About that old electromagnetic "stellar drive"

Hi, Im new here, I have read and became little interested in that Italian stellar drive SC23, I dont know alot about it but he got 45 micronewton thrust out of
1 w? its not much.... anyway but did it work at all in the first place?

there is just some detail that about his electromagnetic propulsion concept that I believe should be changed and perhaps show some real results:

instead of trying to shutting down electromagnet 1 before its e.m. field reaches electromagnet 2 why not just leave electromagnet 1 on for as long as you want and just make sure JUST that the shutting down of Elec. magn. 1 and turning of Elec. magn. 2 to happen right instantaounesly after each other.. I guess you may not understand my point but I would like to talk to the man behind the drive.

regards

"tyet tyt" wrote in message
...

Hi, Im new here, I have read and became little interested in that Italian
stellar drive SC23, I dont know alot about it but he got 45 micronewton
thrust out of
1 w? its not much.... anyway but did it work at all in the first place?

there is just some detail that about his electromagnetic propulsion concept
that I believe should be changed and perhaps show some real results:

instead of trying to shutting down electromagnet 1 before its e.m. field
reaches electromagnet 2 why not just leave electromagnet 1 on for as long
as you want and just make sure JUST that the shutting down of Elec. magn. 1
and turning of Elec. magn. 2 to happen right instantaounesly after each
other. I guess you may not understand my point but I would like to talk to
the man behind the drive.

regards


If you are describing the setup I think you are, he basically has invented
an inefficient photon drive basically.



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

Yeah I have read somewhere here in this group I guess that its just like a photon drive really.. but seriously though... why? Is he doing it all wrong or is the whole electromagnetic propulsion concept just wrong and will never be efficient? In other words if we successfully isolate the magnet from its magnetic field and repel against it will we get the same thrust as the magnetic field strength pull?

: tyet tyt
: Yeah I have read somewhere here in this group I guess that its just
: like a photon drive really.. but seriously though... why? Is he
: doing it all wrong or is the whole electromagnetic propulsion concept
: just wrong and will never be efficient?

Oh heavens no, photon drives are the most efficient possible.
You get the most delta-v per reaction mass expended.

: In other words if we successfully isolate the magnet fro= m its
: magnetic field and repel against it will we get the same thrust as t=
: he magnetic field strength pull?

Oh. Well that's not the same question at all. Basically, the
answer there is, it just won't work, except as a reaction drive due to
asymmetrically emitted em fields. No matter how you may lose track of
some in your accounting, momentum is still conserved.

Basically, naict, it's the "let's make simplifying assumptions, and
then work out what happens, and sun of a gun, we get momentum for nothing.
Well... un-simplify your assumptions, and it goes away.

There were a couple of old analog stories from the '70s based on the
notion that newton's "equal and opposite reaction" in reality had a small
delay (unlike the theory), and therefore you could do your action and
"dodge" the reaction. It was bogus then, and it's bogus now, no matter
how you dress it up in electromagnetic window dressing.

Thanx for the reply. firstly, the photon drive´s net efficiency is horribly low, how much power do you put in to get a net thrust..

Anyway its hard to make you understand what I am after, obviously that italian electromagnetic drive is just a very weak photon drive but I have a slight modification of that drive that might produce huge thrust(Im not saying I know I am right, but I just want to make sure you understand what I am trying to achieve)
If you really fully understood what im trying to achieve and see clearly that it is a bogus concept Im more than happy to accept that, I just want to make sure you get me.

To try to make it clearer I hope,.. the concept simply is that this propulsion can work on any frequency, i.e. it doesnt rely on very high frequency and can work in the khz area or even only 50hz

what is important is that the rise/fall time of the signal must be of very very rapid nature. i.e. in the picoseconds.


if we get two independent strong electromagnets(strong because here we can use lower frequency & higher inductance) facing eachother. magnet 1 can be one for as long as you wish but you need to switch it off very quickly (picoseconds fall time) right after magnet 1 is off, you turn on magnet 2 (picoseconds risetime)

You can now imagine a 1khz system where the 2 magnets´on/off switching is one cycle.
to ge them siwtching after each other is not a problem. this leaves us the picosecond rise/fall time problem but i found several generators that are capable of 10 ps rise times so that is not a problem.
What I am wondering now though.. is how powerfull a coil can we use and if the picosecond fall tiems are going to require and limit us to ultra low inductances in the nano henries....


Thanx for your time

On 21/09/2012 6:06 PM, tyet tyt wrote:
Thanx for the reply. firstly, the photon drive´s net efficiency is horribly low, how much power do you put in to get a net thrust..

Anyway its hard to make you understand what I am after, obviously that italian electromagnetic drive is just a very weak photon drive but I have a slight modification of that drive that might produce huge thrust(Im not saying I know I am right, but I just want to make sure you understand what I am trying to achieve)
If you really fully understood what im trying to achieve and see clearly that it is a bogus concept Im more than happy to accept that, I just want to make sure you get me.

