This paper is just a sketch for

an idea. It was done long ago -1-

and is naive.

I need to return to the core Electromagnetic Propulsion

idea and justify it before doing
any more work in this area. Based on Static Induction
It is in the scope of the website
Field Momentum Concepts
though for future concept
engineering. Remi Cornwall
Cornwall Research Ltd
London
UK
remi@corn-wall.freeserve.co.uk

Abstract
A new means of non-photonic electromagnetic propulsion is discussed based on the Feynman Disk. It
is found possible on using two such disks sharing a common electret to leave the craft with angular and
linear momentum. The problem of hidden momentum is not an issue here. Two such units of two disks
can work together to leave the craft solely with linear momentum.

Introduction
Realistic prospects of effective interplanetary travel are frustrated by the fact that, in the voids
between planets, there is little or no solid matter against which a spacecraft’s drive mechanism can
exert a force. The inescapable law of conservation of momentum would appear, therefore, to dictate
that a spacecraft must carry with it sufficient material to eject into space to impart required changes in
momentum to the craft itself. We seek to show that we can push against the ubiquitous zero-point field
of the electromagnetic field and not violate conservation laws.

Conservation of momentum represents at a fundamental level the isotropy and homogeneity of

space1. This is expressed in the Lagrangian formulation succinctly as:

∂L eqn. 1
=0
n q

The Lagrangian for the system being the sum of kinetic and potential energy terms expressed
in terms of the generalised co-ordinates. Application of Lagrangian method and Relativity to the
combined system of mechanics and electromagnetics2 renders the field a system with infinitely many
degrees of freedom. However between the mechanical and electromagnetic parts of the field
conservation of momentum still applies if we admit the field has momentum. The force density on a
particle density distribution is given by:
∂
ρ m v − ρE − µ 0 J × H − ∇ ⋅ T + ε 0 µ0E × H = 0 eqn. 2
∂t
The final “Poynting term”, the cross product of electrical and magnetic fields represents the
field momentum. The effect of the field term is well known in the dynamic or radiative regime and is
the pressure of radiation that insures the stability of our Sun or the deflection of comet trails.

© Remi Cornwall 2004

 -2-

Figure 1

Intriguingly, though, the Poynting term implies the existence of field momentum in static
situations such as when a steady magnetic field impinges on an electret. The well known Feynman disk
thought experiment (figure 1) illustrates this. The disk is formed from plastic or another insulating
material, and is provided with a number of charged metal spheres distributed near the rim. The disk is
supported on an elongated spindle passing through the centre about which it is free to rotate. On the
disk a coil of conducting wire is placed around the spindle and a battery or other current source drives a
current around the coil. If the current flowing through the coil is suddenly switched off, a tangential
electric field acts around the coil and this generates a torque around the spindle when acting on the
metal spheres. The disk undergoes angular translation even in vacuo3. The momentum balance is
achieved by equal and opposite momentum going to the mechanical (the disk etc.) and the
electromagnetic aspects of the system.

Various naive schemes to utilise the momentum from static fields (i.e. just a magnet opposing
on an electret) and generate simple linear momentum have been dispelled; they are prohibited by a
relativistic effect of the static electric field on the charge carriers of the solenoid that give them exactly
equal and opposite momentum to the field momentum4.

Let us now take the more general case when the mass of the disk, mass of the field (electric
field assumed negligible) and circulating Poynting field energy do not coincide. Figure 2 shows two
masses (m1 m2) connected by a baton. The leftmost mass has the electret attached to it. Incidentally this
electret is designed to project a field of substantially one polarity into space. Outside of the baton the
magnetic field is projected (mf) and the mass of the Poynting field too (mBxE). The centre of mass of the
system is shown shifted from its quiescent position equidistant between the balls. When switching on
the field the craft is shifted to the right (in this depiction) and the field to the left. In an extreme case of
substantial electromagnetic mass being projected outside the craft, this centre of mass can even be
outside of the craft. Shown too is the Poynting flow integrated over space and centred as a mass mBxE
though we neglect to show it in subsequent analysis in comparison to other masses. Rotation obviously
occurs about the centre of mass (C.M.)

R L

mf mBxE
m1 m2
electret
C.M
.

Figure 2

The action of the electrical fields from the changing magnetic field produces torque on the
electret which is shown situated at the leftmost baton mass by the circle around it; arrows indicate the

© Remi Cornwall 2004

 -3-

direction of rotation. Note that the Poynting field rotates in countersense to the craft and its field
arrangements, thus the sum of the angular momentum of the whole is zero:

L(m1 ) + L(m2 ) + L(m f ) − L(m BxE ) = τ BxE dt eqn. 3

T
At the end of the cycle the craft returns to the system centre of mass equidistant between the
two balls, since the electromagnetic energy is called back to the craft. The Poynting flow ceases too
and acts on the electret drive element and the craft leaving it with zero angular momentum but the craft
has undergone an angular translation.

The aim of the device is to render the integral on the right-hand-side of equation 3 non-zero
over a cycle (“decoupling” the electrical aspects of the system from the mechanical) leaving both the
craft and field with angular momentum at the end of the cycle – in short, ‘dumping’ excess momentum
on the field and its zero-point quantum basis in a mechanism postulated later. First we shall delve into
the necessary conditions to make the time average of the Poynting force non-zero.

