Several hundred KV is a tall order, but you dont need to lift a spaceship to prove your point. A few volts should be enough to produce a measurable thrust if the idea is viable. First of all, this is not something I am saying, this is what scientist are saying, I'm just an engineer. An lectron has en elctrical charge, but if it is alone (or virtually alone), there is virtually no field. If a proton approaches a field grows. As the distance decreases the field grows stronger, and energy is exchanged in the form of electromagnetic waves, accelerating the particles towards each other. A magnet always has two poles, it doesnt need other magnets. If you can construct a monopole magnet, the Nobel prize awaits you. Gravity is different from electromagnetic forces. It follows different laws. But what I'm telling you is that an electric field is not something you just send off into space and wait for it to smack into something. To build it, you need two poles (plates, but of course they need not look like plates) that are constantly interacting; they could be galaxies apart, but they need to be connected and interacting. Your two plates must have a common ground connection and they will interact, but you can only make energy leave the system in the form of electromagnetic waves (including heat). And its not really complicated to get propulsion from electromagnetic waves: Get a magnetron and an antenna disk and fire it up. As you send energy off in one direction, your equipment is pushed in the other. But its a rather feeble rocket.:bugeye: Hans
Hans, For the sake of argument, let's say that an electron and a proton have no electric fields until they approach each other. If that were the case, how would the electron and the proton know that the other particle is approaching??? Wouldn't the proton and electron have to have some kind of field (or exchange of particles) in order to know that the other particle is close by, so that they both can start generating electric fields??? Tom
as far as i know, you need 'something' to push against. a massless wave of nothing can't do much 'pushing' - only it's association with the thing that's generating the field - and HAS mass - can. a magnetic pulse, which is what it sounds like you're trying to generate, has no mass and therefore can effect no 'work', pushing plate 2 or otherwise. however, a magnetic field, associated with a physical mass can do work if it alternates or moves in relation to your 2nd plate- still by virtue of connecting the two plates you negate the effect your looking for. wish i could be more technical, but i guarantee the premise is flawed. but that's the beauty of physics- it's better than any rubiks cube invented!
unbill, Welcome to sciforums. Let's say that you hold two like-charged objects close to each other. The resulting repulsion force can be the result of two things: 1) The inertia of the particles that make up the electric fields are converted into force as the other electric field forces their velocity to change. 2) The particles that make up each electric field are "compressed", thereby exerting a force on both of the charged objects. The device I proposed assumes that the electric field particles have a kind of "electric inertia" that only becomes present when they come into contact with other electric field particles. However, if there is no such thing as "electric inertia", but the forces that are generated by electric fields are the result of "compression" as you suggested, then my device wouldn't create any usable (or even measurable) force. However, let me state that a device has never been created that proves that the forces created by electric fields are the result of "compression", and not "electric inertia". My device will be the first one that does, even if it doesn't do what I want it to do. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Tom
thank you for the welcome, i'm enjoying it! alas, there's only one way to find out if your premise is correct, but i realize that the engineering of this is a challenge. that aside. i'm a HUGE fan of Buckminster Fuller. His big thing was 'relationships', which for him was all about the number 3. (i'm paraphrasing paraphrases here). You need at least three points to have a relationship A, B and C (a reference point perhaps). all this is to say, i don't think you can have 'electric field particles' standing alone or aquiring an 'exhange-like force' as they travel to the second plate. Magnetic and Electrical forces are exchanged via photons as far as I'm aware. So here we have the three elements of this relationship, plate 1, photons and plate 2. the photons MUST interact with plate 1, they are a part of it/emanate from it, whatever - maybe even in a spooky way over huge distances? As an exchange force, you need the two parties which are doing the exhanging. Money on the ground fell out of 'somebody's' pocket! You believe the nature of the exchange forces to be independent of the bodies doing the exchanging and dependent of other exchange forces. correct? i'm not sure i'd agree with the 'compression' notion of forces either, electromagnetic forces are infinite in their reach, but obey an inverse square law. I didn't say anything about compression. as far as 'a kind of electric inertia' goes, i don't know much about that. what kind of 'force' are you suggesting they change into? aren't we already dealing with an exchange force of photons? if so, they've already imparted an equal an opposite force on plate 1 as they travel to plate 2. how can they change or aquire more force along the way? what energies are lost in the process?
Tom, Electric fields do not consist of particles. There are two possible descriptions of fields. The classical description involves action at a distance between charges. The field is just a useful concept to aid in visualisation of forces. The quantum exchange description says that forces are carried by mediating particles (in this case photons). In either sense, no particles are compressed, and the only inertia belongs to the mass of the plates.
