Getting closer to perpetual motion!

[Watis]

Stumbled across this and found it very interesting:

https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-pr ... s-gravity/

My physics isn't up to determining whether there's any mileage in this technology, so looking for your views - especially if you're trained in a scientific discipline.

Watis

[GoSeigen]

Getting closer to perpetual motion!

My physics isn't up to determining whether there's any mileage in this technology,

Those two statements definitely are not contradictory.

Perpetual motion is not possible so no point hoping for it. Makes as much sense as hoping to go to heaven when you die.


GS

[9873210]

Get your symmetries straight.

Perpetual motion would violate conservation of energy. The article makes no mention of energy or any related term. It describes a reactionless drive which would be a violation of conservation of momentum.

My physics is up saying there is a Nobel in it, if true.

[Watis]

Getting closer to perpetual motion!

My physics isn't up to determining whether there's any mileage in this technology,

Those two statements definitely are not contradictory.

Perpetual motion is not possible so no point hoping for it. Makes as much sense as hoping to go to heaven when you die.


GS

I'm aware that perpetual motion is impossible and that there has to be an energy supply to this technology. However, the article is very vague about what that is - presumably electricity - and more importantly, how much is required to achieve what they say they have.

And, is that power source independent of the device that cancels the gravitational force, or carried on it? That makes a big difference as to how useful it might be.

Watis

[88V8]

A permanent magnet for instance, could be said to produce thrust, in a way that would once have been baffling.
And space is not a total vacuum, so there is something to push against.
If the forces are very small then the question becomes one of accurate measurement.
Interesting.
Hopefully not another cold fusion.

V8

[hiriskpaul]

A permanent magnet for instance, could be said to produce thrust, in a way that would once have been baffling.
And space is not a total vacuum, so there is something to push against.
If the forces are very small then the question becomes one of accurate measurement.
Interesting.
Hopefully not another cold fusion.

V8

This sort of thing comes up every so often and then disappears again without much trace, just as cold fusion does. It would truly up-end physics if true as conservation of momentum as absolutely fundamental. Unless, as you say, momentum is still conserved as something is being pushed against.

It is possible to rotate and conserve angular momentum, eg falling cats, so I wonder whether it might be possible to cause a displacement in a vacuum and have momentum conserved, but I cannot see how this can be done without having something external to push against.

[ReformedCharacter]

And space is not a total vacuum, so there is something to push against.
V8

This has me a bit confused, in 'outer space' - if that is what we are talking about - then there's a bit of dust and a few subatomic particles, cosmic rays etc. I'm not sure how they could be 'pushed against', outer space is very close to empty if we ignore virtual particles.

RC

[GrahamPlatt]

And space is not a total vacuum, so there is something to push against.
V8

This has me a bit confused, in 'outer space' - if that is what we are talking about - then there's a bit of dust and a few subatomic particles, cosmic rays etc. I'm not sure how they could be 'pushed against', outer space is very close to empty if we ignore virtual particles.

RC

Fundamentally flawed reasoning here. “Pushing against” something to enable motion is a thing we learn being bound in earth’s gravity well. In space, (or indeed in the air) you (have until now needed to) eject matter in one direction to get a resulting equal momentum in the opposite direction. No “pushing against” anything required, downside is that you _are_ required to lose mass, so for a spaceship, that means initially carrying that mass (and starting in a gravity well, that’s when it’s at its most “expensive”), and also that ultimately, you run out of mass to eject (fuel to burn). This system proposes to be the solution to that terrible limitation. But you’re right in that “space” isn’t empty… demonstrated by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

On reading the original link, I thought they were perhaps just talking about the Casimir effect, but the article is so (deliberately?) vague I couldn’t take much from it. Though I see in one of the tables that the force they claim to have discovered is listed as a possible explanation of the Casimir effect - so are claiming that their force isn’t that.

[9873210]

And space is not a total vacuum, so there is something to push against.
V8

This has me a bit confused, in 'outer space' - if that is what we are talking about - then there's a bit of dust and a few subatomic particles, cosmic rays etc. I'm not sure how they could be 'pushed against', outer space is very close to empty if we ignore virtual particles.

RC

Space contains gravity, magnetic and electric fields. Also light, which may be viewed as a subset of electric and magnetic fields. All of these have been used to propel or orient space craft. Ultimately these push or pull on the source of the fields, usually a planet or the sun. Non-spooky action at a distance.

