 10:14:41
Without the theory, no, not possible. Look at the Eagleworks research I outline in paper 7 , Experiment 2, fig 11-12. They would get next to nothing, according to the proposed theory.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: opportunity on 20/11/2018 10:22:14
One of the things I am anticipating is that owing to its a completely new theory with a completely new research construction, there's nothing to compare it to. At the moment I'm looking for researchers who may have come across EM feedback using a microwave magnetron launcher whereby the coaxial connector pin that attaches to the magnetron launcher can jettison back into the magnetron launcher chamber. I've looked everywhere I can, and no results like that.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: opportunity on 20/11/2018 10:53:32
How do I know its not an arcing effect? I connected the apparatus to a VDG, a Van De Graff generator, properly, as properly as I could, without trying to destroy the magnetron, obviously, to enhance the arcing.... it just blew the coaxial cable. There was no propulsion in the pin, as there was no "resonance" in the EM field owing to the commanding feature of the VDG voltage discharge "at" the region of the connection between the magnetron chamber launcher and coaxial cable (~20,000V). No propulsion. The only propulsion was with a clean resonance which was "maximised" in the chamber, in the magnetron launcher chamber", the part of the pin which as the Alcubierre drive suggests with the augmented theory I propose creates a region of spatial distortion via the EM feedback sufficient enough to accelerate that part of the pin to accelerate into the chamber.


Any ideas?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: opportunity on 20/11/2018 11:02:15
My concern was, "why does the pin jettison out like a bullet"?

And here's the thing.....temporal distortion. Alcubierre proposed FTL, faster than light time, yet the theory I'm holding to is FTN, faster than normal time, which "I can", because the theory of time used here is different, its the "golden ratio" theory of time, its not a simple arrow....it can be compressed, sped up, like an accordion, so the event in using this process of EM-G is a "compression" of space-time, as a faster than normal event using "negative energy".

Who would think that's true without over 100 pages of theory and equations to make that proposal?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: opportunity on 20/11/2018 11:10:30
Some could ask why I would say any of this before I release the paper?

I'm fairly sure there's no other way to get to paper 8 than papers 1-7.

Have I had feedback on papers 1-7?

Not much.

The chances are heavily weighted against me anyway thus far. I'll be impressed in a BB-Theorist explaining my results anyway. How can I not be?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/11/2018 19:20:20
  I retire from the attempt .
You were never part of it.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/11/2018 19:22:08
A reactionless drive is possible in theory, yet it requires eliminating the idea of "antiparticles".
Well, antiparticles exist.
So you can't "eliminate the idea of antiparticles".
So your drive fails.

You can stop now.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 20/11/2018 21:10:04
Anti-particles aimed to explain the idea of "negative energy", yet we have no proof in science of the existence of anti-particles, because of the annihilation principle with matter. Very convenient, right?

(1) Antiparticles don't have negative energy.
(2) Antiparticles are readily detected. Even a simple cloud chamber can detect positrons (it's possible to show that their paths curl by the same amount and in the opposite direction of electrons, demonstrating that they have the same charge-to-mass ratio as the electron while having the opposite charge. Their annihilation with electrons give off a tell-tale pair (or trio) of photons with a total energy equal to double the electron's mass-energy (demonstrating that positrons have equal mass to electrons): https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/359954/how-can-a-charge-of-a-particle-be-determined-through-its-cloud-chamber-photograp
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 22/11/2018 18:04:43
..................Save Face .
I herein propose a completely impractical , yet powerful and transparent , mechanism to produce a net gain in linear momentum .  Said device translates the latitudinal oscillations of EMR from up and down motion , to forward motion .  The basic mode d'emploi is the well-known Compton Effect .  The engine's layout is as such : A 1GW power plant , a red laser capable of producing a 1GW beam , a many lightyears long , perfectly reflective in all ways , tube of extremely rarified electrons , injectors to replace ejected electrons .  The mode d'emploi is the Compton Effect .  Operation of the device would proceed as follows : The laser is fired continuously .  This produces ~1lb of thrust .  The red light races down the tube , inducing Compton Scattering whenever it encounters an electron .  This induces a slight rearward motion to the electron , dropping the light frequency slightly in the process .  This process is repeated an infinitude of times , until the light-energy is mostly consumed , and the electrons have reached a peak velocity .  The result is a cloud of electrons flying out of the tube exit at enormous speed , with enormous momentum as well .  A "catch net" affixed to the tube exit would thus have enormous mumentum transferred to it .  Returning the electrons to the injectors would , of course , keep the cycle going .  The end result would be an "engine" producing up to a million pounds of thrust , IN THEORY . 
This does not violate "conservation of momentum" , it simply converts some of lights "internal" momentum into linear momentum of the stricken particles . 
This "Compton Drive" could have efficiencies comparable to modern heat engines , if it could be compacted down to a manageable size .
Well , there it is !  An effective reactionless drive , that doesn't violate conservation of momentum  or energy .
Enjoy chewing on this !.........D.H.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 22/11/2018 18:20:39
A "catch net" affixed to the tube exit would thus have enormous mumentum transferred to it .  Returning the electrons to the injectors would , of course , keep the cycle going . 

If you're capturing the electrons and returning them to their starting point, then that will cancel out all of the thrust you sought to gain by ejecting them from the engine. So your engine produces no thrust at all.

An effective reactionless drive , that doesn't violate conservation of momentum

This is an oxymoron. A reactionless drive violates conservation of momentum by its very definition.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 22/11/2018 18:50:06
Eee-fehk-tive !
Ask an actual physics master to track the momentum exchanges as I laid them out .  1 pound north thrust , 1 megapound south thrust !  The trick is converting the stored energy of the photons into forward momentum .  It's analogous to two surfers roped together with a 100 yard-long cord .  One bobs up and down , the other catches the same wave , and pulls the first one along!
See ?  It's protected by maagic !
P.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/11/2018 18:53:31
The thrust generated by the electrons couldn't be bigger than the thrust generated by the original laser beam.
YOu have introduced an extra complexity for nothing because you simply don't understand the science.

Why not learn some?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 22/11/2018 19:49:43
Vision lacking man !  The scale of the thing is escaping you !
Picture a full gigawatt of power translated into linear momentum .  This effect is part of why intergalactic plasma reaches such a high temperature  ( velocity ) .  Translate 1GW into thrust at even lousy jet engine levels of efficiency , spout that number at me !
"Hey , Rocky , watch me pull a lion outa my hat !" .
P.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/11/2018 20:20:34
Picture a full gigawatt of power translated into linear momentum .
You lack the understanding to have vision.

Translate 1GW into thrust at even lousy jet engine levels of efficiency , spout that number at me !
There isn't "a number".

If you knew what you were doing, you would know that.

Here's a related question for you.
Imagine a plane- a 474 jet - on the runway.
It's getting ready to take off. The engines are run up to full throttle and the pilot is about to release the brakes and set off.

At that point, how much power are the engines delivering to the plane?

(feel free to google any data you need.)
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 22/11/2018 21:10:22
Eee-fehk-tive !
Ask an actual physics master to track the momentum exchanges as I laid them out .  1 pound north thrust , 1 megapound south thrust !  The trick is converting the stored energy of the photons into forward momentum .  It's analogous to two surfers roped together with a 100 yard-long cord .  One bobs up and down , the other catches the same wave , and pulls the first one along!
See ?  It's protected by maagic !
P.

It doesn't matter how many pounds of thrust the engine generates by moving the electrons. The moment that your net catches those electrons and brings them to a halt, every bit of that thrust that was initially pushing the engine forward is now forcing that engine to a cold stop. If you allowed the electrons to shoot out the back of the engine without stopping them, you'd have a working engine. As soon as you put something on it to catch those electrons, it will hold itself back. It's like trying to power a sailboat by putting a fan on the boat in order to blow into the sail.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 23/11/2018 03:22:10
You are fundamentally correct .  I am actually trying to pry out a way to access the energy contained within the photon .  Using it to create more photons , to do work , to affect the energy/momentum balance any way possible , is my goal .  It may not be possible yet , but near-future physics may make that possible .  I aim to spur R&D in that direction .  Positive support may make a significant difference in the way the thing unfolds .
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 23/11/2018 04:38:01
I am actually trying to pry out a way to access the energy contained within the photon .

It can be done without violating conservation laws and it's pretty easy. Shoot a laser beam out the back of your ship. That will produce thrust.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: syhprum on 23/11/2018 05:18:53
300 megawatts produces 1 Newton of thrust as I recall it will take you a long time to get up to .99c.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: opportunity on 23/11/2018 05:55:24
A reactionless drive is possible in theory, yet it requires eliminating the idea of "antiparticles".
Well, antiparticles exist.
So you can't "eliminate the idea of antiparticles".
So your drive fails.

You can stop now.


We've had this discussion in another thread, and you know I am in support of anti-particles. I write about anti-particles, better than perhaps any other papers regarding why they exist. The issue is though with my work is the idea of "negative-energy gravity". Gravity and negative energy are a more fundamental entity than anti-particles. Anti-particles exist to balance the general equation. I understand that and write about that. Yet to develop upon gravity as negative energy, one can take a course of theory and create tech applications by trying to avoid the use of anti-particles such as positrons.

I'm surprised in fact no one has stepped back into the work of Dirac. Yes, sure, negative energy is associated to anti-particles, "yet" what is more primordial? I am thinking as many others already have that in using the BB model there is something more primordial before the particle realm, and that is gravity and negative energy, which can in theory be held as a concept in research by avoiding the generation of anti-particles.

There's one or two ways the idea of avoiding anti-particles can be considered, as I've found through trial and error, and key to that is focussing on creating an EM resonance field "and" it seems a deliberate "e" discharge, as with both the deliberation there is to corrupt the natural positronic formation in relation to "e" in a background resonant (neutral) EM field. Yes, indeed, such a simple statement would seem like waffle, "yet" the "principle" of why I would do that research is in the investigation of the more primary feature of gravity as negative energy.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/11/2018 07:28:33
We've had this discussion in another thread, and you know I am in support of anti-particles
No
I know that you think they are a problem.

I do not ignore the idea of anti-particles, and thus the idea of the anti-proton, as my theory also states that the "inference" of their existence must exist, yet on further development of my theory the practicality of anti-particles across the entire spectrum of standard elementary particles become problematic.

Please stop posting about this until you make up your mind.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: opportunity on 23/11/2018 07:37:10
Bored Chemist, I have papers that validate my comments.

Can I ask, "what is your interest in this subject"? It seems to me you're floating around subjects to debunk them, for the mere thrill of ridicule.


I think you're a good person with good intentions, like everyone, but when you don't accept what I say and what I have written to prove that, you're walking into a red zone. I don't expect anyone to accept anything I say in this forum, yet when I am criticised for saying things in this forum that are not true, not true despite my having papers to back what I say here, a concept of "scientific concept" itself,  "what" is you're prerogative in thinking I am contradicting my own papers?

I'll blame myself on this one. I did say that we have to avoid the idea of anti-particles, and that could have been misinterpreted to the realm that they don't exist. Ridiculous. They exist, even in my "theory" using the golden ratio for time, I have papers to prove that, but they are not "useful" in considering the possibility of reactionless drives. They're a "problem".
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 23/11/2018 08:03:50
To B.C. only ; personally I think you're looking at some serious word salad there !
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: opportunity on 23/11/2018 08:07:01
Lol. Read again.

Word salad? Word salad indeed, and I blamed myself for initial simple statements. Yet I have provided a greater dialogue which is not enough.....not enough?

If I may, I like the BBT, I think it is currently the best possible way to explain a historical perspective of space-time. Love it. Yet, when I decided to use the Fibonacci sequence as the algorithm for time, as the new arrow, I had to stay true to that. That doesn't mean I think everything else is wrong, it means I am giving the theory I use the best chance possible. What's you're great "new theory" for this "new theories" section?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 23/11/2018 09:16:39
This thread is questing for proposals and architectures , for extremely high specific impulse engines .  It is not asking for disjointed , incoherent , ultimately irrelevant , coffee-house ramblings!  Spewing self-serving noise does not help me promote science , or engender real solutions to problems !
Better if you stood on a street-corner barking your stuff at strangers , than annoying me with meaningless twaddle !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: opportunity on 23/11/2018 09:34:28
This thread is questing for proposals and architectures , for extremely high specific impulse engines .  It is not asking for disjointed , incoherent , ultimately irrelevant , coffee-house ramblings!  Spewing self-serving noise does not help me promote science , or engender real solutions to problems !


Stop posting then.


You're not a "new theorist"....you're a witness of "new theorists"?


You're witness is negative, like (fill in the blanks).

Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 23/11/2018 10:03:11
Add "new" before proposals , then read the last four lines of that statement repeatedly , until the message sinks in .  I am neither deceived , nor entertained , by the empty calories you have barfed onto this thread .  Do leave it to people who have new, constructive ideas , of the type requested !
Enough said AGAIN !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: opportunity on 23/11/2018 10:07:00
Add "new" before proposals , then read the last four lines of that statement repeatedly , until the message sinks in .  I am neither deceived , nor entertained , by the empty calories you have barfed onto this thread .  Do leave it to people who have new, constructive ideas , of the type requested !
Enough said AGAIN !
P.M.


You're not winning points. You sound angry.


How's life?


If you need help, I'll talk, PM me.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/11/2018 18:08:24
I have papers that validate my comments.
Were they published in a peer reviewed journal?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/11/2018 18:10:42
It seems to me you're floating around subjects to debunk them, for the mere thrill of ridicule.
Logically, you just accepted that your view is ridiculous.
One way or another, you should probably think hard about that.

What I'm actually trying to do is reduce the amount of stuff posted that is so bad it is self contradictory.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: opportunity on 24/11/2018 00:09:19
That's very noble yet you need to properly read the links you post.

My papers are pre-peer review, and for a very good reason, namely until I get the last paper, the proof paper, over the line.  It takes time. I have not contradicted myself in any of my posts.  :)
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/11/2018 00:41:27
My papers are pre-peer review
So that's a "no" then.
Get back to us when they are fit for publication.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: opportunity on 24/11/2018 00:59:49
Bored Chemist, once again, "no". The fitness of my papers is not in doubt. If you're game you can read an abstract of one of them on my site (see icon). As I said, I have made "no effort" to have them published, "no effort".
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/11/2018 01:04:24
As I said, I have made "no effort" to have them published,
Then we should expend no effort on reading them.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/11/2018 01:06:03
. The fitness of my papers is not in doubt.
I explicitly cast doubt on your papers by asking for peer review.
For you to say there is no doubt is clearly not true.
Are your papers equally shoddy?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: opportunity on 24/11/2018 01:38:15
. The fitness of my papers is not in doubt.
I explicitly cast doubt on your papers by asking for peer review.
For you to say there is no doubt is clearly not true.
Are your papers equally shoddy?

You might but others don't. I was urged to put my work in pre-press until the final paper, as discussions with scientists could have seen a number of ideas hitched.

