Talk:Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Differential Sail

Someone who knows more than me needs to fix this; vacuum fluctuations are not related to cosmic background radiation.AtomSmith 09:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dysjunction drive

It would be interesting if someone with more knowledge on the subject could clarify the section on the Disjunction Drive. Specifically:

The electromagnet is turned on briefly, then turned off, emitting a pulse of electromagnetic radiation in the process.

Electrical energy would be consumed to create this pulse. Some would appear as heat. Is the remaining energy transformed into a "pull" that propigates toward the iron?

The EMP in the above example carries significant momentum, which it transfers to the plate.

This would seem to say YES to my question.

Imagine two objects floating freely in space, not at a great distance from each other (so speed of light is not an issue), connected by a rope. If object A pulls object B, B will move toward A but A will also move toward B. Does the same thing occur when the "rope" is an EMP?

If so, put A and B a light year from each other and switch back to EMP instead of rope. Can't A "pull" itself toward B whether or not B exists?

The above "paradox" is what fields are all about.

Care to elaborate?

To answer your original question, yes; the device will work even without the object B; if I understand your description correctly, the system is just a rocket with EM radiation as its propellant. Ben Standeven 21:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Field structure pertaining to gravity.

The subject of gravity can be supported by two- fold arguements ,the total field structurally here on the planets surface consists of numerous conjoining and blending dynamics.traditionally the mass/density is said to attract other objects to it but a myriad of affects may be the actul attraction.Torsion,surface-tension,electro-magnetic flux?Questionably the attraction is in a hyperinflexive enviornment to begin with(many faceted variable structured)

[edit] Updated information?

AFAIK, this program has been discontinued. Does anyone have any information to share? ---CH 21:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Free energy

Under the diametric drive heading, the term 'free energy' as it is defined by the link to the corresponding article is used incorrectly.

[edit] non-breakthroughs

I've added this link:

Some of that info should probably go on this page. Fresheneesz 08:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pitch Drive

Here is what I emailed to the program manager way back:

"A magnetic field rate of change of the virtual field caused by the assemblage of point sources, at the pole, exceeds the pole's local magnetic field rate, thereby causing the magnetic monopole to appear."

It is a line of point sources one hundred meters long, one meter spaced, charged at 1 megavolt. Pushing the line of charges through the sun's magnetic field causes the monopole polarity. Push toward the sun and turn on and it attracts, push away from the sun with a small chemical rocket and turn on the voltage and it repels.

Pitch change was the terminology for the rate of parameter change in the abstract. My monopole pitch exceeds the local magnetic pole pitch rate. It all boils down to the infinite rate at the top of the magnet, and all magnets are fintite because of the size of the ferrocenters. Well that is a very small change, and I did email the idea in.

[edit] Disjunction Drive

"There is nothing in mainstream physics to suggest this is possible; indeed, from this description it is impossible to understand exactly what the idea behind this proposal is."

This statement seems a bit unencyclopedic & odd. Is the proposal as vague as this description?

And the statement that the Diametric Drive "sounds suspiciously like perpetual motion pseudoscience" is fishy, too. Is that the opinion of the author or someone else's opinion? Jordansc 20:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

It had a fact-check marker anyway, but I deleted text suggesting that a device that used a hypothetical negative mass to accelerate violates conservation of energy. Energy is equal to 1/2 * mass * velocity^2. Since this is proportional to mass, having negative mass implies negative energy; as the negative and positive masses accelerate, the negative mass gains negative energy at the same time the positive mass gains positive energy, for a net change in energy of zero. Therefore conservation of energy is not violated. Forward explained this in an article in Analog.

There are, however, other problems. It's supposed to be impossible to distinguish acceleration from gravity. However, if you put positive and negative masses in space in an elevator, accelerating the elevator would cause both of those objects to "fall" towards the bottom of the elevator, while in an actual gravitational field the positive mass object falls down and the negative mass object falls up. Ken Arromdee 03:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] react

OK with the negative energy rising with speed, but not with the negative mass in an elevator, "the negative mass would fall towards the positive as does any mass toward any other" so no problem.I am french, and i'm affraid to not really understand "However, positive and negative gravity on a single spacecraft involves balanced forces within a structure, and would not result in acceleration.".Does it mean that with a bond between the two masses, there won't be any acceleration resulting? First I would say no, and then why?Klinfran (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)