Jump to content

Talk:Electromagnetic propulsion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

someone wrote

Electromagnetic propulsion is very efficient and very powerful: indeed, gravity is (though relatively weak) one of the strongest forces available for propulsion. It is so strong, in fact, that the UN banned construction and use of any and all types of railgun.

Is this some sort of joke ? I went to http://un.org/ and did a search for "railgun":

Your search - railgun - did not match any documents.


The UN has banned some weapons, including "landmines and booby-traps, incendiary weapons, weapons leaving undetectable fragments in the body, and blinding lasers" -- http://disarmament.un.org:8080/update/Dec2001/Dec2001.htm

Please tell me if the UN has said anything one way or the other about railguns.

-- DavidCary

I merely ran across such text a long while back but as with many articles on the internet am thus now unable to find it once more. So it could have been a bad source. Although I'm not sure of your tone in this response, I'll just take it as being genuinely interested in whether or not the UN has said anything. Shipton 18:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This article, while extremely informative, is primarily statistics and facts. The history section is primarily dates and occurrences. While i realize this is an encyclopedia, something can still be said for transitions and explanations, rather than a data dump from outside sources. The maglev section has a lot of interesting data, but you may consider reorganizing in order for the reader to be able to understand, and take more away from the article. -Travis Saari —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjsaari (talk • contribs) 16:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticizing the article doesn't aid future viewers understanding of the topic. If you have suggested changes, please carry them out. Joseftirol89 (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetic propulsion pre-dates 1897

[edit]

This article states "The thought of using magnets for propulsion continues to this day and has been dreamed of since at least 1897..." Yet the article "H. L. Hunley (submarine)" states "The three inventors...began development of a second submarine... Their efforts were supported by the Confederate States Army... The men experimented with electromagnetic and steam propulsion for the new submarine..." This was between 1862 or 1863. Paulburnett (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EMV in Cars and UFOs

[edit]

Is there any way to make a cars and ufo section. I have an electromagnetic moped and was wondering how the induction motor and pulse circuits are not a part of electric cars yet. However a few people out there from tesla to troy reed to a turkish inventor named yildiz to a few other pakistani inventors made an induction motor with pulsating currents. However Yildiz has a weak system its only a motor or magnetic field (massxenergy=speed), he only has an induction motor so his motor is limited by size. It is the principle of emv, no gas, no recharge. My system without an induction is 2 hrs recharge time, and that beats the world's best electric car at a booming 3 hrs. Was wondering if these sections could be included in the near future also because on this website, they claim to be making a UFO out of electromagnetism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvdc1980 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-actually good point, electromagnetic propulsion is very real. Amperes charge batteries. Troy reed in 1989 made an electric-geo at 50amps. For example 50hp=37,000 watts. In his video the car is floorboards to 50 amps from 100. Yet a common cheap smart car that's 10,000 dollars is a whopping 300 amps to run the motor. So if you drive at 300 amps and divide that by 6 you get 50amps or roughly 6 times the driving range of 60 miles per charge. That's nearly 600 miles per charge. Actually a gas car with 70 amps charges less effectively. A 30 amp moped would be equivalent to roughly 4.5 amps. With a secondary power source, electric batteries can be used more effectively with a range nearing 1000 miles rather than 100. In general terms, say for instance you have

100v=10a=1hp or 100a=10v=1hp

Well, an electric motor will be producing 50hp at times. That's a lot of amperage lost. No motor, is perpetual unless the power is equivalent, which would mean it would have to be very very weak. What electromagnetism does is not perpetual energy, its more like sustained energy because currents go one direction to induce. They go from the positive of a battery to the negative of a motor where the motor naturally induces energy. This method can't be stopped, but it can be blocked or choked with a secondary power-source that yeilds greater voltage, just like a gas car induces electricity. Simple lead acid based batteries can choke an electric current via serial-to serial-to parallel and a method or mode of induction. For instance, a 2-coil stator and a secondary battery being used as current. And this is how you contain an electro-magnetic field. For instance, say you have 100 amp draw, well a motor has a natural amp draw of .85 from 300, so it already benefits your so-called regenerative braking greatly! And this is called electromagnetism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.30.97 (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with putting recharging vehicles on the road is well, the industry is foreign to its technologies, its never heard of an arc transistor, insulation coil, spider circuit, or pulse circuit as a single unit. Yet it uses capacitors and resistors and induction coils even. Yet this will only extend range for a little while. You might even think their batteries are efficient with its charging systems nt fueling it at full capacitor or dry cycling the batteries. Wrong, a tesla that does 30k miles a year will have efficiency degrade by 100k miles at 4 percent. This means in 3 years, a consumer will have 10 percent degrade, and in 10 years 20 percent degrade. Then in 20 years 80 percent degrade because decharging batteries triple in degradation. But the fact is it wont make a car last 100 years, nt 10 or 20. Electric recharging cars are 100 years ahead of your time and they would never degrade the battery.--Asfd666 (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?? Show me one of those mentioned above actually working on a load test. Independent Tester, and hooked up to a load tester with kW or HP recording. It has never happened. Msjayhawk (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Electromagnetic propulsion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electromagnetic_propulsion&oldid=1212964628"