[ReformedCharacter]

This has me a bit confused, in 'outer space' - if that is what we are talking about - then there's a bit of dust and a few subatomic particles, cosmic rays etc. I'm not sure how they could be 'pushed against', outer space is very close to empty if we ignore virtual particles.

RC

Space contains gravity, magnetic and electric fields. Also light, which may be viewed as a subset of electric and magnetic fields. All of these have been used to propel or orient space craft. Ultimately these push or pull on the source of the fields, usually a planet or the sun. Non-spooky action at a distance.

I know of light sails that use an external source of light to 'push' vehicles along and the use of gravity to change trajectories although I don't know whether such a vehicle could be described as 'pushing against' gravity.

I don't know and would be glad to know of space vehicles that propel themselves by 'pushing against' external electric or magnetic fields. I know about ionic thrusters but they use a source of internal electricity, possibly generated by solar panels, and ionised gases as a form of fuel - like a conventional rocket and not as something external in a vacuum to 'push against'. Then there's the fictional, or perhaps allegorical, spaceship Karnak which appears in Gurdjieff's Beelzebub's Tales, but then you would have to understand 'the work' to understand the means of propulsion. Do you know of any practical examples?

RC

[GrahamPlatt]

This has me a bit confused, in 'outer space' - if that is what we are talking about - then there's a bit of dust and a few subatomic particles, cosmic rays etc. I'm not sure how they could be 'pushed against', outer space is very close to empty if we ignore virtual particles.

RC

Space contains gravity, magnetic and electric fields. Also light, which may be viewed as a subset of electric and magnetic fields. All of these have been used to propel or orient space craft. Ultimately these push or pull on the source of the fields, usually a planet or the sun. Non-spooky action at a distance.

We may be talking from different premises here. You seem to be meaning space as commonly percieved; “outer space”, that distance between stars. I’m talking about the _stuff_ which _is_ space.

[9873210]

I know of light sails that use an external source of light to 'push' vehicles along and the use of gravity to change trajectories although I don't know whether such a vehicle could be described as 'pushing against' gravity.

I don't know and would be glad to know of space vehicles that propel themselves by 'pushing against' external electric or magnetic fields. I know about ionic thrusters but they use a source of internal electricity, possibly generated by solar panels, and ionised gases as a form of fuel - like a conventional rocket and not as something external in a vacuum to 'push against'. Then there's the fictional, or perhaps allegorical, spaceship Karnak which appears in Gurdjieff's Beelzebub's Tales, but then you would have to understand 'the work' to understand the means of propulsion. Do you know of any practical examples?

RC

Whether gravitational assists are a form of propulsion is a question of semantics, and I won't insist. They certainly transfer momentum between spacecraft and planets or moons. Gravity gradient stabilization has also been used to help control rotation.
AIUI
Magnetorquer are commercially available and deployed operationally. I believe that Hubble uses them to unload reaction wheels, transferring angular momentum from the spacecraft to the Earth.
Electrodynamic tethers have been attempted. Whether propulsive forces have been demonstrated is still open, but the theory appears sound.

[stewamax]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics bar on perpetual motion is not quite what it seems: see https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04257-w (Xiao Mi et al) where a collection of qubits is stable but repeatedly changes structure, and this goes on for ever in the total absence of heat-loss, so entropy is conserved and the Second Law not violated.

[odysseus2000]

Angry Astronaught did a video on this that has some useful background:

https://youtu.be/kO5PMm84kmU?si=aaUJccVL24XZWLc5

The idea is not new, going back several decades.

The great question is whether the milli newtons measured by Charles Buer for his exodus drive are caused by what he believes or are a systematic error in his measurements.

Dr Buer has patented his idea, but the uspto is full of patents for devices that have no practical demonstration, so that tells us nothing about the validity.

If I understand what he is claiming, he suggests that having regions of positive & negative charge, on a space vessel lead to a force away from the vessel, I.e. a thrust.

The only way that I can see this being real is if he has stumbled upon a way to either create an opposite charge in the fabric of existence (space-time) or that this electrostatic effect deforms space time enough to reduce it before his craft so that the craft falls into this deformed space-time & moves by a series of falls as in a warp drive.