You're judging my work without even reading it. What does that say about you?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 24/11/2018 08:05:42
I will attempt to illustrate what I meant about light energy with an example :
Suppose that I have a 1.35 GW photon rocket .  Normally this produces ~1lb of thrust , the rest of the beam's energy goes into accelerating the electrons of whatever matter it hits .  If I change the characteristics of the beam , it now applies that accelerative force to the entire surface that it hits , NOT the electrons within .  This would result in an effective thrust of 1Mlb + , easily .
The "Fabric Of Space" approach requires mastery of the quantum space-time physicality .  This will take longer to achieve , but will result in artificial/anti-gravity effects , in addition to reactionless drive capability .
These are far-reaching goals , using outside-the-box approaches .  If these paths are pursued vigorously , the capabilities envisioned are sure to be realised , sooner rather than much later .
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/11/2018 11:48:49
You're judging my work without even reading it. What does that say about you?
It says that I can legitimately extrapolate from what I have read- in which there are many factual errors- and deduce that it is likely that the stuff I have not read is also full of errors.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/11/2018 11:49:50
.  If I change the characteristics of the beam , it now applies that accelerative force to the entire surface that it hits , NOT the electrons within .  This would result in an effective thrust of 1Mlb + , easily .
That is bad science fiction. Why post it here?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 24/11/2018 17:32:10
The idea is to alter the light internally so that it impacts the surface harder than normal .  Alternatively , the impact itself could possibly be affected or manipulated to change the impact force .  A 100 year-long program could definitely yield revolutionary breakthroughs in our understanding of light , and our ability to manipulate it .
"The future belongs to those who make it ." !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/11/2018 18:11:51
The idea is to alter the light internally
So, you plan to use magic then.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 24/11/2018 19:16:10
The idea is to alter the light internally so that it impacts the surface harder than normal

How would you do that?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 24/11/2018 20:19:53
It's a liiitle bit early to be asking me that , try after 50 years of R&D .
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/11/2018 21:26:08
The idea is to alter the light internally so that it impacts the surface harder than normal

How would you do that?
It seems he believes in magic.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 24/11/2018 21:40:39
It's a liiitle bit early to be asking me that , try after 50 years of R&D .
P.M.

What makes you think it's even possible then? You need to at least have some kind of scientific basis for such speculation.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 27/11/2018 02:28:03
Light is not matter .  It's unusual wave-type characteristics open up strange new possibilities , like using radial EMR wave-motion to induce strong lateral motion in point-particles . 
Sooo , my scientific basis is the Compton Scattering Effect .  The specific values have been known for years . 
Look it up , look it up , look it up !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 27/11/2018 04:50:13
Light is not matter .

It still obeys the conservation of momentum.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 27/11/2018 08:18:26
Radial PLUS lateral .  All energy is motion , the light's radial motion also has momentum .  That is where most of light's energy is stored .  As much as 2/3 of an X-ray's total energy can be transferred to an electron during an oblique collision .
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/11/2018 21:24:28
All energy is motion
No
That is where most of light's energy is stored
No
As much as 2/3 of an X-ray's total energy can be transferred to an electron during an oblique collision .
An even bigger fraction can be transferred if you hit square on.
So what?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 28/11/2018 00:01:29
SO now you've got relativistic  MATTER  hurtling towards your reciever , not bouncy,bouncy light !  This is the intermediary ! Properly managed , it could pack a solid wallop !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 28/11/2018 15:32:23
SO now you've got relativistic  MATTER  hurtling towards your reciever , not bouncy,bouncy light !  This is the intermediary ! Properly managed , it could pack a solid wallop !
P.M.

Wait, what "receiver" are you talking about? You're trying to use the electrons as thrust, are you not?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 28/11/2018 18:05:10
IF it was a reaction engine , the reciever would be space .  If it was a reactionless drive , the reciever would be a plasma container .  The EMR waves would be timed to produce a "resonance" effect .
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/11/2018 19:22:26
You seem to have made a really complicated way  to make an ion drive.
And you seem to have fooled yourself about its efficiency.
The thing is, it's not reactionless, so the answer to the thread title is still "no"
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 28/11/2018 21:53:21
I say a wave of powerful X-rays impacts a dense plasma soup pretty darn hard .  It may not have the greatest efficiency , but it is a closed system .  The launch recoil is infinitesimal , the plasma shock-waves are substantial .  As Scott said "Oh , I've been saving yuuu !" .
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/11/2018 22:08:29
Well, as it happens, they don't use Xrays, but they do fire insanely powerful lasers at dots of plasma, so we actually know what happens in this case.
The surface of the plasma is "boiled" off (in the opposite direction to the incoming beam) and the rest of the plasma is pushed forwards.

The net change in the momentum of the plasma is exactly equal to the momentum carried by the initial beam (i.e. not much).

This is where they do the experiment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility

And, as sensible people expect, momentum is conserved.
It's not the basis for anything "reactionless" because there's a reaction.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 28/11/2018 22:14:14
but it is a closed system .

Then it won't work.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 28/11/2018 22:57:15
Are you telling me that a gigawatt of laser power , transferred to kinetic energy of matter , results in a motive force of ONE POUND !!
C'mon , even a lightning bolt does better than that ! 
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 29/11/2018 05:01:15
Are you telling me that a gigawatt of laser power , transferred to kinetic energy of matter , results in a motive force of ONE POUND !!

What I'm saying is that an "engine" that is a closed system (that is, one that does not expel propellant or interact with the outside world in some way) can't move.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 29/11/2018 06:00:42
Dude , spit it out !  Spit the damned  orthodoxy out !
I just laid out the trick ; converting internal EMR energy into uni-directional kinetic energy of matter .  Diagram it out , calculate it out , figure it out !  You owe yourself that !
D. H.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/11/2018 07:29:55
Are you telling me that a gigawatt of laser power , transferred to kinetic energy of matter , results in a motive force of ONE POUND !!
No.
Nobody said that.
It's just that you can't (or won't) understand what people write.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 29/11/2018 16:11:07
Dude , spit it out !  Spit the damned  orthodoxy out !
I just laid out the trick ; converting internal EMR energy into uni-directional kinetic energy of matter .  Diagram it out , calculate it out , figure it out !  You owe yourself that !
D. H.

In a best case scenario, the photons would reflect off of the electron cloud as if it was a perfect mirror. That would maximize that amount of momentum that the photons could donate to the electrons. However, that would be exactly the same amount of momentum that the photons would donate to an actual perfectly reflective mirror if they struck it instead. There is therefore no benefit in adding the electrons in.

I don't need to do any math in order to know this. The law of conservation of momentum tells us that a photon that strikes an electron cannot possibly donate more momentum to that electron than it already had to begin with. Momentum doesn't materialize out of nothingness. If the force on the ship that the laser beam imparts is X, then that laser beam can only donate a force of X to the electron cloud (in the opposite direction). If that electron cloud then moves downstream and hits a collector that prevents them from escaping, then they will impart a force of X to that collector in the opposite direction to the ship's movement. That will cancel out any net thrust.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 29/11/2018 18:11:24
IF all we were dealing with were matter , then what you said would be the case .  However , we are not .  A beam of matter , say matter in a plasma PHASE , accelerated by 1 gigawatt of power , will reach absurdly high velocity very quickly .  Let that matter smack into a force guage , then confess to old "Professor" that it's a helluva lot more than ONE FREAKING POUND!
This difference is the basis of what I am talking about !  You already know that a photon rocket is a reactionless drive .  Now accept that there are ways of multiplying the effect !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/11/2018 19:21:40
A beam of matter , say matter in a plasma PHASE , accelerated by 1 gigawatt of power , will reach absurdly high velocity very quickly .
Not if the matter is heavy. The force exerted by gigawatt of radiation is about a pound.

It doesn't matter how many times you say  that you don't believe it.


et that matter smack into a force guage , then confess to old "Professor" that it's a helluva lot more than ONE FREAKING POUND!
Only if it is heavy.

do you see the problem there?
You already know that a photon rocket is a reactionless drive
No, it is powered by the reaction forces of the photons.

Now accept that there are ways of multiplying the effect !
You can multiply the zero thrust by whatever you like. Reactionless drives still don't work.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 29/11/2018 22:23:10
IF all we were dealing with were matter , then what you said would be the case .  However , we are not .  A beam of matter , say matter in a plasma PHASE , accelerated by 1 gigawatt of power , will reach absurdly high velocity very quickly .  Let that matter smack into a force guage , then confess to old "Professor" that it's a helluva lot more than ONE FREAKING POUND!

Please explain how a photon bumping into an electron is going to impart more force on that electron than it would if it hit a mirror instead.

You already know that a photon rocket is a reactionless drive

Do you even know what a reactionless drive is?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 30/11/2018 04:56:43
.....Once more into the breech !
Remember now , we are dealing with special components here , not ordinary clumps of matter .  One oblique collision/reflection of X-ray and electron can yield relativistic velocities for the electron .  Being matter , electrons striking thusly will not bounce "perfectly" , as light does from a "heavy" object , they will hit explosively .  Example : A 1 microgram object striking at .9c hits with the explosive  (impact) force of 20 kg of TNT (~120GJ) .  A momentary 1GW pulse of X-rays pumped into a dense plasma container will accelerate more electrons than this to this speed .  The result ?  One pound of recoil/ thrust on the injection side for a moment , a 120 GJ impact on the reciever side .  This translates into a powerful , unidirectional thrust , for the ensemble as  whole .
 Again , quantised energy of the photons + energy of momentum of the photons adds to the energy of momentum of the electrons . Their tangible-matter nature allows for ordinary , high-energy kinetic impacts on the reciever side of the device .  These opposing the almost recoil-less , EMR-type interactions , on the injector side . 
 Constantly repeating this cycle would result in a "Strikes-per-minute" engine , somewhat akin to an RPM (reciprocating) engine .  Audible vibrations would be a likely by-product . 
Alright , something the "Daedalus" folks can chew on , without ingesting toxic radiation !
Helloo , Pushme-pulley !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 30/11/2018 05:27:47
One oblique collision/reflection of X-ray and electron can yield relativistic velocities for the electron . 

That's because a single electron is incredibly light-weight. An electron weighs about 9.11 x 10-31 kilograms.

Being matter , electrons striking thusly will not bounce "perfectly" , as light does from a "heavy" object , they will hit explosively .

If you'll recall from earlier discussions in this thread, a collision where a projectile bounces back actually imparts more force than one which does not.

Example : A 1 microgram object striking at .9c hits with the explosive  (impact) force of 20 kg of TNT (~120GJ) . 

Given that electrons weigh 9.11 x 10-31 kilograms, that microgram of matter you speak of would weigh 1.1 x 1024 times more than an electron. That is not an insignificant difference.

A momentary 1GW pulse of X-rays pumped into a dense plasma container will accelerate more electrons than this to this speed

Please provide the needed math to support this claim.

The result ?  One pound of recoil/ thrust on the injection side for a moment , a 120 GJ impact on the reciever side .

If you want to give your electrons 120 gigajoules of kinetic energy, you're going to have to supply 120 gigajoules to the system. At one gigawatt of laser power, that's going to require two minutes even if the system is able to transfer the energy perfectly with no losses. That's hardly a "momentary" pulse.

Also, you're being inconsistent with your units. "Pounds" here are a unit of force whereas "gigajoules" are a unit of energy. You're comparing apples with oranges. Please rewrite that sentence where you use the same units to describe what's happening on both ends of the ship.

Quote
This translates into a powerful , unidirectional thrust , for the ensemble as  whole .

Except for the part where momentum doesn't materialize out of nowhere, that is.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 30/11/2018 06:45:14
I'm describing the recoil on the injector side in pounds of force , because it receives a consistent (say , one second long) push from the photon injector .  I'm using joules for the reciever side because I envision using shock-waves (instantaneous impacts) to provide "shoves" to this side .  If I inject 1GW for 1 second , I get 1 GJ of energy to "hit" the reciever side with .  That is equivalent to almost a pound of TNT .  I believe that the shove from that will far outweigh the paltry shove on the injector side .
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: opportunity on 30/11/2018 09:31:54

In this "new theories" section, to say something like a reactionless drive is absurd is not in the spirit of the new theories section.

Yes, we need to abide by contemporary physics understanding, and yes "way off" ideas without citing references to contemporary theory should be deemed as a bit of a stretch.

I understand where the moderators and close backers of the moderators are coming from, and yes in this "new theories section", and not the physics section.

Its good though to have a few rough debates, because its a heads up for both "stringent contemporary physics" and at the other spectrum "spontaneous hatchings of ideas". Both sides keep each other honest, both sides require a response that determines their own course compared to the other.

Personally, I think a reactionless drive is possible. Alcubierre proposed the idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive.  The problem he encountered was contradicting the law of conservation of energy.....namely, how does one create a negative energy gradient in front of the nominate craft direction. If someone can crack the code of creating a negative energy field in front of a craft, most likely using a "concentrated" and more importantly "projected" EM field, they've wacked the pinyata. I'm thinking that its possible to achieve without contradicting the law of conservation of energy by requiring a field with energy put in , and a substantial amount at that, that "appears" to cancel itself out, and thus an EM resonant field, pure constructive interference.

Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 30/11/2018 16:27:15
I'm describing the recoil on the injector side in pounds of force , because it receives a consistent (say , one second long) push from the photon injector .  I'm using joules for the reciever side because I envision using shock-waves (instantaneous impacts) to provide "shoves" to this side .  If I inject 1GW for 1 second , I get 1 GJ of energy to "hit" the reciever side with . 

Until you get your units consistent, this is meaningless. You can't say that one gigajoule is bigger than one pound because a gigajoule is not a unit of force.

I believe that the shove from that will far outweigh the paltry shove on the injector side .

Belief is irrelevant. Show the math that it is so (which would require consistent units). In particular, I'm still waiting for you to explain what kind of mechanism would make a single photon hit an electron harder than that same photon would hit a tiny hypothetical mirror with the mass of an electron.

Personally, I think a reactionless drive is possible. Alcubierre proposed the idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive.

The Alcubierre drive is not reactionless because the drive does not experience a change in momentum. It remains at rest relative to the "bubble" of space that it sits inside of.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 30/11/2018 17:05:40
In 1923 Arthur Compton presented his most renowned paper on Electron-Photon scattering .  In it he established  (by empirical evidence) the fact that photons reflect from massive objects with very little exchange of KE .  He also established that they reflect from electrons with major exchanges of kinetic energy .  It has since been realised that this involves the photons quantised energy , not just energy of momentum . Considering  the lack of recoil involved with "photon launching" , this creates a gigantic opportunity for a "difference engine" .  Think of a jet engine ingesting some air , adding some magic dust to it , and spitting out 12 times as much air .  Doesn't seem right , does it ?  Triiiick !! Got it ?
P.M.
P.S.- Push a bowling ball with one pound of force for one second , then detonate 2/3 stick dynamite next to it .  Tell me which one pushed it further ! 
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 30/11/2018 22:29:28
In 1923 Arthur Compton presented his most renowned paper on Electron-Photon scattering .  In it he established  (by empirical evidence) the fact that photons reflect from massive objects with very little exchange of KE .

That's because macroscopic objects like mirrors are many, many orders of magnitude more massive than the mass-energy of the photons that hit them.

He also established that they reflect from electrons with major exchanges of kinetic energy .

And this is because electrons are significantly closer to a photon's mass-energy than something like a visible mirror is.

It has since been realised that this involves the photons quantised energy , not just energy of momentum .

