Thomas Hawkins’ Post

View profile for Thomas Hawkins, graphic

Inventor : Bringing low cost spacecraft to everyone with EM soliton power.

I was very annoyed to find that when the SI units came into force in 1960, we actually lost something really important... the original derivations of the units. The traditional definition of electric charge was in units of (Length^3/2*Mass^1/2)/(Time). Today's logic is somewhat circular. We define the charge in terms of current, and current in terms of the number of electron charges per time. And a Coulomb, while very useful, doesn't communicate as much truth, in my opinion. If we are going to get past the naysayers who quote Newton's Laws when saying propellantless propulsion violates physics, we have start to understand how EM units claim heritage from the original LMT "dimensions." Think about it: The recently changed SI definition of an ampere can't be "truly" achieved because there is no such thing as infinitely parallel wires....Especially if we want to at some point bring non-Euclidean geometry into play. So, while I don't take issue with SI units, I am perturbed that it was hidden from my generation, but grateful that it took an act of Providence (as opposed to any recent schoolbook references) to allow me to find that the charge of 1 electron was originally defined as 4.80325 E -10 cm^3/2 gm^1/2 s^-1. I once heard a parable that if an old scientist tells you something can't be done, he's probably wrong, but if he says it's possible, he's probably closer to the truth. How do we bridge the gap between so-called experts saying propellantless propulsion can't be done with explaining how it works at a level we can understand? This is especially difficult when several generations are losing the connections to the original derivations. I will start to try to explain how we get there as we get closer to the completion of our demonstration unit. This is the beginning of those explanations. I'm no PhD. Just an engineer trying to make some aspects of science fiction turn into reality. Challenging dearly held assumptions is necessarily required.

Thomas - momentum is conserved because the action and reaction are usually symmetrical. However, there is always a light-speed delay between when you apply a force and when the particle sees that force (there is always a distance over which that force must propagate), and that breaks the absolute symmetry that is implied in the normal statement. Set up a couple of current-loops with 1/4 wavelength between them and driven with a 90° phase difference, and you find that the forces on each current loop are in the same direction, not equal and opposite. In practice, without resonance the actual force will be pretty low, and some problems from being near-field too, so this is only really useful as a thought-experiment to demonstrate the possibility that momentum is not always conserved. However, might be other ways to set up a wave and antenna so that the resonant wave produces a one-way force on the antenna. Still, the interaction of a charge and a field depends on what the field is right here and now for the charge here and now. Mostly, we're dealing with a constant field and the time-delay is irrelevant, since symmetries aren't broken and momentum will be conserved. Get the design right, and momentum may not be conserved.

Like
Reply
Gleb Kulev

Mechanical engineer

1mo

I agree that the postulates should be challenged. Not because they are incorrect, but because under certain conditions they may become incorrect.  The goal of any engineer is to find these conditions and apply them in practice. And what about physics? Of course, they will immediately create a theory and prove to us, based on our experiments, that this is how it should be. Well, they just didn't have time to do any nonsense.😂

I agree that either knowledge of the past is a belief that is rapidly becoming unfashionable  .we as a society have sought after so much but lost more in doing so. 

Like
Reply
See more comments

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics