The response to all this questions is: We need more tests and more "lets try this one just for fun". What bothers me is seeing a lot of people say "it's impossible, do not argue" and get to the level of gratuitous aggression to defend that point of view. I'd like to see what they are going to say if the answer be found someday and it turns out to be something completely unexpected
You have an example of this in the story of how NASA engineers developed the combustion chambers of the Saturn 5 F1 engines. Legend says that they simply experimented with various configurations until they found one that worked, and to this day no one knows for sure why that particular setup worked.
P.S: I forgot something. One of the theories about how EM drive works suggests that it would actually cause unknown effects in space-time when powered up, triggering an "imbalance" that forces physically the device in the opposite direction of the effect. If this is the correct explanation and the magnitude of this effect does not depend on how much energy you apply in the device then all bets are off, where we both can be wrong and where can be possible a machine that could for all purposes be considered a perpetual machine.
As I described to another with this same idea, you basically created a flywheel. You will probably be able to keep the device spinning indefinitely but from the moment you try to extract energy from the apparatus (in the form of torque, electricity, etc.) you will create a situation where the device would need more torque (more energy) to keep spinning and and he will not have any way to get more power, the same thing that happens with a flywheel when you uses his spin to get energy.
Now granted, if the drive somehow manages to generate more power in the form of thrust than the energy needed to make it work we could have a perpetual machine situation, but I honestly seriously doubt that this could happen on a real-life scenario.
Well, let's try one last time... My problem with you is that you insist on defining as a "perpetual machine" something that is actually more like a jet engine, where you continually need to add energy (fuel, electricity) to have thrust, where if you cut the energy you cut the thrust. The EM drive is abnormal because it does not seens to need a reaction mass to produce thrust, but you still need an external power source to make it work and as far as I know the definition of a "perpetual machine" is that you can make it work forever without external energy input and still generating useful work (torque, thrust, electricity, etc).
True, you can try like the other one and put the generator on the same shaft of the EM drive (or another way to convert thrust into torque), but then you just created something very like a complicated flywheel.
Oh my... You really seriously fail to see what happens with cumulative losses (and worse, in this case they are probably exponential)? And does it not matter where the energy comes from? Oh really? Dude, go back to basic engineering school to not go ashamed!
P.S: I'm not going to waste any more time answering you... Geez!
Oh boy... Dude, you have mental blocks. I seriously think that you're actually the same other guy with a different account, you guys look like xerox copies of each other. And as in the other case, speak to my hand. I will not waste any more time answering you.
It would not work because your scheme have a difficult to explain catch-22. Disregarding losses and efficiency, you described to me a source of energy that depends on the spacecraft's momentum to work, and where that energy would be used to generate momentum (through EM drive). But to make this work you are generating drag and this drag is a constant loss of momentum that you need to cope (And it is important to remember that if you try to accelerate the drag it will also increase). To keep your momentum going against drag you need to increase the thrust, but to get more thrust you need to provide more power to the EM drive. However you will not be able to generate more energy for your drive because the spacecraft speed remains the same, so as a result the drag wins and your speed is reduced. Reducing your speed you generate less energy, generating less energy you get less thrust from the EM drive which makes speed reduce even more, what creates a cascading effect that will eventually make your spacecraft stop.
In short, if you want a spacecraft that is truly capable of keep going indefinitely you would need an energy source independent of your ability to generate momentum, the only thing that EM drive would helps you is avoiding having to carry fuel tanks that would be consumed too fast to make the trip viable.
P.S: Ramjets works, but remember that they consume fuel to run, they do not draw their energy exclusively from the air they ingest.
With your change the machine would work for longer but would still stop... That losses are cumulative, you can extend the operation for a while putting more energy in the initial state but you still have a closed system that have no way to replace losses.
On the long run it will not work. The losses you will have trying to keep your speed against the drag of the material you are collecting will accumulate to the point where your ship will stop. It would be like if you were trying to use a battery to run an electric generator and use that generator to recharge the same battery, the losses with the conversions, heat, friction and etc will accumulate until the battery power is insufficient to make the generator work and consequently fail to recharge the battery (it's a catch-22)
That's a different issue. The EM drive supposedly works without ejecting mass out the tailpipe to create forward momentum, but isn't a claim to get thrust without energy input.
Free power schemes such as you describe don't generally work, for the same reason we can't have perpetual motion machines.
The worst thing is that we have at least three idiots in this topic (but I suspect they are the same person) who blindly believe otherwise and that for them an EM drive must be a perpetual machine.
Dude, you behaves just like a religious lunatic you know? As I said I will no longer waste time answering you... I will simply wait for the test results or make my own EM drive to see what happens while you scream out there that is impossible without being able to convince anyone.
I see that is you that is unable to see the problem, like the other one. Because like the others I see you cannot put youself outside of the pure theory and think the problem in a real-world scenario way. Where I or any other says you can get more energy from the EM driver than you put into it in the form of electrical power? How you get this miracle, uh? You cannot get that like any engine you will only get more thust if you put more power? That you will not be able to turn this into a "perpetual machine" because we have a "catch-22" problem here if the thrust depend on the generator and the generator depend on the same thust? Where if you try to extract useful work (in thust or electrical power) from this system you will stop it? Where would this not happen with EM drive because you would be continuously adding electrical power from an external source (a reactor for example)?
Wrong. You've just played a lot of math without worrying about the fundamental problem of your idea that can be explained easily by just looking at how your supposed perpetual machine would behave in a real-world case. I'm not at all impressed by the your meaningless use of math...
I'm sorry but it's you who are entering the crackpot field in insisting to me that the drive is a perpetual machine without being able to convince me why this would be true...
You are still clueless about the problem envolved... Let's say that I built your "perpetual machine" in the form of a standard 1000 watts output generator, with two EM drivers acting as the source of torque for the generator and the generator itself acting as the source of electricity for the drivers.
Assume now that I have initialized the machine with an external power source to the point where the torque available to the generator is enough to generate the power needed to make the drivers work. At this point, I have in theory a system in equilibrium which in theory could be maintained indefinitely if I ignore the mechanical and electrical losses (You cannot ignore the losses into a real machine, but...).
The problem starts when I try to draw power from this system in the form of 1000 watts output, which causes a new loss called the "load" on the generator. This new loss causes the generator to need more torque to maintain the eletrical output, however the torque is limited to what the drivers can provide using the very same eletrical generator. We have a catch-22 here.
So I can not produce more torque in response to the load, consequently the electric power generation is reduced. With less power generation I reduce the available power to the drivers, and with less power available to the drivers they reduce the torque. Reducing torque will generate less energy... Are we heading for something like a chain reaction?
So, soon the drivers will not have enough power to keep the torque at the level needed to keep working, causing the machine to decelerate (the speed at which this occurs depending on several factors) to the full stop. How could I consider this as a perpetual machine?
What you have suggested only works in theory. In practice you have to deal with mechanical and electrical losses that will only accumulate when your energy source depends on the source of mechanical work generated by the same source of energy the mechanical source runs (A depends of B and B depends of A situation). And if you try to take advantage of this mechanical and / or electrical energy in another external system (connecting a house for example) you would be extracting even more energy from the "perpetual machine", which would translate into greater mechanical losses (every generator needs more mechanical force when electrical demand increases) and would only make your machine stop spinning sooner.
At best you would have something like those suspended magnetic levitation discs that stop spinning as soon as you try to take advantage of the mechanical energy contained in the spin of the disc, and where the disc stops spinning alone after some time due to losses caused by friction with air or external magnetic torques.
Disclaimer: I know very well generators, power systems and related subsystems.
Oh my, yet another one... Do you have the slightest idea of the size of the generator you would need to connect to the shaft to generate the kilowatts (not miliwatts, not microwatts) needed to make the drivers work? And the mechanical effort needed to make this generator run, which I assure you is orders of magnitude above micronewtons? Should I put the losses with friction and heat? Your "perpetual machine" would remain motionless forever...
I find it incredible how wrong your logical deduction is. Creating a perpetual machine in the way you described is simply ridiculous, you completely ignore that the drivers would continually need power to run, and as soon as you tried to turn that movement into work (by putting a load on the shaft let's say) you'd have to keep the power on or the whole thing would simply stop spinning. You have merely described a different type of electric motor, not a perpetual machine.
Slashdot Mirror
The response to all this questions is: We need more tests and more "lets try this one just for fun". What bothers me is seeing a lot of people say "it's impossible, do not argue" and get to the level of gratuitous aggression to defend that point of view. I'd like to see what they are going to say if the answer be found someday and it turns out to be something completely unexpected
You have an example of this in the story of how NASA engineers developed the combustion chambers of the Saturn 5 F1 engines. Legend says that they simply experimented with various configurations until they found one that worked, and to this day no one knows for sure why that particular setup worked.
P.S: I forgot something. One of the theories about how EM drive works suggests that it would actually cause unknown effects in space-time when powered up, triggering an "imbalance" that forces physically the device in the opposite direction of the effect. If this is the correct explanation and the magnitude of this effect does not depend on how much energy you apply in the device then all bets are off, where we both can be wrong and where can be possible a machine that could for all purposes be considered a perpetual machine.
As I described to another with this same idea, you basically created a flywheel. You will probably be able to keep the device spinning indefinitely but from the moment you try to extract energy from the apparatus (in the form of torque, electricity, etc.) you will create a situation where the device would need more torque (more energy) to keep spinning and and he will not have any way to get more power, the same thing that happens with a flywheel when you uses his spin to get energy.
Now granted, if the drive somehow manages to generate more power in the form of thrust than the energy needed to make it work we could have a perpetual machine situation, but I honestly seriously doubt that this could happen on a real-life scenario.
Well, let's try one last time... My problem with you is that you insist on defining as a "perpetual machine" something that is actually more like a jet engine, where you continually need to add energy (fuel, electricity) to have thrust, where if you cut the energy you cut the thrust. The EM drive is abnormal because it does not seens to need a reaction mass to produce thrust, but you still need an external power source to make it work and as far as I know the definition of a "perpetual machine" is that you can make it work forever without external energy input and still generating useful work (torque, thrust, electricity, etc).
True, you can try like the other one and put the generator on the same shaft of the EM drive (or another way to convert thrust into torque), but then you just created something very like a complicated flywheel.
Oh my... You really seriously fail to see what happens with cumulative losses (and worse, in this case they are probably exponential)? And does it not matter where the energy comes from? Oh really? Dude, go back to basic engineering school to not go ashamed!
P.S: I'm not going to waste any more time answering you... Geez!
Oh boy... Dude, you have mental blocks. I seriously think that you're actually the same other guy with a different account, you guys look like xerox copies of each other. And as in the other case, speak to my hand. I will not waste any more time answering you.
Speak to my hand. (I made it clear that I will not bother to answer you anymore. Do not insist)
It would not work because your scheme have a difficult to explain catch-22. Disregarding losses and efficiency, you described to me a source of energy that depends on the spacecraft's momentum to work, and where that energy would be used to generate momentum (through EM drive). But to make this work you are generating drag and this drag is a constant loss of momentum that you need to cope (And it is important to remember that if you try to accelerate the drag it will also increase). To keep your momentum going against drag you need to increase the thrust, but to get more thrust you need to provide more power to the EM drive. However you will not be able to generate more energy for your drive because the spacecraft speed remains the same, so as a result the drag wins and your speed is reduced. Reducing your speed you generate less energy, generating less energy you get less thrust from the EM drive which makes speed reduce even more, what creates a cascading effect that will eventually make your spacecraft stop.
In short, if you want a spacecraft that is truly capable of keep going indefinitely you would need an energy source independent of your ability to generate momentum, the only thing that EM drive would helps you is avoiding having to carry fuel tanks that would be consumed too fast to make the trip viable.
P.S: Ramjets works, but remember that they consume fuel to run, they do not draw their energy exclusively from the air they ingest.
Talk to my hand
With your change the machine would work for longer but would still stop ... That losses are cumulative, you can extend the operation for a while putting more energy in the initial state but you still have a closed system that have no way to replace losses.
On the long run it will not work. The losses you will have trying to keep your speed against the drag of the material you are collecting will accumulate to the point where your ship will stop. It would be like if you were trying to use a battery to run an electric generator and use that generator to recharge the same battery, the losses with the conversions, heat, friction and etc will accumulate until the battery power is insufficient to make the generator work and consequently fail to recharge the battery (it's a catch-22)
That's a different issue. The EM drive supposedly works without ejecting mass out the tailpipe to create forward momentum, but isn't a claim to get thrust without energy input.
Free power schemes such as you describe don't generally work, for the same reason we can't have perpetual motion machines.
The worst thing is that we have at least three idiots in this topic (but I suspect they are the same person) who blindly believe otherwise and that for them an EM drive must be a perpetual machine.
The experiments from a lot of people are suggesting that you're taking this "is impossible, period!!!" out of your ass, you know?
Dude, you behaves just like a religious lunatic you know? As I said I will no longer waste time answering you... I will simply wait for the test results or make my own EM drive to see what happens while you scream out there that is impossible without being able to convince anyone.
I see that is you that is unable to see the problem, like the other one. Because like the others I see you cannot put youself outside of the pure theory and think the problem in a real-world scenario way. Where I or any other says you can get more energy from the EM driver than you put into it in the form of electrical power? How you get this miracle, uh? You cannot get that like any engine you will only get more thust if you put more power? That you will not be able to turn this into a "perpetual machine" because we have a "catch-22" problem here if the thrust depend on the generator and the generator depend on the same thust? Where if you try to extract useful work (in thust or electrical power) from this system you will stop it? Where would this not happen with EM drive because you would be continuously adding electrical power from an external source (a reactor for example)?
Trolling now? Well, I will not bother to answer you any more.
Wrong. You've just played a lot of math without worrying about the fundamental problem of your idea that can be explained easily by just looking at how your supposed perpetual machine would behave in a real-world case. I'm not at all impressed by the your meaningless use of math...
I do not believe he has ever seen how a generator works into real life.
I'm sorry but it's you who are entering the crackpot field in insisting to me that the drive is a perpetual machine without being able to convince me why this would be true...
You are still clueless about the problem envolved... Let's say that I built your "perpetual machine" in the form of a standard 1000 watts output generator, with two EM drivers acting as the source of torque for the generator and the generator itself acting as the source of electricity for the drivers.
... Are we heading for something like a chain reaction?
Assume now that I have initialized the machine with an external power source to the point where the torque available to the generator is enough to generate the power needed to make the drivers work. At this point, I have in theory a system in equilibrium which in theory could be maintained indefinitely if I ignore the mechanical and electrical losses (You cannot ignore the losses into a real machine, but...).
The problem starts when I try to draw power from this system in the form of 1000 watts output, which causes a new loss called the "load" on the generator. This new loss causes the generator to need more torque to maintain the eletrical output, however the torque is limited to what the drivers can provide using the very same eletrical generator. We have a catch-22 here.
So I can not produce more torque in response to the load, consequently the electric power generation is reduced. With less power generation I reduce the available power to the drivers, and with less power available to the drivers they reduce the torque. Reducing torque will generate less energy
So, soon the drivers will not have enough power to keep the torque at the level needed to keep working, causing the machine to decelerate (the speed at which this occurs depending on several factors) to the full stop. How could I consider this as a perpetual machine?
You need to think in pratical terms if you want a real-life machine that works.
What you have suggested only works in theory. In practice you have to deal with mechanical and electrical losses that will only accumulate when your energy source depends on the source of mechanical work generated by the same source of energy the mechanical source runs (A depends of B and B depends of A situation). And if you try to take advantage of this mechanical and / or electrical energy in another external system (connecting a house for example) you would be extracting even more energy from the "perpetual machine", which would translate into greater mechanical losses (every generator needs more mechanical force when electrical demand increases) and would only make your machine stop spinning sooner.
At best you would have something like those suspended magnetic levitation discs that stop spinning as soon as you try to take advantage of the mechanical energy contained in the spin of the disc, and where the disc stops spinning alone after some time due to losses caused by friction with air or external magnetic torques.
Disclaimer: I know very well generators, power systems and related subsystems.
Oh my, yet another one... Do you have the slightest idea of the size of the generator you would need to connect to the shaft to generate the kilowatts (not miliwatts, not microwatts) needed to make the drivers work? And the mechanical effort needed to make this generator run, which I assure you is orders of magnitude above micronewtons? Should I put the losses with friction and heat? Your "perpetual machine" would remain motionless forever...
I find it incredible how wrong your logical deduction is. Creating a perpetual machine in the way you described is simply ridiculous, you completely ignore that the drivers would continually need power to run, and as soon as you tried to turn that movement into work (by putting a load on the shaft let's say) you'd have to keep the power on or the whole thing would simply stop spinning. You have merely described a different type of electric motor, not a perpetual machine.