Those two concepts are not mutually exclusive. A photon's momentum is quantized.

Considering  the lack of recoil involved with "photon launching" , this creates a gigantic opportunity for a "difference engine" .

There is a recoil involved when photons are emitted. That's the principle behind laser cooling.

Think of a jet engine ingesting some air , adding some magic dust to it , and spitting out 12 times as much air .  Doesn't seem right , does it ?  Triiiick !! Got it ?

Magic is right. Until someone discovers or invents magic, such an engine will not work in the real world.

P.S.- Push a bowling ball with one pound of force for one second , then detonate 2/3 stick dynamite next to it .  Tell me which one pushed it further ! 

The problem is that you are somehow assuming that the electrons hitting the receiver is analogous to the dynamite when you have yet to demonstrate that. You have yet to do any calculations that demonstrate that your electron cloud magically gains extra momentum out of nowhere when the laser beam hits it. You keep saying it happens but you consistently refuse to substantiate it. You're not going to get anywhere when it comes to convincing others if you don't provide the proper evidence.

So I ask you again: does a photon hit an electron harder than it would hit a microscopic mirror with the mass of an electron? Substantiate your answer afterwards.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: opportunity on 30/11/2018 23:39:22

Personally, I think a reactionless drive is possible. Alcubierre proposed the idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive.

The Alcubierre drive is not reactionless because the drive does not experience a change in momentum. It remains at rest relative to the "bubble" of space that it sits inside of.

I thought about that also, yet the formation of the forward and behind spatial distortions need to come from the craft...somehow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionless_drive

Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 30/11/2018 23:53:02
I thought about that also, yet the formation of the forward and behind spatial distortions need to come from the craft...somehow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionless_drive

Yes, that is a problem in itself. I don't know how you would go about making space expand and contract at will.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 01/12/2018 00:40:27
To : Kryptid
 Your query has an inbuilt ASS-umption which is incorrect .  You assume that a mirror is a mirror is a mirror .  However , when that mirror is electron-small , electron-mass , and unattached , it will recoil relativistically from the impact .  This allows a FAR greater transfer of kinetic energy to the electron , leaving the EMR energy-poor .  The tremendous intrinsic energy of the photon is expended all at once , instead of bouncing uselessly off of the "mirror" .  This is laid out explicitly in Compton's 1923 paper .  The imbalance in energy spent starts here !
 By the way , the naysayers said the same damned thing about the jet engine , right up until it physically worked !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/12/2018 00:54:56
Are Reactionless Drives really , physically possible ?  Argument is put forth here that , contrary to popular belief , they actually , genuinely are . 
That statement is false.
No such argument is put forward.
All we get is  demonstrations of the OP's lack of understanding of high school physics.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 01/12/2018 01:24:40
Put 1GW of energy into a firehose-size stream of water .  Result ? You cut buildings in half . 
Put 1GW of energy into a firehose-size stream of EMR .  Result ?  Buildings laugh at you .
Dump a stream of ions into the EMR stream .  Result ?  I laugh at you , as the buildings go down .
 They didn't teach this in Lowbrow School , Arthur Compton did .
Ooch , ooch , owch , hot , ho-ot !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 01/12/2018 05:18:43
To : Kryptid
 Your query has an inbuilt ASS-umption which is incorrect .  You assume that a mirror is a mirror is a mirror .  However , when that mirror is electron-small , electron-mass , and unattached , it will recoil relativistically from the impact . 

Which means that tiny mirror behaves the same way as an electron would.

The tremendous intrinsic energy of the photon is expended all at once

This is incorrect. If you look at the equation governing the change of wavelength of a photon scattering off an electron, the change will be, at most, double the Compton wavelength of the electron. In order for the energy of the photon to be "expended all at once", the change in wavelength would have to approach infinity (photons approach infinite wavelength as their energy approaches zero).

By the way , the naysayers said the same damned thing about the jet engine , right up until it physically worked !
P.M.

Jet engines don't violate the conservation of momentum.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 01/12/2018 07:12:55
To : Onthefritz Nitpicky .
It still recoils from the photon at RELATIVISTIC SPEED !  This means something important , liiike MASSIVE IMPACT on one side , weak-stick recoil on the other . 
 Tarzan yell now !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/12/2018 12:02:28
Put 1GW of energy into a firehose-size stream of water .  Result ? You cut buildings in half . 
Put 1GW of energy into a firehose-size stream of EMR .  Result ?  Buildings laugh at you .

Utter nonsense, even a kilowatt or so of laser power would damage a building and a megawatt would cut a building in half.

Why posts something which is so obviously wrong?
Is it because you have yet to understand that energy and momentum are not the same thing?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 01/12/2018 14:32:23
...."firehose-size stream of EMR".
I could say the same .
You continue to underestimate and misrepresent me , Year B.C.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/12/2018 16:22:57
...."firehose-size stream of EMR".
I could say the same .
You continue to underestimate and misrepresent me , Year B.C.

A laser beam is a stream of EMR. "firehose sized" is a bit meaningless but a typical hose is about 50mm diameter
A million watts over that area is 500,000 KW/m^2
Things typically catch fire at about 10 KW/m^2
So, a 1 MW "firehose-size stream of EMR" is tens of thousands of times  more power density that is needed to burn stuff.
It would cut a house in two.


Why are you trying to pretend it wouldn't?

Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 01/12/2018 17:03:13
Dood ,
 I'm talking about a serious fire-hose , like 5 or 6 in. diameter .  That's about 100KW per sq. meter , or 2K YOUR ignition threshold .  My mirrorized surfaces shrug that off no prob !  My point was about impact , not hot-foot , anyway !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/12/2018 17:27:34
OK, so we have a 6 inch hose. 3 times the diameter, so 9 times the area.
That's a 9 fold reduction in power density so it is about 50,000 KW/M^2
That's about 5000 times the typical ignition power density.
(It's not "MY" ignition density, it's a typical value from the web. Pretending that it's something I invented just makes you look even sillier).

A sliver mirror reflects about 98 to 99 % of  the light and absorbs about 1 or 2%
1% of 5000 times enough to destroy stuff is still 50 times enough to destroy it.

Then there's the fact that the original nonsense you talked about was a GW not a MW, so there's 50,000 times more power than is needed to cu t through stuff.

And then there's your delusion that houses are made of mirrors.


No matter what drivel you add now, this will remain nonsense.

Put 1GW of energy into a firehose-size stream of EMR .  Result ?  Buildings laugh at you .

Why not just admit that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 01/12/2018 18:20:43
My houses saw you coming a mile away . They have special , military-grade mirror-siding panels , with cooling channels running through them .  The paper-igniting value helps there too !  They now laugh at the slight breeze that briefly warms them a bit , but secretly quiver in fear at the thought that you might start injecting moles of ions into the EMR stream !
I admit , I'm laughing too !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/12/2018 20:06:03
I'm clever enough to wait until it rains.
The water will screw up the mirrors.
At those power densities a speck of dust would result in almost instant destruction of your house.

So your original point was still absurd.

Why not just admit you don't know what you are on about?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 01/12/2018 20:13:17
My original point was hitting power , so how hard does your laser hit , even if it DOES burn my houses down ?  I know mine stops Donald Sutherland at the bank entrance !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/12/2018 21:55:03
My original point was hitting power ,
And I addressed it a while ago.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75294.msg560838#msg560838

Why do you keep posting nonsense?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 01/12/2018 22:16:46
If it was true that Compton scattering gave more momentum to an electron than the original photon had, then that would have been a verified instance of a violation of conservation of momentum. Arthur Holly Compton would then have become famous for falsifying conservation of momentum. Yet here we are, 95 years later, and physicists are still comfortably using the conservation of momentum. So obviously, Compton scattering doesn't break the laws of physics and therefore the principle behind your engine's function is based on false premises.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 01/12/2018 22:55:29
I said "energy" not momentum .  Study the associated graphs .  However , even if it were half , the electrons would STILL gain relativistic velocity , and STILL hit like a HALF stick of dynamite !  Think of it as unseen energy precipitating out of solution , then being used by some creative bastard ( like me ) . 
 In regards to momentum , I don't see you accounting for the  momentum of the EMR's internal components .  Physically , the exchange is similar to a light-weight billiard ball hitting a heavier one .  It bounces back with far less kinetic energy , having transferred much of it to the heavier ball .
Sometimes , nature has tricks too !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 01/12/2018 23:45:08
I said "energy" not momentum . 

Which is why you don't understand why you're not going to get extra force just because you put electrons in the way of the laser beam. Momentum cannot be ignored when it comes to the physics of collisions.

However , even if it were half , the electrons would STILL gain relativistic velocity , and STILL hit like a HALF stick of dynamite !

Only if the laser beam itself hits like half a stick of dynamite. The laws of physics won't allow it to be any other way.

Think of it as unseen energy precipitating out of solution , then being used by some creative bastard ( like me ) . 

There is no unseen energy here.

In regards to momentum , I don't see you accounting for the  momentum of the EMR's internal components . 

What internal components? It's made only out of photons and the momentum of photons is easily calculated. It's the Planck constant multiplied by its frequency divided by the speed of light. The momentum of a photon is linearly proportional to its energy.

Physically , the exchange is similar to a light-weight billiard ball hitting a heavier one .  It bounces back with far less kinetic energy , having transferred much of it to the heavier ball .

Momentum is conserved in such a collision, just like it is when a photon hits an electron.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 02/12/2018 00:41:56
Proportional , but absurdly tiny !  This is why it is useless in it's nascent form .  Transferring EMR's great energy content to a mediator with greater mass enables Effective transfers of momentum , instead of useless reflections or absorptions .
Can you hear me now ?
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 02/12/2018 01:05:09
Proportional , but absurdly tiny !  This is why it is useless in it's nascent form .  Transferring EMR's great energy content to a mediator with greater mass enables Effective transfers of momentum , instead of useless reflections or absorptions .
Can you hear me now ?
P.M.

So are you, or are you not, saying that Compton scattering violates conservation of momentum? Because it sounds like you are.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 02/12/2018 01:19:10
No , I'm saying that it's a trick of nature enabled by the fact that photons are not matter .  They can push matter very hard , they just need the right mediator/translator to enable that .  Remember , you don't need to include spent photons in your equations , since they can be vented with no penalty .  Sounds like a Glowing Light Drive  to me , eh ?
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 02/12/2018 01:26:16
No

So then you agree that the cloud of electrons does not have more momentum than the beam of light that struck it. That confirms that your engine won't move. If you think that the electrons do gain more momentum than the beam of light had, then you think that Compton scattering violates conservation of momentum. Those are the only two options. Which is it?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 02/12/2018 01:53:28
I think you're trying to fork me , Mr. Chessmatch !  Truthfully , the intricacies of Momentum Laws don't fascinate me .  I'll leave it to you number-crunchers to figure out how the exception to the rule occurred , and how to twist you explanations .  Meanwhile , Reply # 157 still applies ,as a matter of straight visualization , and logic !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 02/12/2018 04:51:12
Truthfully , the intricacies of Momentum Laws don't fascinate me .

Then you have no business claiming to have beaten them.

I'll leave it to you number-crunchers to figure out how the exception to the rule occurred , and how to twist you explanations .

You want calculations, huh? Alright.

We'll start with an X-ray photon with a kinetic energy of 1,000 eV. It collides with an electron with 0 eV of kinetic energy. After the collision, the photon bounces back the direction it came with a kinetic energy of 996.1 eV. The electron is knocked in the opposite direction with a kinetic energy of 3.9 eV. So the photon in this instance actually keeps most of its energy. You can confirm this by using this calculator here (you'll want to set the scattering angle to 180 degrees, which results in the highest transfer of energy to the electron): http://www.sciencecalculators.org/nuclear-physics/compton-scattering/

The momentum of a photon is calculated by dividing its frequency by the speed of light and then multiplying that by the Planck constant. So we need to know the frequency of a photon that has an energy of 1,000 eV and one with an energy of 996.1 eV. The resulting frequencies are 241,797,944 GHz and 240,854,932 GHz respectively. This calculator shows this: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/photon-energy

The momentum of the photons can be calculated with the following calculator, which shows that they are 5.35 x 10-25 kg*m/s2 and 5.32 x 10-25 kg*m/s2 for the 1,000 eV and 996.1 eV photons respectively: https://www.fxsolver.com/solve/

For an electron with a kinetic energy of 3.9 eV, the velocity is 1,171,264 m/s: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/relativistic-ke

The momentum of the electron is calculated by multiplying its mass by its velocity. This is equal to ~1.067 x 10-24 kg*m/s2. So now we can compare the momentum after the collision with the momentum before the collision. Since the photon and the electron are travelling in opposite directions after the collision, the momentum of the photon can be considered negative while that of the electron positive: (1.067 x 10-24) + (-5.32 x 10-25) = 5.35 x 10-25 kg*m/s2). So the momentum after the collision is 5.35 x 10-25 kg*m/s2.

Since the only contribution to the momentum before the collision is from the photon (the electron isn't moving), the momentum before the collision is also 5.35 x 10-25 kg*m/s2 (as shown earlier).

So there you have it. A mathematical demonstration that a photon scattering off of an electron does not increase the total momentum of the system.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 02/12/2018 05:55:15
Dude-man ,
You don't need to torture yourself  (or me) with convoluted formulas !  Just Google up Science Direct : Compton Scattering ; Fig. 6.2 .
This illustrates CLEARLY that for high-energy photons , striking electrons at 180 , the energy transfer amount ( E re max ) does approach 90 !  As I stated before , photons are NOT matter , and their interactions are "quantum" strange .  High-energy photons will raise electrons to relativistic speeds , at this point the depleted photons can be dumped overboard ( GLD ! ) .  The wave of high-energy electrons will hit the target HARD , as opposed to the photon launch side , which had neglegible recoil .  This here is a basic , mechanical system .  It is fairly easy for even a layman to understand , as long as there's no formula-spouting jerk-water spewing wheelbarrows of BS in their face , so that they get intimidated , and give up !  By the way , why the **** are you trying to fool the inventor of this damned thing , are you a masochist , or do you have some rediculous ulterior motive ? 
Alright , this I gotta hear !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/12/2018 09:23:42
I said "energy" not momentum
But you are talking about a reactionless drive and both reaction and drive are related to momentum but not, fundamentally, to energy.
Yet again, you have shown that you don't know what you are on about.

You really need to get to grips with the difference.
Think of it as unseen energy
But it isn't real.
then being used by some creative bastard ( like me )
You are being "creative" in that you are making up sh1t.
It isn't true.
I don't see you accounting for the  momentum of the EMR's internal components . 
Your blindness to it isn't our problem.

Physically , the exchange is similar to a light-weight billiard ball hitting a heavier one .  It bounces back with far less kinetic energy , having transferred much of it to the heavier ball .
A light ball bouncing off a very heavy one loses very little energy.
You really need to learn the physics.

Sometimes , nature has tricks too !
It does, but you are mistaken about where to find them.

For example it took ages to convince you that the transfer of momentum is greater when something bounces off a target  than when it sticks to it, even though that "trick" is high school science.