To try to make it clearer I hope,.. the concept simply is that this propulsion can work on any frequency, i.e. it doesnt rely on very high frequency and can work in the khz area or even only 50hz

what is important is that the rise/fall time of the signal must be of very very rapid nature. i.e. in the picoseconds.


if we get two independent strong electromagnets(strong because here we can use lower frequency & higher inductance) facing eachother. magnet 1 can be one for as long as you wish but you need to switch it off very quickly (picoseconds fall time) right after magnet 1 is off, you turn on magnet 2 (picoseconds risetime)

You can now imagine a 1khz system where the 2 magnets´on/off switching is one cycle.
to ge them siwtching after each other is not a problem. this leaves us the picosecond rise/fall time problem but i found several generators that are capable of 10 ps rise times so that is not a problem.
What I am wondering now though.. is how powerfull a coil can we use and if the picosecond fall tiems are going to require and limit us to ultra low inductances in the nano henries....


Thanx for your time


Just how big, or do I mean small, are these electromagnets? An
electromagnetic wave travels 3 mm in 10 picoseconds, so 3mm is the upper
limit on the size the electromagnets can have if turning them off in 10
picoseconds is to have any real physical meaning.

In addition, any change to the field won't occur everywhere at the same
moment. The change will propagate away from the electromagnet at the
same sluggish rate of 3 mm every 10 picoseconds.

Sylvia.

In article ,
says...

Yeah I have read somewhere here in this group I guess that its
just like a photon drive really.. but seriously though... why?
Is he doing it all wrong or is the whole electromagnetic
propulsion concept just wrong and will never be efficient?
In other words if we successfully isolate the magnet from
its magnetic field and repel against it will we get the same
thrust as the magnetic field strength pull?

Not to discourage the "pie in the sky" researchers, but I've got an
engineering degree, so until one of these new technologies makes it out
of the lab, it's simply not useful and I'm not at all interested in it.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Thanx Sylvia, thats very good, this is what I want to discuss., obviously the Em waves travels at C speed, so we can never have any higher speed than this anywhere including how fast we want to energise the coils. but still how come there all kinds of different rise times generators from very long to very short when they all obey the C speed?

anyway lets assume we have 2 identical 3mm inductors.. spaced 3mm apart. we start with the moment the inductor-1 is "off".

---Inductor-1 is quickly turned off but the "emitted" electromagnetic wave still travels and is attenuated the further it goes...

---Inductor-2 is starting to energize the instant inductor-1 was 100%off.
---Inductor-2 takes 10ps to turn 100% on.

----10ps later, i.e. since inductor-1 was off, inductor-2 is fully on and, this emitted wave is now 3mm away and reaches inductor-2

inductor-2 reacts against the uncoupled wave.

all described above is 1 cycle, frequency could be very moderate in khz range.. the important part here is the perfection of the cycle.

As Im learning now Ihave 2 main and chief vital question:

1-how strong will this force felt by inductor-2? if we just imagine that inductor-1 has a magnetic pull strength of 1kg at 3mm distance, will inductor-2 experience the same or at least close to 1kg? if not.. why?


2-can we have a short 10ps rise time in a much longer inductor.. like 100cm?

regards
Karl

tyet tyt wrote:

the photon drive´s net efficiency is horribly low

That's the main issue with photon drives.

how much power do you put in to get a net thrust..

Because the units don't convert the answers tend to look strange like
this one -

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...on/q0195.shtml

The reason mass based thrusters tend to give higher thrust than photon
based thrusters is E=MC2.

When mass is ejected the thrust is momentum per second - T = V * M/sec

Converting units T = V * M/sec = V * E/C2/sec = E/C/sec

The energy of the photons gets divided by C to do the conversion to
thrust. It's why photons impart so little momentum/thrust.

Even though photons have the highest possible exhaust velocity they have
the lowest possible exhaust mass.

Here's where efficiency comes in - With photons every bit of energy lost
in the generation and transmission and thruster mechanism is lost as
waste heat not thrust. With matter thrust almost all of the fuel and
oxider goes ou thte nozzle in comparison.

Design an LED that approaches 99.99% effeciency, point it out the back,
and you get a more efficient thruster per watt. Unfortunately LEDs are
severely power limited.

: tyet tyt
: Thanx for the reply. firstly, the photon drive's net efficiency is
: horribly low, how much power do you put in to get a net thrust..

Depends on what you mean by "efficiency". If you have a kilogram of
reaction mass, converting it to photons and flinging *them* overboard
will give you more delta-v than leaving them as matter and flinging
*that* overboard. But granted, you've got to fling a *lot* of photons,
which means you've got to have a *lot* of energy. The thing to take
note of, is that mass is "just" a very, very, compact form of energy,
so if you've got mass you are throwing away... well, you're throwing
away energy also.

: Anyway its hard to make you understand what I am after, obviously that
: italian electromagnetic drive is just a very weak photon drive but I
: have a slight modification of that drive that might produce huge
: thrust(Im not saying I know I am right, but I just want to make sure
: you understand what I am trying to achieve)

Understood. It would help if you said why you thought it had potential.
To me, conservation of momentum issues mean it's potential is negligable.
If I'm following, the notion is that you exert a magnetic force and
avoid having an opposing force by playing with the timing of the magnets.
That simply won't work, no matter how clever it seems.

Conservation of momentum is a strong, strong hint. If your design
ends up not conserving momentum, then the universe is telling you that
you made a mistake.