James, How would you explain the repulsive force between to similiarly charged particles? What is the mechanics of this force? Tom
unbill, I am assuming that there is "electric inertia" and there is "gravitational inertia". Gravitational inertia always exists between all objects (because all objects have mass) while electric inertia only exists between charged particles. If this was the case, then plate 1 would only experience gravitational inertia (very, very small force) as the "electric particles" left the plate. When the "electric particles" hit plate 2, there would be electric inertia (which is much stronger) since, at that moment, plate 2 would be charged. The truth is that I have no idea what an electric field actually is. I am making assumptions. Some people on these forums believe that an electric field is stationairy (it's an extension of the charged particle), while others think that it consists of virtual photons. There is even someone on these forums that believes that the electric field is composed of electromagnetic photons, and, for some reason, we can't detect the oscillations. I doubt anyone really knows what causes the electrostatic interaction. Tom
There is only one inertia; it is the proportionality constant between force and acceleration. It is the mass. Virtual photons. QED explains the whole situation extremely well. - Warrn
posoothus, you know what they say about 'assumptions' don't you? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! almost every mistake i make is because i assume something to be true. (i save big mistakes for things i 'know' to be true!) while it happens that there are many takes on what a magnetic field is composed of- perhaps it's simply better to work with what we 'know' - and nothing in our experience even remotely hints at what you're suggesting-- if it did, i'm sure we'd be all over it! try refocusing the arguement or come up with another scenario that's testable- as long as your premise relies on something that cannot be proven, it will continue to make an 'ass out of you and me' (well intentioned poke Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) if you can come up with another experiment or example of this property, you may be able to prove or disprove it youself.
This argument must happen every generation. In 1959 Norman L. Dean patented a divice to convert rotary motion into linear motion. You know about centrifical force, when you swing a weight around. Connect two gears with offset masses and rotate them and you produce a force that can lift itself. (And smash itself back, but fast enough so it appears frictionless.) Two masses cancel in all but one back- forth direction where they add. The idea was to somehow rectify this motion to produce force in one forward direction. Turns out you can make a whole class of AC machines this way. And, of course there is no way to rectify the produce DC. Nature is a mathematical machine that you cannot fool. Language cannot solve problems. If you cannot find the math, leave it alone. Sorry, there is enough stuff already here.
unbill, The problem is that we don't know anything about the mechanics of magnetic (or electric fields). My guess is as good as anyone elses. The only way to uncover the true nature of electric and magnetic fields is to construct a pulsing device such as the one that I am suggesting. When this is done, everyone will know whether my idea of "electric inertia" has any validity. Let me ask you a some questions. According to what you know about electric and magnetic fields, please explain their mechanics. What is an electric field? Why do like charges repel? Why do opposite charges attract? Why does a moving charged particle create a magnetic field at right angles to its motion and its electric field? What is a magnetic field?? What causes similiar poles of a magnetic field to repel and opposite poles to attract? If you have the answers to these questions, please share. Nothing would please me more than to stop waisting my time on a model that's wrong. Tom
Science does not concern itself with such questions -- philosophy does. You can answer some of the questions with the virtual photon model of QED, but then you're left in the same position -- "why are there virtual photons?" followed by another "why" question, followed eventually by the response "that's just the way nature works." You'll never be able to answer the question "why did nature give us the universe she did?" And this makes sense. No matter what kind of universe nature gives you, you can't ever boil it down to one single statment that is self-evident -- which is what you'd like to do. - Warren
Tom, I doubt that the 'only' way to discover the true nature of magnetic fields is to build this device. Most truths are discovered or confirmed by numerous means and experimentation. So far, all those experiments point to a different conclusion. More importantly, reasonable deduction points to a different conclusion (this being a form of experimentation on the cheap!) I have my own theories about the fundmental nature of the universe, however I am but a small mind climbing up a VERY big hill. I think the reason this forum exists is to share our thoughts, insights and experience with each other. And while some of the replies you receive to posts are somewhat dismissive, people 'are' replying to your posts. If you were wasting people's time, they wouldn't be responding. I expect that they are heartfelt in their desire to contribute. Perhaps your mission is to be a stick in the behive of life? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Also, I believe we have a pretty good handle on the 'mechanics' of magnetic and electrical fields as well as some workable theories as to the 'nature' of those fields-- I firmly agree that no one has had that brilliant 'aha!' as to how it all fits together. When we find the answer, it's likely to be retardedly simple.
Tom: <i>How would you explain the repulsive force between to similiarly charged particles? What is the mechanics of this force?</i> In the field picture, we have action at a distance between charges. No further explanation is required. In the quantum field theory picture, the force is created by an exchange of virtual photons between the two charges. <i>The problem is that we don't know anything about the mechanics of magnetic (or electric fields). My guess is as good as anyone elses.</i> Your guess is not as good as Richard Feynman's. He won a Nobel prize for his guess. His guess (Quantum Electrodynamics) is one of the most accurate scientific theories we have. We know a hell of a lot about electric and magnetic fields, contrary to what you may think. <i>What is an electric field?</i> A convenient concept for talking about electric forces. <i>Why do like charges repel?</i> Nobody knows. <i>Why does a moving charged particle create a magnetic field at right angles to its motion and its electric field?</i> The answer to this is tied up with gauge invariance and relativity. It's quite complicated. <i>What is a magnetic field?</i> A convenient concept for talking about magnetic forces. <i>What causes similiar poles of a magnetic field to repel and opposite poles to attract?</i> Nobody knows.
James, How does the exchange of virtual photons between two charges lead to an attractive or repulsive force?? Tom
<i>How does the exchange of virtual photons between two charges lead to an attractive or repulsive force??</i> The photon carries momentum from one charge to the other.
What if? You used two of those conducting metals Mentioned above at top of page and have them contacting each other and coming apart with the said enrgy would that not create a propulsionesque pulse?