Proportional , but absurdly tiny !
Yes roughly a pound per GW is tiny.
And yet you are proposing to drive a spaceship with it.


enables Effective transfers of momentum
Shining the laser out of a window gives almost perfect transfer of momentum.
Better than "all of it" isn't an option.
Can you hear me now ?
Yes; we hear you loudly shouting nonsense.
And we wish you would stop, because this gibberish undermines the point of the board which is to communicate science.

Truthfully , the intricacies of Momentum Laws don't fascinate me . 
Then leave the discussion to those who, if not fascinated, at least understand them.
I'll leave it to you number-crunchers to figure out how the exception to the rule occurred
First of all, you need to show that an exception happens.
So far all you have done is fail to understand basic science.
Meanwhile , Reply # 157 still applies ,as a matter of straight visualization , and logic !
Post 157 is utterly wrong; you already accepted that.
 A GW laser would trash a house (even if you made it out of mirrors).


You don't need to torture yourself  (or me) with convoluted formulas ! 
You have made that mistake all along
You need to do the maths to get the right answer.
As I stated before , photons are NOT matter , and their interactions are "quantum" strange .
The higher the energy of a photon the more like a billiard ball it behaves.
We know about the quantum strangeness- (it seems you don't) but we also know that quantum physics also includes the conservation of momentum.
It is fairly easy for even a layman to understand
And it's wrong.
as long as there's no formula-spouting jerk-water spewing wheelbarrows of BS in their face ,
You are the one spouting bull.
The maths, which you are too scared to do,  proves it.
Is that why you won't learn  the maths- because you know, deep down, that it will show why you are wrong?

why the fruck are you trying to fool the inventor of this damned thing
As explained, I point out mistakes like yours in order to ensure that what people read here is science rather than nonsense.
or do you have some rediculous ulterior motive ? 
You know why I point out your errors.

Why do you keep on repeating them?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 02/12/2018 15:21:07
This illustrates CLEARLY that for high-energy photons , striking electrons at 180 , the energy transfer amount ( E re max ) does approach 90 !

Yes, the amount of energy transfer changes as the photon energy changes, but that wasn't the point of my calculations. The point was to demonstrate that there is no net change in momentum in such a collision.

As I stated before , photons are NOT matter , and their interactions are "quantum" strange .

No matter how many times you say that, it is irrelevant.

High-energy photons will raise electrons to relativistic speeds , at this point the depleted photons can be dumped overboard ( GLD ! ) .  The wave of high-energy electrons will hit the target HARD , as opposed to the photon launch side , which had neglegible recoil .

My calculations clearly demonstrate that the change in momentum is zero and therefore the recoil on both sides has to be equal. If you are dumping the photons overboard then they can effectively act as thrust and your system is no longer reactionless. If you try to release the photons at a 90 degree angle to the ship in order to eliminate their thrust instead, then the very act of reflecting those photons in the desired direction will transfer some of their momentum to the ship and thus cancel out the momentum contribution of the electrons.

It is fairly easy for even a layman to understand , as long as there's no formula-spouting jerk-water spewing wheelbarrows of BS in their face , so that they get intimidated , and give up !

If my calculations are BS, then show where my error is.

By the way , why the **** are you trying to fool the inventor of this damned thing , are you a masochist , or do you have some rediculous ulterior motive ? 

I'm not trying to fool anyone. Quite the opposite, actually.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 02/12/2018 18:37:28
To : Mr. Dogma ,
I saw something like your post once , it started right at the left rim , ran right down across the drain , then up the right side where it ended , resting right against the rim .  I considered that high-art , sadly , yours isn't doing as well !
Now , to obnoxious business .
 First ; I don't "need" to learn squat ! I just need to design a machine which produces more kinetic impact on one end , than on the other .  I just need to track energy transfers , and voila , imbalance !  The hard part IS the creativity , kind of like creating awesome songs .  It is NOT a matter of applying musical theory ! 
Second : You misrepresent me as usual .  I said "heavier" , not very heavy .  Fractionally heavier will do what I said . 
Third : I specifically began my quest here , in order to find/create a macro version of the Shockwave engine .  I had no preconceptions /prejudices to limit me , but still could not solve that one .  Perhaps someday , but for now , that waits .
Incidentally , I hated low-brow school , and it hated me .  Lot of turd-flingers waiting there . Maybe if I was a dull oaf too !  Anyway , don't crow about the poison-house too much !
Fourth : Light is not billiard balls .  A gigawatt of kinetic energy pumped into a stream of billiard balls would , indeed , knock down buildings .  A GW pumped into a stream of photons NEVER will , no matter how much you jump up screaming about it ! 
  Remember , I had to correct your energy-transfer percentage .  90% is a pretty big number !  There are at least a half-dozen electron- impact architectures , but only ONE energy transfer one ; the "EMR Shockwave Engine" , by yours truly!
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/12/2018 20:03:28
First ; I don't "need" to learn squat !
Guess again.
I just need to design a machine which produces more kinetic impact on one end , than on the other
Yes, you need to do that- but
(1) you haven't and
(2) it's impossible.
I just need to track energy transfers , and voila , imbalance ! 
When someone tracks them they balance- just as everyone expects.
The hard part IS the creativity
It isn't usefully creative to say " I have a machine that cures cancer because it cures cancer". All you have done is restate the problem: we wish there was a machine that cures it.

Second : You misrepresent me as usual .  I said "heavier" , not very heavy .  Fractionally heavier will do what I said . 
No
The laws of physics, and common sense say that bouncing a light thing off a heavy thing is a poor way to transfer energy.
They don't make bullets out of lead because they like the name.
Third : I specifically began my quest here , in order to find/create a macro version of the Shockwave engine
And it doesn't work.
Sorry about your shattered dream.
If you had learned some physics, you wouldn't have wasted your time.
Perhaps someday ,
No
It will remain a mathematical impossibility.
Incidentally , I hated low-brow school
That explains why you learned so little.
Light is not billiard balls .
Nobody said it was.
A gigawatt of kinetic energy pumped into a stream of billiard balls would , indeed , knock down buildings . 
Yes, because the billiard balls would explode- in all directions and they would push the "gun" back, just as hard as they pushed the house forward (giver or take the pound or so of photon pressure).
It still wouldn't be a reactionless drive,
I already explained that- you remember the ignition facility...?
A GW pumped into a stream of photons NEVER will , no matter how much you jump up screaming about it ! 
Here's a VT video of a about a millionth of that power trashing steel plate


Why don't you think that  a GW would cut through a house?


Remember , I had to correct your energy-transfer percentage .

It's not energy that moves  spaceships, it's momentum.
And, until you understand that we are just going to keep going round in circles.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 02/12/2018 20:50:29
...............Heat vs Impact .
Steel plate approximates house , fine .  Billiard balls approx. photons , nah ! 
 Try out THIS analogy : Two billiard ball launchers are firing 100 fps streams of balls at side-by-side brick buildings .  A special helicopter hovers nearby , and uses a secret weapon to add 1 GW of KE to the right-hand stream of balls .  Which ball-stream bounces off , and which blows it's house apart ?
Difference , I say ! 
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/12/2018 21:11:35
A special helicopter hovers nearby , and uses a secret weapon to add 1 GW of KE to the right-hand stream of balls

The important question in this context is how much of a recoil does the helicopter experience?
And the answer is "lots".
That's why you can't get a reactionless drive.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 02/12/2018 22:44:49
The helicopter experiences 1 measly , little , pound of recoil !
P.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 03/12/2018 01:57:00
Remember , I had to correct your energy-transfer percentage .  90% is a pretty big number !

You didn't correct me on anything. When the incoming photon energy is 1 keV, the electron does indeed only receive 0.39% of the energy. You must have missed the parts where I said, "So the photon in this instance actually keeps most of its energy" and "the amount of energy transfer changes as the photon energy changes". When the photon energy is 10 keV, the electron receives 3.766% of the energy, when it's 100 keV the transfer is 28.129%, at 1 MeV it's 79.65% and at 10 MeV it's 97.5087%. I never denied such a thing.

As I stated before, the purpose of my calculations was to prove that momentum is conserved. If the propellant doesn't change momentum, then neither can the ship which relies on the propellant for movement.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 03/12/2018 03:10:53
Hidden/Molecular Momentum .
It is unleashed , and transferred , upon mid-flight collision .
Love Reply # 183 .
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 03/12/2018 03:57:09
How about I calculate the actual thrust produced by the electron cloud/beam then?

Let's start off with a 1 gigawatt X-ray laser.  The energy of each photon is 10 MeV, which is equivalent to 1.60217657 x 10-12 joules. Since a gigawatt is one billion joules per second, we divide that number by the energy of each individual photon and conclude that the laser produces 6.2415093 x 1020 photons per second.

For simplifying assumptions, we'll say that each photon hits exactly one electron. According to the Compton scattering equation, a photon with an energy of 10 MeV hitting an electron will give that electron a maximum of 9.75087 MeV of energy. The photon then reflects back with 249.13 keV of energy.

An electron with an energy of 9.75087 MeV of energy has a velocity of 299,420,537 m/s and has a relativistic mass of 1.829337 x 10-29 kg (about 20 times more than its rest mass): https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224060366

Since the number of electrons per second flowing through the engine is equal to the number of photons per second, we multiply the relativistic mass by 6.2415093 x 1020 electrons per second. This is equal to a mass flow rate of 1.14178239 x 10-8 kg/s.

Thrust can be calculated by multiplying velocity by mass flow rate. We can multiply the velocity of the electron beam (299,420,537 m/s) by the mass flow rate (1.14178239 x 10-8 kg/s) to obtain a thrust of about 3.4187 N). That is about 0.768 pounds of thrust.

The thrust given by a laser beam is equal to the power divided by the speed of light, which for a 1 GW laser would be 1,000,000,000 W / 299,792,458 m/s = 3.3356 N (about 0.75 pounds). At a first glance, it may appear that the electron beam produces slightly more thrust than the laser beam which spawned it. However, you also have to take into consideration the reflected laser beam which is travelling in the opposite direction to the electron beam. Since the electron beam took 97.5087% of the original laser power, the reflected laser beam has 2.4913% of the original laser power. That produces a thrust of only 0.0831 N. When we subtract the reflected laser thrust from the electron beam thrust, we end up with 3.3356 N (0.75 pounds).

So we see from these calculations that the electron beam and the reflected laser beam together produce the same amount of thrust as the original laser beam. So, despite your intuition, the electrons do not hit the receiver harder than the original laser beam would have.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/12/2018 07:20:02
The helicopter experiences 1 measly , little , pound of recoil !
P.
Guess again.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 03/12/2018 14:12:25
...........Calculating Spaghetti
Your calc.s be suspect !
If I take a 1 sq.mtr. of plasma at standard liquid hy. density , and accelerate every electron to .9c , I get a kinetic energy of 25.5 GJ !
That is one helluva shockwave !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/12/2018 18:57:05
If I take a 1 sq.mtr. of plasma at standard liquid hy. density ,
Then you have something with units of mass/length.
I'm not sure what that is, but it certainly isn't a number of electrons.

Your calculation makes no sense at all.
If you would like to show some working we can probably point out your mistake for you.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 03/12/2018 19:23:54
...........Calculating Spaghetti
Your calc.s be suspect !

Then show me which step I got wrong. Be specific.

If I take a 1 sq.mtr. of plasma at standard liquid hy. density , and accelerate every electron to .9c , I get a kinetic energy of 25.5 GJ !

What is a "square meter of plasma"? You realize plasma is three-dimensional, don't you?

You also realize that, in order to get 25.5 GJ, a 1 GW laser would have to shine for 25.5 seconds, right? In that case, the total energy released by the laser is equal to the energy in your plasma. If you're implying that the energy in the plasma is somehow more than the energy it received from the laser light, then you are not only trying to break conservation of momentum but conservation of energy as well.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/12/2018 20:11:58
Try out THIS analogy : Two billiard ball launchers are firing 100 fps streams of balls at side-by-side brick buildings .  A special helicopter hovers nearby , and uses a secret weapon to add 1 GW of KE to the right-hand stream of balls .  Which ball-stream bounces off , and which blows it's house apart ?
OK
Let's try.
A billiard ball is about 0.17Kg
100 fps is near enough to 33 m/s (it hardly matters)
Let's say you have a stream of one ball each second. (you didn't specify that, but we can always  redo the maths later if you want to say how many balls you launch each second)

You want to add a GW of power to the balls so each one needs to have 1GJ of energy
so E= 1/2 MV^2
1,000,000,000 = 0.5 *0.17*V^2
(0.17 is about a sixth )
So V^2 = 1000,000,000 *2 *6
V^2 =12,000,000,000

So V is about 110 km/sec
And the momentum transfer is about 1/6 of that for each ball
So that's about 18,500 Kg M/S
And for 1 ball per second  the rate of transfer of momentum is
18,500 Kg M/S/S
And 1 kg M/S/S is 1 Newton
So the force needed to accelerate the balls is 18,500 Newtons or about 1850 Kg

Nearly two tons.

I'm sure there are helicopters that can handle forces like that, but it would be a good idea to warn the pilot.

Would you like to try again- but this time without getting things wrong by a factor of 4000 or so?

Here's an interesting thought; you were "allowed" to put a super mirror on your house. I just want to use a bit of armour- a few inches of steel plate.

That plate has to stand up to an average force of the same two tons or so.
Doesn't sound like a problem.
The peak forces would be tricky. :-)
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 03/12/2018 23:45:59
..............." I pity the fool !"
Your average stick of dynamite has ~1MJ in explosive energy .  I'm thinking YOU way off there !  A baseball with 1GJ energy is heavy artillery ! 
Next , I already stated that the recoil is 1 pound average , same as a 1GW laser .  The gigawatt of energy goes into the composition  (heat) of the laser beam , it is normally released upon absorption .  The electron cloud changes that , the energy is put into the kinetic energy of the electrons . WITHOUT significant recoil ! 
In regards to the mirrorized house , the 1GW laser will bounce off , thus inducing 2 pounds of force , NOT two tons !
Alright , I tire of the rediculous mis-representations of this concept .  How's about you stop jabbering , and MAN UP ?  That's right , just admit it has potential !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 04/12/2018 00:18:45
That's right , just admit it has potential !

I've already demonstrated that photons colliding with electrons doesn't increase the amount of thrust you get, so your drive does not have potential because it can't move. You still haven't pointed out which part of my calculations are incorrect.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 04/12/2018 00:45:04
The problem isn't calculations , it is design .  You aren't getting how it functions , and it's results . 
Lets take two 1GW  H.E.X-ray streams .  Both have a launcher-thrust of 1 pound .  You dump a couple of grams of electrons into one of the streams , and although the launcher experiences NO extra recoil , that stream now impacts like a MOAB at the target .  That is a solid differential impact !  If you can't even envision this simple of a mechanical system , you are NOT qualified to  criticize me !  Formulas are just a descriptor , NOT a concept !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 04/12/2018 02:19:39
You aren't getting how it functions

If I'm not then it's your fault for not sufficiently describing how it works. Here is how I understand your device:

(1) You start off with a laser shooting high-energy photons.
(2) Those photons undergo Compton scattering off of a cloud of electrons inside the engine.
(3) Most of the energy of those photons is transferred to the electrons, which fly off towards the receiver near the speed of light while the photons reflect back with minimal energy.
(4) The electrons then impact the receiver and impart a force on it.

