"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...


I do not see much too strange about this. Consider the force on a
current loop to be F=qVXB (note X is the cross product of vector
quantites V and B) and you see via the right hand rule

I'm probably one of the few people who missed the question on
the right hand thumb rule on my physics final because I'm
.....left-handed. Not kidding!


that there is a
force on a current loop if the loop is angled wrt the field direction.
Yes, the force is small which would explain why they discuss small
satellites and the right hand rule might explain the weird reference
to "tornado motion" and would explain why they use a battery (to
provide current).


Electromagnetic fields can carry momentum and energy according
to the link below, so that wouldn't be technically considered a
reactionless drive, even if there's no expelling of conventional
reaction mass. Such as tether propulsion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrodynamic_tether

A reactionless drive that doesn't transfer momentum would violate
the law of conservation and the principle of relativity. It would mean
the concept of momentum is dependent on the observer.

This is probably the result of some Russian snake oil salesman that
managed to fool his way into a contract with something like the old
oscillation thruster. Works fine as a reactionless thruster
right up until the point it gets into a vacuum.
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/hbimp35.htm

NASA studied this issue, and they said.....NYET!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham...ki_controversy





s



s