No idea if it is real, but if he can demonstrate it, the cumulative acceleration would accelerate his craft rapidly as Angry Astronaught describes.

Another experiment by Dr Ning Li in Huntsville, was put in a refereed journal showing a 2% reduction in gravity above a rotating super conductor, but no one seems to have followed up the research & I believe Dr Li has passed away.

Regarding comments about perpetual motion being impossible, one can think of the hydrogen atom, one proton with a circulating electron, no external power needed, no radiation of energy as expected for an accelerating charge. It too does not violate thermodynamics as no heat is emitted, but it is perpetual motion in the quantum world. Further down one has the uud quarks within the proton, all of small mass, united by large binding energy & all endlessly in motion exchanging gluons at least according to the standard model.

I have no idea what might eventually be discovered about interactions between the quantum & macro worlds, but it is a huge field, hindered by the fact that no one understands quantum mechanics. We can use the mathematics of quantum mechanics, but understanding what happens in process like wave function collapse or entanglement is well beyond us.

Regards,

[hiriskpaul]

Angry Astronaught did a video on this that has some useful background:

https://youtu.be/kO5PMm84kmU?si=aaUJccVL24XZWLc5

The idea is not new, going back several decades.

The great question is whether the milli newtons measured by Charles Buer for his exodus drive are caused by what he believes or are a systematic error in his measurements.

Dr Buer has patented his idea, but the uspto is full of patents for devices that have no practical demonstration, so that tells us nothing about the validity.

If I understand what he is claiming, he suggests that having regions of positive & negative charge, on a space vessel lead to a force away from the vessel, I.e. a thrust.

The only way that I can see this being real is if he has stumbled upon a way to either create an opposite charge in the fabric of existence (space-time) or that this electrostatic effect deforms space time enough to reduce it before his craft so that the craft falls into this deformed space-time & moves by a series of falls as in a warp drive.

No idea if it is real, but if he can demonstrate it, the cumulative acceleration would accelerate his craft rapidly as Angry Astronaught describes.

Another experiment by Dr Ning Li in Huntsville, was put in a refereed journal showing a 2% reduction in gravity above a rotating super conductor, but no one seems to have followed up the research & I believe Dr Li has passed away.

Regarding comments about perpetual motion being impossible, one can think of the hydrogen atom, one proton with a circulating electron, no external power needed, no radiation of energy as expected for an accelerating charge. It too does not violate thermodynamics as no heat is emitted, but it is perpetual motion in the quantum world. Further down one has the uud quarks within the proton, all of small mass, united by large binding energy & all endlessly in motion exchanging gluons at least according to the standard model.

I have no idea what might eventually be discovered about interactions between the quantum & macro worlds, but it is a huge field, hindered by the fact that no one understands quantum mechanics. We can use the mathematics of quantum mechanics, but understanding what happens in process like wave function collapse or entanglement is well beyond us.

Regards,

Electrons are not really in orbit about a nucleus. This is a very oversimplified view of an atom that is used in schools. De Broglie put forward the idea that electrons could be described as standing waves about a nucleus. An idea picked up and expanded upon by Schrodinger and used to successfully derive the energy spectrum of hydrogen. Again though, this standing wave hypothesis is conceptual rather than realistic, but perhaps a more useful model. As you say, quantum mechanics is not really understood other than in the sense of abstract concepts that give us glimpses of reality. The mathematical models are of course very well understood and hugely successful in their ability to derive and predict behaviour.

[9873210]

one can think of the hydrogen atom, one proton with a circulating electron, no external power needed, no radiation of energy as expected for an accelerating charge.

You could but my physics book has two consecutive chapters
n) The atom of Neils Bohr
n+1) The atom of Bohr kneels

You need to read the second of those chapters

[odysseus2000]

Hiriskpaul
Electrons are not really in orbit about a nucleus. This is a very oversimplified view of an atom that is used in schools. De Broglie put forward the idea that electrons could be described as standing waves about a nucleus. An idea picked up and expanded upon by Schrodinger and used to successfully derive the energy spectrum of hydrogen. Again though, this standing wave hypothesis is conceptual rather than realistic, but perhaps a more useful model. As you say, quantum mechanics is not really understood other than in the sense of abstract concepts that give us glimpses of reality. The mathematical models are of course very well understood and hugely successful in their ability to derive and predict behaviour.