Is that correct? That's exactly what I took into consideration in my calculations. If one of those steps are wrong, tell me and I will amend the calculations to reflect that.

that stream now impacts like a MOAB at the target

Then you are saying that my calculations are wrong. Telling me that my calculations are wrong without being able to tell me where they are wrong is a sign of denialism. You and I cannot both be correct at the same time. So either my calculations are wrong or your claim that you get extra thrust by putting electrons in the way of a laser beam is wrong. If my calculations are wrong, you should be capable of showing me where the error is. So do it already.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 04/12/2018 02:54:38
......................Grok it !
Your launch recoil should be ~1lb.
Your IMPACT energy should be
 above 2 GJ .
Calculate the kinetic energy of two grams of matter at .9c , then get back to me .
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 04/12/2018 05:00:49
Obviously I need to understand what it is you want before I can do further calculations.

......................Grok it !
Your launch recoil should be ~1lb.

Agreed.

Quote
Your IMPACT energy should be
 above 2 GJ .

The fact that you are expressing this as energy and not power tells me that your engine is not in continual operation. Is that true? You want to operate this until 2 GJ worth of electrons have impacted the receiver and then turn it off?

Quote
Calculate the kinetic energy of two grams of matter at .9c , then get back to me .
P.M.

So what you want is for the laser to operate for long enough to give 2 grams worth of electrons a speed of 0.9c and then turn it off?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/12/2018 07:40:20
Next , I already stated that the recoil is 1 pound average , same as a 1GW laser . 
And I showed why you are wrong by about 4000 fold
You aren't getting how it functions , and it's results . 
You have been unable to show us.
You have made claims, but they might as well have said it works by magic.
A baseball with 1GJ energy is heavy artillery ! 
Yes.
As I said
The peak forces would be tricky. :-)

If you can't even envision this simple of a mechanical system , you are NOT qualified to  criticize me !
I can envision it and, unlike you , I can calculate what would happen in reality (rather than in your pipedreams).
It doesn't work.
And I have explained why- I even gave you an example (repeatedly) which you didn't understand because...
you are NOT qualified to  criticize me ! 
Formulas are just a descriptor , NOT a concept !
Stop pretending that "concepts" are all that important.
I can conceive of a thing that makes you understand these problems.

But my imagining it doesn't make it happen.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 04/12/2018 13:00:17
.................Tough Logic .
Last time I lifted the lid , you were claiming that an average output of 1GW didn't have a 1lb recoil , alternatively , you were claiming that transferring that energy to the stream of baseballs wouldn't result in a 1GJ per second artillery-base ball impact . 
I think you barfed up your word-salad here !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/12/2018 19:41:43
Last time I lifted the lid , you were claiming that an average output of 1GW didn't have a 1lb recoil
In the case of a GW laser the recoil is about a pound.
But you can't use a GW laser to accelerate a bunch of billiard balls to 1GW because (as explained before) roughly half the ball comes back at you.
Essentially, the ball explodes equally in all directions even though you only hit it from one side (strictly speaking it gets pushed away from the laser by about a pound of thrust but since it's exploding at the time that's hardly noticeable).
I think you barfed up your word-salad here !
Not, it's the usual problem. You don't understand and yet you think that the problem is the two scientists telling you how things really work.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 04/12/2018 20:08:49
..................Too literal .
To complete the ANALOGY , take the energy contained in the "magic" ray (1GW) , change it into kinetic energy , concentrating 1GW sec in each billiard ball .  What happens when those balls "artillery" strike the brick house ?
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 04/12/2018 21:45:53
I'm still waiting for clarification on my questions.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 05/12/2018 00:15:28
Might be a while 'till I give myself a headache .  Meanwhile , just for shirts and grins , why don't you answer for b.c. above ?
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 05/12/2018 00:42:00
Meanwhile , just for shirts and grins , why don't you answer for b.c. above ?

Assuming billiard balls that are indestructible (because, as Bored Chemist said earlier, a gigawatt laser would not be kind to real ones), you'd get a gradual acceleration of the balls. To simplify this, we'll assume one ball. If all of the laser light hits and deflects off of the ball back the direction it came, then that ball is pushed with a force of about 3.3356 newtons (0.75 pounds). Using Bored Chemist's earlier figure of 0.17 kilograms for the mass of the ball, we can compute acceleration from force divided by mass. 3.3356 newtons divided by 0.17 kilograms equals an acceleration of 19.62118 meters per second squared.

You want the ball to have a final kinetic energy of 1 gigajoule. For an object with a mass of 0.17 kilograms, that would require a velocity of 108,465.2 meters per second: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/kinetic-energy

At an acceleration rate of 19.62118 meters per second squared, it would require 5,527.97 seconds (1.536 hours) to reach that speed and cover a distance of 299,796 kilometers in the process (I hope you were performing this experiment in space: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/acceleration

 During those 1.536 hours, the laser has expended a total 5.52797 terajoules of energy. So yes, a billiard ball with a kinetic energy of 1 gigajoule is going to be devastating to a house, but look how long it takes to build it up to that speed and how much total laser energy is required.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 05/12/2018 02:22:33
Dooood !
 Macro-physics won't work here !  I spent over 5 years chasing that wild goose !  To mimic micro-physics you must assume that 99% of the photonic-rocket energy is translated into the kinetic energy of the ball .  This is what H.E.X-rays do to electrons .  The power of the impact that you calculated would happen with every ball , once a second .  Acceleration would be almost instantaneous . 
 Now , run it again properly , then congratulate me on my triumph !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 05/12/2018 06:31:52
Dooood !
 Macro-physics won't work here !  I spent over 5 years chasing that wild goose !  To mimic micro-physics you must assume that 99% of the photonic-rocket energy is translated into the kinetic energy of the ball .  This is what H.E.X-rays do to electrons .  The power of the impact that you calculated would happen with every ball , once a second .  Acceleration would be almost instantaneous . 
 Now , run it again properly , then congratulate me on my triumph !
P.M.

You said billiard balls specifically, so I used the physics relevant to billiard balls. If you wanted electrons, you should have said electrons. Make up your mind.

Okay, so what if we do have a billiard ball's mass of electrons instead? If the mass of an electron is 9.10938356 x 10-31, then 0.17 kilograms would amount to 1.866 x 1029 electrons. I'll use my earlier calculations to simplify this. I already calculated that an X-ray laser which has a photon energy of 10 MeV produces 6.2415093 x 1020 photons per second. If each photon hits one electron, then the time required for 1.866 x 1029 electrons to be accelerated by photons coming in at a rate of 6.2415093 x 1020 photons per second is 298,966,149 seconds (9.48 years).

So after 9.48 years, all of the electrons have been accelerated to 299,420,537 m/s (99.876% c) inside of an extremely long tube of some kind. Since we know that the number of electrons flowing past a given point in the tube is equal to the rate that the laser produced the photons, we can use my previous calculations to determine that the mass flow rate is (6.2415093 x 1020 electrons per second) x (1.829337 x 10-29 kg relativistic electron mass) = 1.14178239 x 10-8 kg/s. With the mass flow rate known, the thrust is calculated as (299,420,537 m/s electron speed) x (1.14178239 x 10-8 kg/s) = 3.4187 N (0.768 pounds). This is, of course, exactly the same as my initial calculations.

Since the first electron was accelerated 9.48 years before the last one, then the electron stream will impact the receiver with a force of 3.4187 newtons over a period of 9.48 years. You want all of the electrons to be accelerated at once, but the problem is that there simply aren't enough photons coming in fast enough to get the job done. You could get more photons either by lowering the energy available for each photon while keeping the laser power constant (which will make each electron move slower) or you can increase the total power of the laser instead.

If you want all 0.17 kilograms (1.866 x 1029) of electrons to be accelerated to 99.876% the speed of light in one second, then the laser will need to provide 10 MeV photons at a rate of 1.866 x 1029 per second. That requires a total laser power of 298,966,149 gigawatts.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/12/2018 07:24:03
take the energy contained in the "magic" ray (1GW) , change it into kinetic energy ,
This is the stage at which a reaction force is generated.
What happens when those balls "artillery" strike the brick house ?
P.M.
Who cares?
It's not a reactionless drive so it's off topic.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/12/2018 07:28:15
Acceleration would be almost instantaneous . 
Acceleration requires a force and that, in turn, requires a reaction thanks to Newton's laws.

 Macro-physics won't work here !  I
Why not?
(If you think the answer is "quantum" then you don't understand the question.)

I spent over 5 years chasing that wild goose !
It's a pity you didn't spend 5 weeks studying physics.
then congratulate me on my triumph !
Your ability to let your imagination over-rule logic isn't a triumph.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 05/12/2018 13:36:48
...................Blind Guys !
So solly to see you sprain your brains unnecessarily !  You don't need to make it that complicated , just dump in enough electrons to absorb the X-ray's energy , and you will get a 1GJ impact at the target . It's a simple logic exercise , light cannot impact effectively , electrons can .  The practical details will be learned through experience , the basic design is what is important at this point .  So you see , the creative mechanical designer SPANKS the rediculous number crunchers yet again !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 05/12/2018 15:16:18
...................Blind Guys !
So solly to see you sprain your brains unnecessarily !  You don't need to make it that complicated , just dump in enough electrons to absorb the X-ray's energy , and you will get a 1GJ impact at the target . It's a simple logic exercise , light cannot impact effectively , electrons can .  The practical details will be learned through experience , the basic design is what is important at this point .  So you see , the creative mechanical designer SPANKS the rediculous number crunchers yet again !
P.M.

You're completely glossing over my refutations. Again. You asked me to do redo the calculations for electrons and I did. The least you could do is respect my efforts and actually directly address what I've said. If my set-up does not reflect the function of your engine, then point out specifically which step I got wrong. I'm getting close to giving up on you.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 05/12/2018 17:46:07
...............Barney Google
Doodo , your calc.s are misguided .  I will simplify this down to baby food for you .  A 1GW photonic rocket is fired at a target .  It produces 3/4 lbs of thrust , and 1.5 pounds recoil upon reflection from the target .  A steady stream of electrons is then injected into the rocket ; one electron per H.E.X-ray .  The resultant electron stream now has .99 GW of kinetic energy , the EMR reflected backwards has the remaining 1% .  When the electrons  strike the target , they will impact it , unlike light , which bounces off uselessly .  This will release 1 GJ of kinetic energy into the target each second .  That is equivalent to one stick of dynamite exploding against the target every milli-second !  I say that the target is propelled far more powerfully than the rocket , ergo : Difference Engine !
If you can't envision this , then I can't fix what's wrong .  Maybe a Total Recall-style memory implant !
Oh , and don't hold your breath , waiting for me to go Dr. Gunter Zoloff .  That is NOT happening !
Tarzan Yell .
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/12/2018 18:42:52
...................Blind Guys !
So solly to see you sprain your brains unnecessarily !  You don't need to make it that complicated , just dump in enough electrons to absorb the X-ray's energy , and you will get a 1GJ impact at the target . It's a simple logic exercise , light cannot impact effectively , electrons can .  The practical details will be learned through experience , the basic design is what is important at this point .  So you see , the creative mechanical designer SPANKS the rediculous number crunchers yet again !
P.M.
OK, let's see if I can get you to understand the root of the problem
You have a billiard ball flying through a big vacuum chamber at a few m/s - someone (in a space suit) threw it. Nothing complicated or relativistic.
It's the black ball and so it absorbs light really well.
I have a video camera pointed at it and hooked to a computer.
The centre of the ball is following a parabola and the computer is programmed to track the ball and work out the path  followed by the centre of the  ball so it can work out where the ball will go.

Now imagine that I fire a high power laser pulse at it and the light is absorbed by the ball.
The side of the ball nearest me  instantly boils.

 ( the computer now has a more difficult job because half the ball is now a cloud of hot gas + smoke).

What happens to the track of the centre of the ball?

BTW, I'm going to keep asking that question until you actually answer it.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/12/2018 18:44:11
I will simplify this down to baby food for you .
What you have done there is more akin to turning it into what baby food becomes after going through the baby.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 05/12/2018 19:15:25
If I can add 1GJ KE to the baby's ejecta , it'll launch too !
P.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/12/2018 19:29:33
What happens to the track of the centre of the ball?

BTW, I'm going to keep asking that question until you actually answer it.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 05/12/2018 21:31:45
It's an irrelevant question , since light does not boil electrons , it just impacts and throws them .
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/12/2018 21:45:10
since light does not boil electrons
The process is called photoionisation.

What happens to the track of the centre of the ball?

BTW, I'm going to keep asking that question until you actually answer it.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 05/12/2018 22:29:10
This will release 1 GJ of kinetic energy into the target each second .

Here is the part of my post that you are ignoring:

You want all of the electrons to be accelerated at once, but the problem is that there simply aren't enough photons coming in fast enough to get the job done. You could get more photons either by lowering the energy available for each photon while keeping the laser power constant (which will make each electron move slower) or you can increase the total power of the laser instead.

If you want all 0.17 kilograms (1.866 x 1029) of electrons to be accelerated to 99.876% the speed of light in one second, then the laser will need to provide 10 MeV photons at a rate of 1.866 x 1029 per second. That requires a total laser power of 298,966,149 gigawatts.

There is a hard upper limit on how many electrons you can accelerate to 99.876% of light speed in one second when you only have a gigajoule per second of power to work with.

That mass happens to be 0.583 micrograms of electrons.

So you want to accelerate a mass of electrons up to 99.876% of light speed in one second when you apply a gigajoule of energy in that one second? Sure, you can do that. However, you are limited to that tiny 0.583 micrograms. Any more mass than that and you'll have to wait more than one second to get the amount of energy you need. Even a human egg cell is more than six times more massive than such a cluster of electrons.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 06/12/2018 00:17:19
................Simple Logic .
It doesn't matter if it's called one King Kong Ball , it's "one electron for one H.E.X-ray photon" ! The the photons bounce back as visible light , the electrons bounce forward as relativistic electrons .  Impact at the target is .99 GJ ( 278kw.hr. ) , per second .
Note-In practice , a longer "tube" will allow for more complete energy transfer .
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 06/12/2018 01:15:43
"one electron for one H.E.X-ray photon"

Which is why you're limited to moving 0.583 micrograms per second.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 06/12/2018 03:06:30
.....................OOOOOR !
 25 micrograms accelerated to.9c.
There are many ways to skin this cat .  Bottom line , 1GJ thermal energy  ( HEX-ray ) in , 1GJ kinetic energy ( relativistic electrons ) out.
This actually crushes the "Epstein Drive" , and gives us "Interstellar" .
Ain't group-minds grand ?
P.M.   
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 06/12/2018 04:54:09
25 micrograms accelerated to.9c.

If that impacted the receiver over a period of one second, the resulting force would be about 7 pounds. Hardly the stick of dynamite you keep going on about. You'd also have to have a laser with a power a bit over 5 gigawatts to get it up to that speed in a single second. I'm not going to bother showing you the calculations, since you'd ignore them anyway.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 06/12/2018 05:37:49
...............Your own crud !
.583 micrograms at .9c gives a kinetic energy of 21,250,350 joules
That's 21 sticks of dynamite , but ; it SHOULD be 999 .  Read Replies number 221&223 again , and reconfigure your calculations . 
Get 'em Scotty's nephew !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 06/12/2018 06:03:17
.583 micrograms at .9c gives a kinetic energy of 21,250,350 joules

You used a Newtonian equation when you should have used a relativistic one instead.

