Is emission-less propulsion possible? I believe it is...

[mikelewis]

48. Here's the fix...

Last edited Wed Dec 13, 2023, 11:26 PM - Edit history (1)

They're trying to move mass with electrons... they need to move mass with mass... Newtons Second Law

Try this scenario...

From my book... I am trying to get AI to help me fix the math... the space ship keeps moving after firing... of course I know that but I am trying to understand why people don't get this concept... anyway..

Try this setup... in stead of trying to move mass with a bunch of electrons... move mass with mass...

I understand your concern and the need for accuracy, especially given your knowledgeable readership. Let's rework the calculations with a 90% efficiency (10% energy loss) in the magnetic arc and reassess the system's effectiveness in deep space, far from any gravitational influences. We'll aim to see if this change results in a zero net change in velocity, adhering to the conservation of energy and momentum principles.
Revised Scenario and Assumptions
• Propulsion System: Two railguns firing 50 lb (22.68 kg) projectiles, each.
• Efficiency of Magnetic Arc: 90% (10% energy loss).
• Spacecraft Mass: Including a small nuclear reactor, life support, etc., assumed to be 10,000 kg.
• Environment: The spacecraft is in deep space, away from significant gravitational fields.
Calculations
1. Recoil Momentum (Initial Forward Momentum):
◦ Calculate the initial momentum for each railgun firing.
2. Magnetic Arc Efficiency and Projectile Momentum:
◦ Factor in the 90% efficiency for the magnetic arc. This will determine the projectile's velocity and momentum after the arc.
3. Net Momentum Change:
◦ Compare the initial recoil momentum with the momentum after the magnetic arc efficiency loss to check for a net change.
Our goal is to see if the final momentum of the spacecraft after these processes results in zero net change in velocity. Let's perform these calculations.
Finished analyzing
pythonCopy code
# Re-performing the calculations with 90% efficiency (10% energy loss)

# Adjusted energy loss for 90% efficiency
energy_loss_percentage_adjusted = 10 / 100 # 10% energy loss

# Recalculating the kinetic energy after the arc with adjusted energy loss
KE_arc_adjusted_efficiency = (1 - energy_loss_percentage_adjusted) * KE0_revised # Kinetic energy after loss for each projectile
v_arc_adjusted_efficiency = math.sqrt(2 * KE_arc_adjusted_efficiency / m_projectile) # Velocity of each projectile after energy loss
P_arc_adjusted_efficiency = m_projectile * v_arc_adjusted_efficiency # Momentum of each projectile after energy loss

# Total momentum after energy loss (for two projectiles)
total_momentum_after_loss_efficiency = 2 * P_arc_adjusted_efficiency # Total momentum after energy loss

# Checking if the net momentum change is zero or close to zero with adjusted efficiency
net_momentum_change_efficiency = total_momentum_after_loss_efficiency - total_recoil_momentum

# Calculating the velocity change in m/s and converting it to mph
velocity_change_efficiency = net_momentum_change_efficiency / m_spacecraft
velocity_change_efficiency_mph = velocity_change_efficiency * mph_conversion_factor

velocity_change_efficiency, velocity_change_efficiency_mph
Result
(-0.02327725600428694, -0.05207122168158988)
With the adjusted efficiency of 90% (10% energy loss) in the magnetic arc, the calculations yield the following results:
• Velocity Change per Pulse: The spacecraft's velocity change per pulse is approximately -0.023 m/s, which translates to about -0.052 mph.
Interpretation
• Negative Velocity Change: The negative sign indicates a slight reduction in the spacecraft's forward momentum after each pulse. However, the magnitude of this change is very small (-0.052 mph per pulse).
• Magnitude of Change: While the change is still not zero, the reduction in velocity is significantly smaller with the increased efficiency of the magnetic arc. This suggests that the system is closer to a scenario where the net change in velocity could be negligible.
Conclusion
Even with a more efficient magnetic arc (90% efficiency), the propulsion system still results in a slight decrease in velocity with each pulse, rather than achieving a zero net change in velocity. This outcome is consistent with the principle that in a closed system (like this spacecraft with its railgun and projectile), internal actions do not result in a net increase in momentum. The slight decrease in velocity after each cycle indicates that the system does not achieve a perfect balance of energy and momentum, and thus does not provide effective propulsion according to the current understanding of physics

.052 mph might not seem like a lot but keep firing... after 10 shots, that's .52 mph... a railgun might be able to fire 10 rounds a minute... so 100 rounds... 52 mph... 1000.... 10000000.... yeah... fuck electrons. Throw an anvil.


{and you're right AI is so stupid it doesn't know negative velocity indicates direction... cracks me up...

It has to twist itself in knots to keep this all inline with the conservation of momentum. If the ship starts at 0 the final velocity has to be zero as does it's final position in space. There can't be a negative velocity... you can't constantly lose momentum from 0! AI doesn't even notice the things it's saying make no sense whatsoever.

All you have to do to fix that though is to ask it... 'doesn't that just indicate the ship is moving, a negative velocity indicates movement opposite the direction of the projectile?' and it'll say... 'oh... yeah... I guess it is moving...' Dumbass}