Yes, but the problem with the standing wave is that for Compton scattering & the Photoelectric effect one needs to have the electron behave like a particle, not like a continuously varying standing wave. The standing wave has to collapse into an electron when the photon interacts. If one does the mathematics for either process with a photon-electron then one gets the right answer as verified by experiment. As you say what is really happening is unknown. Similarly for entanglement & how one photon knows what its entangled sibling is at the moment of measurement. Various ideas have been suggested, but all have consequences of breaking various known laws or are ruled out by experiment.

Regards,

[odysseus2000]

one can think of the hydrogen atom, one proton with a circulating electron, no external power needed, no radiation of energy as expected for an accelerating charge.

You could but my physics book has two consecutive chapters
n) The atom of Neils Bohr
n+1) The atom of Bohr kneels

You need to read the second of those chapters

Please can you elaborate or provide a link?

Regards,

[9873210]

You could but my physics book has two consecutive chapters
n) The atom of Neils Bohr
n+1) The atom of Bohr kneels

You need to read the second of those chapters

Please can you elaborate or provide a link?

Regards,

You'll find the two chapters, albeit without the catchy titles in many standard texts, e.g. at
libretexts.

My point is that Bohr's atom was the last model where the electron actual orbited like a planet. In later models the electron not "moving" it's just sitting in a ground state, so "perpetual motion" comes from applying the wrong semantics.

There's a lot of bad semantics going around. There's a good explanation using math. But people convert it into some English and then complain about the math. Math is not the problem here.

For example IIRC we explained Compton scattering fully using wave equations. Original system has a wave equation for the electron and photon, the wave equation evolves over time. If you collapse it some time later you get the results of the scattering, which includes many occurrences of missing the electron. You do not need to collapse to particles in the middle.

Also lots of bad statements about the second law of thermodynamics. This is fundamentally statistical in nature. Nobody should be surprised that the statistics of a two-particle system manifest differently than a billion-particle system.

[odysseus2000]

Please can you elaborate or provide a link?

Regards,

You'll find the two chapters, albeit without the catchy titles in many standard texts, e.g. at
libretexts.

My point is that Bohr's atom was the last model where the electron actual orbited like a planet. In later models the electron not "moving" it's just sitting in a ground state, so "perpetual motion" comes from applying the wrong semantics.

There's a lot of bad semantics going around. There's a good explanation using math. But people convert it into some English and then complain about the math. Math is not the problem here.

For example IIRC we explained Compton scattering fully using wave equations. Original system has a wave equation for the electron and photon, the wave equation evolves over time. If you collapse it some time later you get the results of the scattering, which includes many occurrences of missing the electron. You do not need to collapse to particles in the middle.

Also lots of bad statements about the second law of thermodynamics. This is fundamentally statistical in nature. Nobody should be surprised that the statistics of a two-particle system manifest differently than a billion-particle system.

Sorry for the delay, just extremely busy at the moment.

The problem with the idea that electrons in atoms are standing waves is that for many aspects the electrons in hydrogen behave as though they are in a S-wave, angular momentum l =0, spherically symmetric distribution around the nucleus at a distance of 10**5 times the size of the nucleus, proton in this case. If one does an experiment one can collapse the electron to a specific point but how you go from a continuously variable standing wave to a condensed electron is easy in the maths but not easy conceptually. It is the argument about Schrodinger and his cat, how can a cat be both alive and dead? If one then goes on to consider atoms, one has various forms of ground states with non zero angular momentum, p,d,f... (l=1,2,3...) with various forms of electronic binding that lead to molecules and these then lead to macro parameters such as compressibility via Van de Waals forces that one can measure etc. One can also consider the added complications of intrinsic angular moment or spin with all fermions having half integer spin, all bosons having integer spin. In super conductivity one has Cooper pairs of Fermions that behave like bosons. Analogous processes exist in nuclei too. The concept of wave function or particle get applied where they work but as to understanding, that is beyond what we currently know.

Thermodynamics is a complicated business if one moves from macroscopic systems and begins to consider small or isolated or fluctuations in the vacuum it gets very complicated and it is not clear, at least to me, if we understand what is going on here as in the rest of quantum mechanics.

Regards,