Quote
That's 21 sticks of dynamite

Energy is not force.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/12/2018 07:26:11
What happens to the track of the centre of the ball?

BTW, I'm going to keep asking that question until you actually answer it.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 06/12/2018 12:13:28
Lets drop the photon energy down to 1MeV , go ahead and raise the # of photons to #10th 30th .  What-ever # you use , Reply # 223 must apply .  The electrons soak up 1GJ per second , and impact with 1GJ per sec.  Triiiick !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 06/12/2018 15:24:07
Lets drop the photon energy down to 1MeV , go ahead and raise the # of photons to #10th 30th .  What-ever # you use , Reply # 223 must apply .  The electrons soak up 1GJ per second , and impact with 1GJ per sec.  Triiiick !
P.M.

Actually, it would only be 0.7965 gigajoules per second because electrons can only absorb 79.65% of the photon's energy when the photon is at 1 MeV.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 06/12/2018 17:55:23
Fine , dump the reflected ~20% EMR energy out the back .  1 MeV is a much easier energy for labs to work with .
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/12/2018 19:05:40
What happens to the track of the centre of the ball?

BTW, I'm going to keep asking that question until you actually answer it.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 06/12/2018 20:36:54
...........Mosquito Bite Itch .
The answer was veiled in # 216 !
It launches the ball , instead of the baby !
By the way , the electrons won't be exploding !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/12/2018 20:44:13
What happens to the track of the centre of the ball?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 06/12/2018 22:38:03
Lets drop the photon energy down to 1MeV , go ahead and raise the # of photons to #10th 30th .

By the way, dividing the energy of each photon by ten will only increase the number of photons per second ten-fold as well. So the actual number is on the order of 1021 photons per second, not 1030.

Fine , dump the reflected ~20% EMR energy out the back .  1 MeV is a much easier energy for labs to work with .
P.M.

Okay, you now have ten times as many electrons per second flowing through the engine since you have 1 MeV photons instead of 10 MeV. However, each electron now has less energy (and a lower relativistic mass) than when there were 10 MeV photons. The laser light reflected back will also hit harder than before when it returns to the laser. All of these factors come together to make the thrust exactly the same as in my first calculation: 3.3356 newtons.

You have neither gained nor lost anything by modifying the photon energy.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 07/12/2018 01:14:04
PRACTICALITY for research .  By the way , you can now change the quantity to 1 Godzilla Ball of electrons .
Note-You don't let the reflected EMR "hit" , you let it escape out of the exhaust .
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 07/12/2018 05:41:13
PRACTICALITY for research .  By the way , you can now change the quantity to 1 Godzilla Ball of electrons .

Godzilla Ball meaning what, exactly?

Quote
Note-You don't let the reflected EMR "hit" , you let it escape out of the exhaust .
P.M.

Then what you now have is a reaction engine, since you are letting propellant (in the form of the reflected light) out of the ship.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/12/2018 09:47:59
What happens to the track of the centre of the ball?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 07/12/2018 11:59:53
L-A-B W-O-R-K !
The point is to make it easy to create the dang thing in the first place !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/12/2018 13:25:36
L-A-B W-O-R-K !
The point is to make it easy to create the dang thing in the first place !
P.M.
No
Before you do the lab work, you check to see if it is already known to be impossible.
"A couple of months in the laboratory can frequently save a couple of hours in the library."
From
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Frank_Westheimer

What happens to the track of the centre of the ball?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 07/12/2018 14:11:52
............"That's impossible !" .
Ya ever watch Beevis & Butt-Head ?
Anyway , your own fellow "scientist" ( Har , har , har...) admits that there should be a powerful impact on  the target end .
About your question : You fire a laser at the G.ball , Godzilla screams in agony , aims his "Death Breath" at you , and burns your body off !
Theere , ya happy ?
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/12/2018 14:17:42
What happens to the track of the centre of the ball?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/12/2018 14:19:25
Anyway , your own fellow "scientist" ( Har , har , har...) admits that there should be a powerful impact on  the target end .
Where?
I saw this
All of these factors come together to make the thrust exactly the same as in my first calculation: 3.3356 newtons.
That's still under a pound of force.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 07/12/2018 14:43:06
..........Missing the obvious .
Reply # 226 clearly implies that the target impact is greater than 21 sticks of dynamite per sec .
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 07/12/2018 15:48:49
Reply # 226 clearly implies that the target impact is greater than 21 sticks of dynamite per sec .

As I said before, energy is not force. The two are not even proportional to each other. The factor you are missing is time. The equation for determining impact force is (2 x mass x velocity)/time. So you can have the exact same amount of mass moving at the exact same speed but produce wildly different forces depending on the time period involved in target contact.

The explosive component of dynamite is nitroglycerin, which has a detonation velocity of 7,700 meters per second. Let's say we have a stick of dynamite with a radius of 2 centimeters. At 7,700 meters per second, it would take only 0.0000026 seconds for the entire stick to explode. You could time the explosion of each of those 21 sticks to happen at the same time, which means you have 21 sticks of dynamite exploding in 0.0000026 seconds.

Your engine, on the other hand, is accelerating electrons to that same level of kinetic energy over 1 second. That's about 385,000 times longer of a time period. Is it apparent now why the exploding dynamite produces more force?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/12/2018 16:40:53
..........Missing the obvious .
Reply # 226 clearly implies that the target impact is greater than 21 sticks of dynamite per sec .
That's not "obvious" it's wrong.
So, let's backtrack.
Because you didn't understand post  226 you thought that someone agreed with you and you thought that was significant.

Where does that now leave you?
Also
What happens to the track of the centre of the ball?
Are you unable to answer, or is it that you daren't because you realise that it undermines everything you have said?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 07/12/2018 16:50:17
.............Uselessly Tricky .
Tricky monkeys !  Even .8 GJ equals .59 Billion foot-pounds of force !  That's enough to push a battleship around !
Why punish yourselves here ?  Just admit that the energy translation would produce a hellacious push !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 07/12/2018 21:18:54
Even .8 GJ equals .59 Billion foot-pounds of force !

Foot-pounds are a measure of energy, not force.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 07/12/2018 22:42:04
It's enough to raise the QE2 a foot.  Come now , MAN UP !
Jeez , it's like pulling teeth around here !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 07/12/2018 22:49:10
It's enough to raise the QE2 a foot.  Come now , MAN UP !
Jeez , it's like pulling teeth around here !
P.M.

So what? It's still not a force and therefore not a means of measuring the thrust of your engine.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 07/12/2018 23:21:33
..............Most annoying
81M newtons , or 18.2 Mlbs .
Are you screeching , and jumping for joy now ?  Sheesh !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 07/12/2018 23:35:33
..............Most annoying
81M newtons , or 18.2 Mlbs .
Are you screeching , and jumping for joy now ?  Sheesh !
P.M.

Where did you get those numbers from?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/12/2018 23:50:26
Just admit that the energy translation would produce a hellacious push !
Why would we "admit" something that's not right?
The force is still less than a pound.

You really need to go + learn why there is a difference between force and energy.
Why don't you?
Are you scared?

What happens to the track of the centre of the ball?
Are you unable to answer, or is it that you daren't because you realise that it undermines everything you have said?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/12/2018 23:51:35
..............Most annoying
81M newtons , or 18.2 Mlbs .
Are you screeching , and jumping for joy now ?  Sheesh !
P.M.
You pulled those numbers from thin air.
Do you think that's how science works?
What happens to the track of the centre of the ball?
Are you unable to answer, or is it that you daren't because you realise that it undermines everything you have said?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 08/12/2018 00:29:12
..................Petty B.S.
It SHOULD be obvious that it is the force necessary to accelerate .6Mlb. to 1ft per second . 
However , if you want to amuse the world by claiming that .8 GWsec in kinetic energy  ( .8 GJ ) transferred by MATTER results in a force of one pound for one second on a target , I must question more than your numerical competence .  Go ahead , advertise the difference between our logic capabilities !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 08/12/2018 00:36:18
It SHOULD be obvious that it is the force necessary to accelerate .6Mlb. to 1ft per second . 

No particular force is required to accelerate 600,000 pounds to 1 foot per second because 1 foot per second is a speed, not an acceleration. A very small force acting over a very long time period will get 600,000 pounds up to 1 foot per second just fine.

However , if you want to amuse the world by claiming that .8 GWsec in kinetic energy  ( .8 GJ ) transferred by MATTER results in a force of one pound for one second on a target , I must question more than your numerical competence .  Go ahead , advertise the difference between our logic capabilities !
P.M.

I already did that in reply #188, though technically it was 0.975087 GW/s and a force of 0.75 pounds.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/12/2018 00:54:43
Go ahead , advertise the difference between our logic capabilities !
OK
You are completely unable to understand the logic of this  situation. Kryptid and I are able to do so. That's' the difference in "our logic capabilities ".

In part, this is because we know some stuff about science.
Mainly it's because you can't get to grips with the fact that you don't know anything about physics. So, you repeat the same schoolboy errors.

Would you like me to advertise your utter ignorance anywhere else as well?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 08/12/2018 01:04:40
..................Rolling in it !
 IN ONE SECOND ! Tell me you didn't realise that !  Even your Low-brow School classmates would have recognised that !  Time to stop the dishonest cow-crud , and admit the basic facts here , not the absurd quibbling over wording which appears to be all you self-proclaimed "scientists" can produce !  Its getting embarrassing  even to have MY system associated with your rediculous twaddle !
Professor  ( earned as a kid , inspite of the automatic zero ) Megamind  !
!
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 08/12/2018 05:52:08
..................Rolling in it !
 IN ONE SECOND ! Tell me you didn't realise that !  Even your Low-brow School classmates would have recognised that !  Time to stop the dishonest cow-crud , and admit the basic facts here , not the absurd quibbling over wording which appears to be all you self-proclaimed "scientists" can produce !  Its getting embarrassing  even to have MY system associated with your rediculous twaddle !
Professor  ( earned as a kid , inspite of the automatic zero ) Megamind  !
!

Sorry, but that doesn't work. You can't calculate a force when all you have to go on is energy and time. Mass is a critical component as well. Given the way that your engine works, you can't accelerate more than 5.686 micrograms of electrons in one second anyway (assuming an energy of 1 MeV per photon). So the idea that your engine can accelerate 600,000 pounds of electrons in one second is completely off the table and irrelevant to the discussion.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 08/12/2018 08:35:34
........Common Sense Here !
To envision this clearly , imagine 298 horses pulling max-hard for 1 hour , or imagine 590 MILLION foot/pounds of work done .  Cram those into 1 second , and you have the force applied to the target CONTINUOUSLY , as long as you are feeding in 1GW of power , in the form of HEX-rays .  I really do not want to hear any more cockamamie blathering about THAT equaling 1 pound of force ! 
I think it is exactly what I claimed from the start ; a potentially very strong , Space Drive .
Now , in the name of professional decor , stop spraying me as if you are somebody's pet pot-bellied pig.
Professor Megamind 
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/12/2018 11:27:37
imagine 590 MILLION foot/pounds of work done .  Cram those into 1 second , and you have the force applied to the target CONTINUOUSLY ,
No.
You don't have a force, you have a power: specifically, you have 590 million foot pounds per second.
Or, in more sensible units 800 million watts.
That's a power, not a force.
It could refer to, for example,
a force of  590 pounds acting at a velocity of a million feet per second, or it could be
a force of a million pounds  acting at a velocity of 590 feet per second,
or any other combination which gives the same product (subject to a limit of the speed of light).

It could also refer to a large mass of water being heated rapidly, or a very loud noise, or the reduction of a lot of iron ore to the metal or lots of other things.

Why can't you learn simple physics and avoid making a fool of yourself in this way?

What happens to the track of the centre of the ball?
Are you unable to answer, or is it that you daren't because you realise that it undermines everything you have said?

Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 08/12/2018 12:44:08
................Turd Flinging !
Once more , you "scientists" seem to forget what I laid out , a small mass of electrons impacting a target at relativistic velocities , not boiling coffee , or running an amp ! 
As for your silly exploding ball question , I did answer it , you did not confirm , I am tired of hearing it .  How's about you stop making up faults that don't exist , and take your misapplied formulas to a place that has a use for them .  I will take my 1.08 Mhp. engine to those who appreciate it . 
By the way , even if it has only turbojet levels of efficiency , that's still ~1 million pounds of thrust .
Rots of ruck , deceivers !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/12/2018 13:33:56
Turd Flinging !
Yes, you are, and we wish you would stop it.
Once more , you "scientists" seem to forget what I laid out
OK here's what you laid out
590 MILLION foot/pounds of work done .  Cram those into 1 second , and you have the force applied to the target CONTINUOUSLY
And I pointed out that it's wrong.
You don't have " the force applied to the target" you have the power  dissipated in it. I explained that could be a small force moving quickly or a large force moving slowly. Anyone who knows when to change gear in a car should understand that
As for your silly exploding ball question , I did answer it ,
No, you didn't .
You made stupid comments that are too ambiguous to be useful and, as far as it goes, are wrong.
I am tired of hearing it
Then answer it, plainly and clearly- or admit that you can't.
How's about you stop making up faults that don't exist ,
The faults plainly do exist.
And you made them up, not us.

take your misapplied formulas to a place that has a use for them .
they are not "misapplied"- that fundamental lack of understanding on your part is why this thread is so long and unproductive.
You refuse to learn.
I will take my 1.08 Mhp. engine
You don't have one.
I'd quite like to be a fly on the wall when you turn up at some university or NASA or whoever and try to "sell" them your idea.
Perhaps when they start laughing you will accept that you are wrong.

By the way , even if it has only turbojet levels of efficiency , that's still ~1 million pounds of thrust .
But it hasn't that efficiency.
Because it is a reactionless engine, we know exactly what the efficiency is, and it's zero.

Rots of ruck , deceivers !
The only deceiver here is you; you deceive yourself, rather than learning.

So, once again, here's the question. If you don't want to see it again, all you have to do is give a clear meaningful answer.
What happens to the track of the centre of the ball?
Are you unable to answer, or is it that you daren't because you realise that it undermines everything you have said?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 08/12/2018 14:29:21
Once more , you "scientists" seem to forget what I laid out , a small mass of electrons impacting a target at relativistic velocities , not boiling coffee , or running an amp ! 

I explicitly took that into consideration with my calculations.

take your misapplied formulas to a place that has a use for them

Misapplied? Which of my equations did not apply to your design? Arguably the most important one would be the equation governing impact force, which is obviously highly relevant.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 08/12/2018 15:16:20
First , you need to elucidate your billiard ball question much better .
Second , the end of your post summarises the thing nicely ; this is ALL ABOUT impact force . Same as a firehose shooting a hard stream of water , or an artillery shell , striking a WALL .  Said wall being part of a ship .  Your calc.s continue to be off because you do not accept that there is no significant recoil on the launcher end , but major impact on the target end .  This imbalance in applied force is the gist of the engine . The trick is the conversion of internal photon energy (oscillation) into electron-kinetic energy , thus allowing for matter-style kinetic impacts .  There are a number of possible mechanisms to capture the electron-impacts , this is just the easiest for people to understand .
If you cannot fault the process , then don't try to confuse me with formulas I don't need .
P.M. 
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/12/2018 15:42:35
First , you need to elucidate your billiard ball question much better .
I already did, at the outset
You have a billiard ball flying through a big vacuum chamber at a few m/s - someone (in a space suit) threw it. Nothing complicated or relativistic.
It's the black ball and so it absorbs light really well.
I have a video camera pointed at it and hooked to a computer.
The centre of the ball is following a parabola and the computer is programmed to track the ball and work out the path  followed by the centre of the  ball so it can work out where the ball will go.

Now imagine that I fire a high power laser pulse at it and the light is absorbed by the ball.
The side of the ball nearest me  instantly boils.

 ( the computer now has a more difficult job because half the ball is now a cloud of hot gas + smoke).

What happens to the track of the centre of the ball?

Now, either clarify what information you think is missing, or answer it.

Your calc.s continue to be off because you do not accept that there is no significant recoil on the launcher end , but major impact on the target end .
No.
Our calculations are correct because we "do not accept that there is no significant recoil on the launcher end , but major impact on the target end".
Such an imbalance is impossible and you have not shown HOW it might happen, you have just repeatedly claimed THAT it happens.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/12/2018 15:43:34
The trick is the conversion of internal photon energy (oscillation) into electron-kinetic energy ,
We will be able to get back to that once you have answered my  previous question.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 08/12/2018 16:50:57
Firstly , I am not a flipping calculator !  I'll bother to answer for the sake of civility , is all . 
Obviously , whatever side boils will provide an explosive push in the opposite direction .  The arc of travel will be distorted by said push in a manner similar to shoving a swing which is already in motion .
There , I fail to see why that booger was worth picking !
P.M.
Note-It's NOT a perfect analogy !
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/12/2018 17:01:53
I fail to see why that booger was worth picking !
That's because you didn't read it properly.

The camera is tracking the centre of gravity of all the bits- even the soot  smoke + steam etc.

What happens to the path of the CoG of the ball?
(Hint; no maths is required)
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 08/12/2018 17:50:58
NOW I see your little point poking out !  You expect me to NOT see that the center of mass maintains it's initial trajectory , butt...  The initial burst of light would have pushed the ball an infinitesimal amount , before it ended .  This is analogous to a wave pushing a large ship a tiiiny bit , before the ship's magazine blows up .  There , isn't that all better now ?
Doctor P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/12/2018 18:52:41
You expect me to NOT see that the center of mass maintains it's initial trajectory ,
Well, It's not so much what I expect, as what you have done.
So far you have failed to see that, apart from the ting shove (less than a pound) from the laser, the ship will continue on its original trajectory.

Why do you think there's a difference between the ball- where you accept that it follows the laws of physics- and your ship where you claim it doesn't?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 08/12/2018 20:05:47
Because YOU fail to see the full effects of the Compton Scattering Paradigm ; in otherwords , release of photon "heat" (oscillation) energy , to the electron as kinetic energy .
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/12/2018 20:10:54
The fact that it's compton scattering rather than any other form doesn't make a difference.
The momentum transfer still follows the laws of physics.
You don't magically get more thrust.
So, six pages on,  you still don't have a reactionless drive.

Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 08/12/2018 21:09:00
So sayeth the blind man .
P.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 08/12/2018 21:17:35
Second , the end of your post summarises the thing nicely ; this is ALL ABOUT impact force .

All right then, here is the equation for calculating impact force: Impact force in newtons = (2 x mass in kg x velocity in m/s)/ time of impact in seconds. One newton is 0.224809 pounds of force. That is a very simple equation. It can easily be solved. So feel free to do it yourself and show us how it produces a much larger force than we anticipate.

don't try to confuse me with formulas I don't need

These formulas are ones that anyone who graduated from high school should be capable of using because they're only algebra. If you haven't graduated from high school yet, then I can forgive that short-coming. If you have, then you really should know better...
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/12/2018 21:43:07
So sayeth the blind man .
P.
I presume that's self-referential.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 10/12/2018 07:36:00
 IN ONE SECOND ! Tell me you didn't realise that !  Even your Low-brow School classmates would have recognised that ! 

By the way, your calculations were off. The amount of force needed to give 600,000 pounds an acceleration of 1 foot per second per second isn't 18.2 million pounds. It's 18,688 pounds. Very big difference.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: opportunity on 10/12/2018 09:26:05
Reactionless drives should be possible. Its one of the things we try to do as humans....the impossible. And yes, the math needs to be there. Anything is possible, the question is when and why.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 10/12/2018 11:53:26
Whoops , rushed .  Still more than one pound though .
P.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: opportunity on 10/12/2018 12:04:24
Yeah. Share that.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 10/12/2018 19:17:25
Reactionless drives should be possible.

Even if it was possible, this particular design doesn't work.

Quote
And yes, the math needs to be there.

I've done the math many times over in different posts demonstrating that he is wrong. Go look at replies #177, #188 and #208. Anyone who can do algebra can confirm it.

Whoops , rushed .  Still more than one pound though .
P.

Your machine can't accelerate 600,000 pounds in one second. It's limited to micrograms.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/12/2018 19:31:25
Reactionless drives should be possible.
No, they should not.
Things that are mathematically impossible don't happen.

(Please don't mention bees)
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/12/2018 14:36:09
Whoops , rushed .  Still more than one pound though .
P.
And it's still the wrong answer.
The right answer is about a pound
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 15/12/2018 18:54:37
..........Jumbo Jet Comparison
 .8 GW = ~ 1.1Mhp.
This maintains 11 747-200s at cruising speed and altitude .  Thrust therein is 550Klbs.
Conceptual translation : 200,000 strong shotgun blasts per second .
Actual thrust would vary according to system efficiency .
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/12/2018 19:39:34
And yet, it still won't work.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 15/12/2018 21:06:47
..........Jumbo Jet Comparison
 .8 GW = ~ 1.1Mhp.
This maintains 11 747-200s at cruising speed and altitude .  Thrust therein is 550Klbs.
Conceptual translation : 200,000 strong shotgun blasts per second .
Actual thrust would vary according to system efficiency .
P.M.

You're failing to take into account the enormous difference in the amount of mass moved between a 747 and your "engine". The 747 moves orders of magnitude more mass per second.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 16/12/2018 04:49:37
.....................Balance .
Orders of magnitude SLOWER than the RELATIVISTIC electrons .  In the end , kinetic energy equals kinetic energy .  The trick is how to capture/manipulate that energy .
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 16/12/2018 06:00:49
Orders of magnitude SLOWER than the RELATIVISTIC electrons . 

It doesn't make up for the difference. Not even close.

In the end , kinetic energy equals kinetic energy . 

And momentum equals momentum.

The trick is how to capture/manipulate that energy .

Nature can't be tricked.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2018 10:48:49
In the end , kinetic energy equals kinetic energy
Actually, in the end, kinetic energy degrades to heat.
But momentum is still momentum.
And that's essentially why you are wrong.
Why not study some  high school physics so you can avoid making foolish statements like that?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 16/12/2018 13:27:09
..............To Reply # 287
The logic chain dictates that it MUST balance out .  Here is why ; Replacing each HEX-ray with a relativistic electron immediately produces an electron stream with .8GJ of kinetic energy per second .  THAT is Compton Scattering .  If properly captured , it can produce as much push as a group of cruising jumbo-jets .  The trick is the extreme oscillation energy of the photons , being converted into lateral kinetic energy of electrons .  Nothing is conserved because the EMR is not conserved .  It is nothing , that came from nothing .  It does NOT obey the same laws of physics as actual matter , because , in essence , IT is not there !  Think of imaginary , immaterial matter that can affect "real" matter , and you start to  get the idea .
To actual science enthusiasts only.
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 16/12/2018 15:11:00
The logic chain dictates that it MUST balance out . 

Then your logic is flawed because the math clearly demonstrates that a few micrograms of electrons accelerated to relativistic velocities in one second produces less than one pound of thrust. The only refutation against my calculations you have given is your intuition. Intuition loses against the laws of physics.

If properly captured , it can produce as much push as a group of cruising jumbo-jets .

See reply above.

Nothing is conserved because the EMR is not conserved .

Wrong. Momentum is still conserved.

It is nothing , that came from nothing .

You clearly don't know what photons are.

It does NOT obey the same laws of physics as actual matter , because , in essence , IT is not there ! 

It obeys conservation of momentum.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 16/12/2018 16:11:43
First , you are putting words in my mouth  (paragraph 1 , reply 290).  I said zilch about "accelerating a few micrograms" of anything .  The photon-electron energy transfer is an instantaneous translation of energy to a form which can produce significant impact forces .  Read Reply # 289 ; classical momentum restrictions do not apply .
P.M
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 16/12/2018 17:49:04
I said zilch about "accelerating a few micrograms" of anything .

You didn't have to. I calculated earlier that the maximum possible mass of electrons that you can accelerate in one second due to Compton scattering when you have a 1 gigawatt laser firing 1 MeV photons is about 5.6 micrograms. It's an inevitable consequence of the way that you have set up your device. If you want to accelerate more mass than that, then you either have to increase the power of the laser or lower the energy of each individual photon. It's an unavoidable trade off.

The photon-electron energy transfer is an instantaneous translation of energy

Maybe when you have only one photon and one electron that's approximately true. If you are trying to accelerate many electrons, however, then you have to wait for all of the needed photons to arrive before you can get all of your electrons accelerated. For a given laser power, you have to wait longer in order to accelerate more electrons.

Quote
to a form which can produce significant impact forces .

If you consider about 1.4 pounds of impact force significant, that is.

Read Reply # 289 ; classical momentum restrictions do not apply .
P.M

You're wrong, of course. I calculated earlier that the photon-electron system has the exact same momentum before and after the collision. The restrictions absolutely do apply and I've already proven it.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2018 21:47:22
I said zilch about "accelerating a few micrograms" of anything . 
Yes you did.
It's just that you didn't understand what you said.
Why not study some  high school physics so you can avoid making foolish statements like that?
To actual science enthusiasts only.
Your enthusiasm is great.
Your understanding of science isn't

Were you referring to those whose enthusiasm for science is so great that that actually learn some?
hat would exclude you from your own discussion
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 16/12/2018 22:27:33
.No ASSUMPTIONS , LOGIC ONLY !
First , this "engine" is an ideal construct .  This means we can assume 180 impacts between each pair of photon/electrons .  The precise # of photons is actually unimportant .  What matters is that the number of photons necessary to transmit 1GW of power , is matched by an equal number of electrons .  A steady stream of electrons would be injected , to match the photons , and absorb .8 GW from them .  That equates to the .8 GJ steady impact described above .
Now then , about the personal insults : I consider that a naked demonstration of the quality of your thought processes .  Most embarrassing even to be associated with , and likely the reason why heavy-thinkers like myself are avoiding these threads .  It's too bad you can't appreciate just how pathetic your feces-chucking is to them .  I would expect much better quality control , from an institution of Cambridge's reputation , and standing .  You fool no one , but shame yourselves .
P.M. 
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2018 22:32:01
Now then , about the personal insults
Like what?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 17/12/2018 03:45:37
No ASSUMPTIONS , LOGIC ONLY !

All logical arguments require starting assumptions.

This means we can assume 180 impacts between each pair of photon/electrons .  The precise # of photons is actually unimportant .  What matters is that the number of photons necessary to transmit 1GW of power , is matched by an equal number of electrons .  A steady stream of electrons would be injected , to match the photons , and absorb .8 GW from them .  That equates to the .8 GJ steady impact described above .

My calculations reflect those exact circumstances. The resulting thrust still did not increase above that of a laser by itself.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 17/12/2018 04:11:39
Since the construct has the entire 1 GW consumed by the electrons , or reflected backwards , where exactly do you see the 1GJ per sec of kinetic energy going ?
P.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 17/12/2018 05:51:45
Since the construct has the entire 1 GW consumed by the electrons , or reflected backwards , where exactly do you see the 1GJ per sec of kinetic energy going ?

Most of it goes into the electrons while a little is reflected back as weakened photons. Although the rate of kinetic energy transfer is high, the mass flow is very low. Mass is a very important factor in impact force, hence why the force is so low despite the large amount of energy involved.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 17/12/2018 10:26:52
.8 Gigajoules in one second is an enormous amount of kinetic energy .  It is a helluva shove , no matter WHAT does it !  The trick is finding a good catch mechanism .
P.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/12/2018 11:43:34
.8 Gigajoules in one second is an enormous amount of kinetic energy
Yes.
But a laser beam does not have much kinetic energy. Essentially all of the energy is potential energy tied up in stretching electromagnetic fields.
Only the tiny fraction associated with the tiny mass of the photons is, in any way, kinetic energy.
That's why the "shove" from light is so small.

Why can't you accept this simple fact?
The trick is finding a good catch mechanism .

Any "catch" will have a recoil.
So there will be no reactionless force.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 17/12/2018 12:24:46
The internal , oscillating fields of the photon transmute their energy into kinetic energy of moving matter (the electrons ) .  This second form is what has the potential for significant impact , instead of reflection .
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/12/2018 12:27:42
If you had a photon traveling across the room from left to right, what is the one direction in which the electric field associated with that electron can be guaranteed not to push an electron?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 17/12/2018 14:34:57
.8 Gigajoules in one second is an enormous amount of kinetic energy .

I never said it wasn't.

Quote
It is a helluva shove , no matter WHAT does it !

You're speaking from your intuition again without any actual hard evidence to support it. If the mass involved is small or if the time period over which it acts is long then the forces involved will be weaker than if the mass is large or the time period is short.

If you're so interested in impact force, then you really should commit yourself to understanding that impact force is (2 multiplied by mass multiplied by velocity) divided by impact time. That is a simple algebraic equation that any high school student should be capable of understanding. Unless you have dyscalculia or some similar disorder, there is no excuse for your inability to grasp it. Since there are three variables in the equation, here are your three options for increasing impact force:

Increasing the mass of electrons: If the other variables are kept constant, increasing the total mass of electrons will give you more impact force. Since your device is limited to one electron per photon, then increasing the mass of electrons must ultimately involve increasing the number of photons you get. This will require either increasing the laser power or decreasing the energy of each photon. However, decreasing the energy of each photon will also decrease the velocity of the electrons, which will ultimately cancel out any intended benefits. Therefore, the only option is to increase laser power.

Increasing the velocity of the electrons: This is dependent on the Compton scattering equation and is directly related to the energy of each photon. The only way to make this increase is to increase the energy of each photon. If the power of the laser is kept constant, then increasing the energy of each photon must be compensated by having fewer photons per second. This will cancel out any intended benefits of having higher energy photons. Like the previous step, this means that the only option to increase the force is to increase laser power.

Decreasing the time of impact: You can decrease the time period over which a given mass of electrons impacts your plate either by decreasing photon energy or by increasing laser power. Both of these options will give you more photons per unit time to use and therefore allow you to accelerate more electrons per unit time. Decreasing the photon energy, unfortunately, will decrease the velocity of the electrons and ultimately result in no greater force than you started with. The only other option is to increase laser power.

So no matter which of these three variables you change, the only way to get more force is to get a more powerful laser.

EDIT: To add on to what I said earlier, it might be interesting to show what happens when you keep the kinetic energy of an object and its impact time the same while changing the mass. Here are some examples of the velocities and impact forces that you get for objects with a kinetic energy of 1 gigajoule and an impact time of 1 second:

Boeing 747 - 334,400 kilograms - 77.336 meters per second - 51,722,316.8 newtons of impact force
African Bush Elephant - 28,600 kilograms - 264.443 meters per second - 15,126,139.6 newtons of impact force
Bowling Ball - 7.26 kilograms - 16,597.65 meters per second - 120,498.939 newtons of impact force
Ping-Pong Ball - 0.0027 kilograms - 860,663 meters per second - 2,323.7901 newtons of impact force

Is it yet clear that less mass equates to a weaker impact for the same amount of energy?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/12/2018 21:42:38
Is it yet clear that less mass equates to a weaker impact for the same amount of energy?
Light things hit less hard.
That's something I wouldn't expect to have to explain twice to a bright ten-year-old.

Can anyone explain why the OP is still struggling to accept it?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 17/12/2018 22:30:26
............Screwy logic above .
The above reasoning is a montage of false ass.umptions .
First , the impact breakdown earlier  in the thread was accurate .  An inefficient conversion of .8 GW to thrust will equal ~ .8 Mlbs .  That is roughly equivalent to four 747-200 jumbo-jets at Max.Take.Off.Thrust. This is what a good catcher device will experience , as the reciever for the "Compton Engine" . 
You assume that I'm speaking from intuition .  Negative , my figures come from credible charts , graphs , and listings .  My example is crystal-clear , therefore I don't need to change my numerical , or duration , inputs . You admit above that .8 GJ is a massive amount of kinetic energy .  So once again I must query "Where did that energy go ?  What is that breakdown ?" .  The simple , non-numerical answer is "Into the target." .  Not "Reflected uselessly off the target." , as EMR would do , but actually impacted , and pushed , the target hard .
Don't insult my mathematical processes anymore .  They're giving me credible , believable answers , while your "spaghetti on quick-sand" approach is taking you way off target .  I only bother with such tripe for the sake of readers , who might believe you , and become likewise confused .
Toodles , Mr. 2+2=22 !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/12/2018 23:08:19
An inefficient conversion of .8 GW to thrust will equal ~ .8 Mlbs . 
This is not true.
Saying more often does not change that.
My example is crystal-clear
Your "example" is wrong.
Don't insult my mathematical processes anymore .
You keep doing the wrong maths.

You admit above that .8 GJ is a massive amount of kinetic energy .
Yes- but it is not the kinetic energy you get from a 0.8GW laser in a second.

So once again I must query "Where did that energy go ? 
Are you asking again because you didn't like the answer you got last time?
It isn't going to change.
Don't insult my mathematical processes anymore .  They're giving me credible , believable answers
Nobody but you thinks they are credible, or believable.
You assume that I'm speaking from intuition .  Negative , my figures come from credible charts , graphs , and listings
Yes, then you take the right numbers and do the wrong things with them
That's why you get the wrong answers.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 17/12/2018 23:41:55
I must now consign Professor Mega-Mind to being beyond hope. To the ignore list he goes.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 18/12/2018 00:11:37
.......Misrepresentations above
First , KE=MVsq. does say it all .  Just as it takes disproportionate push to raise speed as speed increases , so disproportionate push is received from decelerating faster objects , as well .  This is why decelerating 40 micrograms of electrons from .8 c , in one second , will yield as much "push" for that second , as four 747s at full thrust , for exactly one second. 
Stick with thrust , your impact #s are scrambled eggs .
FYI , earlier jumbo engines were officially rated at ~50k.kw of power , and ~50klb of thrust .
Also , a laser-beam has intrinsic heat energy , but negligible kinetic energy .  This is why it can melt through steel , but not push it any .  Electrons have no intrinsic heat energy (internal oscillations ) , they have kinetic energy resulting from velocity .  THAT is how they transmit heat .  That is also why physics terms slowly moving free-electrons as "cold" , and fast-moving free-electrons as "hot" .
Lastly , any real space scientist will verify that tiny , fast moving objects hit just as hard as large , slow moving ones .
Pull fingers from ears !
P.M.
P.S.-A full 747 cruises w/~10 GJ of kinetic energy .
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 18/12/2018 00:18:45
................Addendum .
 50,000 kw ( 50K kw. ) .
Got worked up , wrote too fast !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/12/2018 10:49:52
First , KE=MVsq. does say it all
No
If you want to look at forces (and, for a drive, you do) then you have to consider momentum.

OK, let's see where you start to go wrong.
Which  part of this do you not accept. (I will number the bits for you)
(1) Newton's laws tell us that force = mass times acceleration.
(2) Acceleration is the change of velocity divided by the time it takes
(3) If you start or end with zero velocity then that "change of" bit is irrelevant
(4) So force = mass times velocity divided by time.
(5) And, mass times velocity is momentum
(6) So force = momentum / time
(7) [ strictly, force is (change in momentum)/time,  but I got tired of writing "change of"]

And, if you look, you will see that the equation does not even include energy as a term.
Energy isn't want you want, if you want to calculate forces.

So, go on, tell me which step do you think is wrong, and tell me what mistake I have made in going from each equation to the next?

Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 18/12/2018 13:42:28
Isaac Newton's "laws" were written for matter , not IMITATION matter .  Matter is always extant somewhere , if it interacts within a system .  Light , on the other hand , is created out of thin air . It is used in impossible ways , then chucked out as nothing , without affecting the system .
By the way , you have not yet
accounted for the radial momentum of the light's internal oscillations .
Lastly , I believe that force equals mass times deceleration , also .
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/12/2018 13:49:09
Matter is always extant somewhere
No
Creation and annihilation of matter/ antimatter pairs is well documented.
In particular, "pair formation" from high energy x rays (which you were talking about earlier) is well known.
You might want to call light "imitation" matter, but it carries momentum. You need to account for that.
It is used in impossible ways
That would be... impossible.
So it's wrong.
By the way , you have not yet
accounted for the radial momentum of the light's internal oscillations .
Actually, I did. I asked you about it.
You didn't answer.
Here's the question again.
If you had a photon traveling across the room from left to right, what is the one direction in which the electric field associated with that electron can be guaranteed not to push an electron?
Perhaps you could actually answer it this time.


Lastly , I believe that force equals mass times deceleration , also .
Give or take a minus sign, yes.
So what?
Anyway, perhaps you could address the point I made and let me know where in that sequence of  7 steps you part company with reality?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Kryptid on 18/12/2018 22:16:02
If you want to look at forces (and, for a drive, you do) then you have to consider momentum.

And he couldn't even get the kinetic energy equation right.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/12/2018 22:28:26
I consider that a naked demonstration of the quality of your thought processes .  Most embarrassing even to be associated with , and likely the reason why heavy-thinkers like myself are avoiding these threads . 
Just a thought.
If you really believe that, set up a poll about it and see.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 18/12/2018 23:26:19
..............Mr. Bull Nitpicky .
ENGINE , not high energy collider !
1 MeV X-ray stream hitting static electrons ain't doing that !
 Next ; does matter just shrivel up and/or dissappear ?  Furk No !  If it did that would screw up your math , now wouldn't it ?
Next , impossible for matter is not impossible for light .
Next , your billiard-ball question is NOT what I was referring to .  I clearly meant a number value for the side-to-side , internal oscillations composing the photon . 
Finally , I don't feel like answering the E.S. level insult .  That is NOT why do this forum !
P.M. 
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/12/2018 10:14:04
Next ; does matter just shrivel up and/or dissappear ?  Furk No !  If it did that would screw up your math , now wouldn't it ?
No, the most common form of disappearance is conversion to two photons.
Momentum is conserved.
So is energy- once you take the relativistic equivalence into account.
So, reality doesn't do what you suggest and, consequently, doesn't screw up my maths.
your billiard-ball question is NOT what I was referring to .  I clearly meant a number value for the side-to-side , internal oscillations composing the photon . 
I asked about photons hitting electrons.
That's not a "billiard ball" problem.
It seem you realised this when you say stuff like
impossible for matter is not impossible for light .
but then forgot it again.
Also, the relevant answer to your question would be about what part of the electromagnetic field can push an electron forward. You don't seem to want to think about that , so I will answer it for you.
It is, of course, zero, because the field is at right angles to the direction of motion.
I could go + find a numerical value for the electric field  (so could you if you were less lazy) , but it's in the wrong direction to help your magic machine.


Finally , I don't feel like answering the E.S. level insult .  That is NOT why do this forum !

The point of being on any forum is to discuss things.
That means answering legitimate questions.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 19/12/2018 20:57:34
The question was posed to get you to admit that photons are made of high energy electric/magnetic waves , oscillating within .  You imply that the side-to-side motion can't knock an electron forward , but I say "incorrect" .  The internal waves hit the electrons in a manner similar to a billiard-ball hitting another billiard-ball in a glancing contact .  This can propel the stricken ball sideways , relative to the direction of the striking ball .  Ergo , the photon's internal oscillations knock the electrons forward with great force .
The weak impact forces of photons striking massive objects are because the internal em waves are not engaged .  They are a seperate dynamic , different from ordinary object-striking-object , k.e. and momentum conventions .
Now that you see the trick , stop insulting the MAN who discovered it !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/12/2018 20:59:45
but I say "incorrect" .
You say a lot of things...
Now that you see the trick
Nobody has seen anything except you posting gibberish.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 30/12/2018 23:59:30
...........Shock-Wave Engine .
This is an actual , practical , form of the Compton Effect-type of engines . 
Mount a dense-plasma container (X-ray transparent) on a bulkhead , with some padding between it and the container .  Install massively powerful HEX-ray projectors opposite the .container . Fire ultra-powerful , extremely short bursts of unfocused HEX-rays at the tank of plasma . These should generate strong shockwaves , which hit the pad & wall as hammer blows .  A continuous series of these will steadily push on the wall , in a manner similar to a buzz-bomb (pulse-jet) engine .  The Compton-Effect assures that although recoil will be negligible , the shockwaves will be relatively powerful .
THAT is the first practical  Reactionless Drive !
Professor Mega-Mind .
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 01/01/2019 20:12:05
..........Plasma-Cannon Engine
The design has an earlier , more  practical version ; the "Plasma-Cannon" form .  With this version , a proton-electron plasma is injected into the base of a powerful HEX-ray cannon .  The electrons are accelerated to relativistic velocities momentarily , but then decelerate , as the powerful electro-magnetic force drags the heavy protons along with the light-weight electrons .  If the ejected plasma hits a reciever , within a closed system , and is recycled , it forms a reactionless drive .  If the plasma is ejected to space , or is spent in an open system , it forms a reaction drive .  If the stream is focused onto an outside target , then it is a weapon .  When the plasma-stream impacts a cold target , the ions will re-combine .  This will release a tremendous amount of heat energy , thus justifying the name "Phaser" , or Phase-change laser .
Okay !  Inverted phaser equals RD .
Professor Megamind
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/01/2019 17:49:17
This is an actual , practical , form of the Compton Effect-type of engines . 
Mount a dense-plasma container (X-ray transparent)
So "practical" that it starts with unobtanium.
These should generate strong shockwaves , which hit the pad & wall as hammer blows .
Yes, it will create a shockwave.
And,as I keep pointing out (and you keep trying to ignore) the shockwave will spread out in all directions.
It will hammer the tank equally in all directions.
The net force will be practically zero (apart from photon pressure).
THAT is the first working Reactionless Drive !
No.
It's not even a credible start on the way to one.

If the ejected plasma hits a reciever , within a closed system , and is recycled , it ...
... produces no net force..


thus justifying the name "Phaser" , or Phase-change laser .
OK, so that shows that you don't know what a laser is...
No shock there.

Nobody has seen anything except you posting gibberish.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 04/01/2019 18:59:13
..............Rabbit/Hat/Grin !
Ever hear of a water-hammer ? Well ; "Today is a day , of days !" for plumbers !
As for "Phaser" , it's an acronym , not an official designation .
Lastly , I've never seen an X-ray machine experience recoil yet !
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/01/2019 01:56:00
Ever hear of a water-hammer ?
Yes.
I heard of it.
I also heard it.
 And I was not inside a water pipe.

So, you have provided  supporting evidence for my point of view.

Like "water hammer" the shockwave moves out in all directions .
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/01/2019 02:00:19
Lastly , I've never seen an X-ray machine experience recoil yet !
Yes, I doubt anyone has.
 That's because the recoil is tiny.

The recoil force (which we seem to agree is tiny) is the only force available to your "reactionless drive".
That's fine- your drive's size is't what's important- but you need to remember that that tiny force isn't reactionless.

Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 05/01/2019 03:42:05
..............Compton Effect.
Like a spring unloading , the HEX-ray photons unload their internally-  stored energy into the point-particle electrons .  These instantly  accelerate to relativistic velocities , packing a kinetic punch that the photons NEVER could !  Striking the dense-plasma container all at once , they produce a powerful shockwave , which propagates through the container , and strikes the lightly-padded wall . The effect  is that of a giant hammer-blow to the wall .  A continuous series of these would produce a steady thrust against the wall .
Like a water-hammer , these shock-waves would propagate down-stream only , unless reflected backwards .  The thin-mat behind the plasma-container absorbs the shockwaves by way of inelastic collisions .  There are no reflections .
Well , well !  No-recoil versus very powerful shockwave .  Doesn't seem fair to me !
P.M.

Note-Conceptually , this is very similar to the "Orion" spaceship-drive concept .  It's practicality was debatable , but it's efficacy was not .
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/01/2019 12:42:50
And, once again...

they produce a powerful shockwave , which propagates through the container ,
in all directions and this has a negligible net thrust.

It doesn't matter how many  times you pretend otherwise.
The shock- like water hammer- spreads in all directions and produces no net thrust.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/01/2019 12:43:57
As for "Phaser" , it's an acronym
What does it stand for?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 14/01/2019 07:17:48
.....................Phaser
Short for :
 Phase-changing laser-like beam .
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/01/2019 07:24:59
.....................Phaser
Short for :
 Phase-changing laser-like beam .
P.M.
acronym
/ˈakrənɪm/Submit
noun
an abbreviation formed from the initial letters of other words and pronounced as a word (e.g. ASCII, NASA ).
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 14/01/2019 12:33:51
You can change it to "Informal Short Name" , if that makes you happy .  Even "common name , or nick-name" , could suffice .  Matters not to me .
P.M.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/01/2019 18:50:36
When the plasma-stream impacts a cold target , the ions will re-combine .  This will release a tremendous amount of heat energy
Which, as pointed out before, will spill out in every direction.
So, it's not a beam.
Why make up a name that sounds like laser for something that has no obvious link to one?
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 14/01/2019 23:55:17
...................Morphology
An extremely high velocity , glowing-hot plasma-stream , analogous to a radical garden-hose .  This will bear some resemblance to a laser-beam , in a vapor cloud .
D.H.
Title: Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/01/2019 07:27:30
analogous to a radical garden-hose
It isn't a stream.

It bursts out spherically in all directions (which is why it produces no net thrust)
Do you not understand this?