1 eqn. 4
p = ε 0 (B × E )dV dt
TT V

Consider this for a plane electromagnetic wave: B=Bmsin(ωt) and E=Emsin(ωt). Thus <p> will
be BmEm/2 integrated over the volume and so an electromagnetic wave transfers momentum and this
figure is independent of frequency. In our propulsion case the electric field is fixed to that of the
electret’s field, thus the integral is:

1
p = ε 0 E Bm sin (ωt )dV dt eqn. 5
TT V

If we can cancel the second half of the cycle we will achieve a force proportional to the
cycling frequency, otherwise the net force is zero. Put another way, since the force is the time
derivative of the momentum this follows:

1 d
f = ε 0 (B × E )dV dt
T T dt V
1 1
f = ε 0 (B × E )dV − ε 0 (B × E )dV eqn. 6
T V T
T V 0

Thus for a simple cyclical process the average force is zero. A way around this is to cancel the
E-field around the collapsing magnetic flux on the second half of the cycle - the force on the electret is
due to the tangential electric field of the magnetic flux collapse – though we cannot just cancel the E-
field from the electret (discharging it, etc.) because the force from the Poynting vector will be the
differential of the product of the B and E fields – returning to the point, any form of simple cycling of
these fields will lead to net zero force. The next section will show how we can defeat this.

An asymmetric torque field

We shall show in this section that two solenoids set up around the electret can be made to
cancel the electrical field incident on the electret on the second half of the cycle. The fields can fully
cycle but the trick is that the two solenoids act on different centres and thus express different torques at
the electret.

Consider (figure 3) first how the magnetic field can be made to cycle at the electret so that one
solenoid supplies an electric field of one polarity (changing magnetic field) at the electret and the other
solenoid the opposite field. This gets around the equal and opposite torques acting at the electret and

© Remi Cornwall 2004

 -4-

net zero torque when only one solenoid cycles. We have labelled one solenoid “thrust” and the other
“cancellation”:
E field
Thrust

t E field
Resultant

E field
Cancellation +
t

Figure 3

We have to cancel the electrical field imposed on the drive element by switching cancellation
solenoid(s) whose field (shown as a dotted line) centres are different than the thrust solenoids at the
same instant as the thrust solenoid’s electric field (solid line) goes negative. Figure 4 resolves the
torques into forces acting at m1 m2 and mf since these masses are called back to the craft at the end of
the cycle. Shown are the forces on switching on the field and then switching off the field. The resultant
shown is the summation of these forces. We can see the reason why the field centre for the cancellation
solenoid needs to act on a different centre – the furthest mass, m2 experiences an asymmetry (shown
exaggerated). Figure 4 has depicted the cancellation field’s centre as so distant that the forces acting at
m1 and m2 are almost the same – in short the torque vector fields have different curvature for the thrust
and cancellation solenoids.

Figure 4a shows the thrust forces on their own as the act on the representation of the craft as
two masses m1 and m2 separated by a rod of length L (figure 2). The field mass has been projected back
to the centre of the craft but its momentum contribution is negligible and shall not be mentioned from
here on. The forces at the masses are symmetrical on the cycle. Figure 4b shows the cancellation forces
at the masses. They act at a different centre since the field has been projected to a different location and

ON ON
OFF OFF

m1 mf.cancel m2
m1 mf.thrust m2
Figure 4a Figure 4b

ON
OFF
mf.thrust
m1 + m2
mf.cancel
Figure 4c

© Remi Cornwall 2004

 -5-

shown here for exaggeration; the masses are so distant from the centre that approximately the same
force is experienced by both. In short, the torque vector field of the thrust and cancellation solenoids
have different curvatures.

Figure 4c shows the resultant forces when the cancellation scheme of figure 3 is applied. Note
that it is not a case of merely superimposing figures 4a and 4b as the cancellation field removes the
forces on m1 and m2 in the off-phase of the thrust solenoid by superimposing the on-phase of the
cancellation solenoid - thus only the on-phase of the thrust solenoid and the off-phase of the
cancellation solenoid act at the masses. Conveniently we have shown the forces at m1 cancelling (by
contrivance of having the same field strength present at the electret drive element) leaving only the
force acting at m2 (mf has been neglected as mentioned earlier). This force on its own would leave the
craft to rotate and translate but the dual sided symmetrical device (figure 5) has another set of thrust
and cancellation solenoids on the other side of the device leaving a true linear force.

Not depicted in the diagrams of figure 4 is the momentum acting on mass mBxE as this has
been “decoupled” from the system, however its mass-energy (but not its momentum) is returned to the
solenoids (and hence the craft) by the Lenz/Faraday Law. The situation is similar to a projectile being
launched from a large mass (the base): in the limit of the base having very large mass, most of the
kinetic energy goes to the projectile but the large mass receives as much momentum as the projectile.

Figure 5 (a dual sided device too) shows a scheme whereby the thrust (5a) and cancellation
(5b) solenoids can act on different centres. It is not necessary to project the field outside of the craft but
this shows one possibility.

Thrust Figure 5a
solenoids

∂A/dt
∂A/dt ∂A/dt
electret electret

Inside the craft

Cancellation solenoids

∂A/dt ∂A/dt

Figure 5a
electret electret

Inside the craft

Against the hidden momentum argument

Figure 6 shows a construction to point out that the hidden momentum argument used against
electromagnetic propulsion is not valid here. We note that hidden momentum effects arise from
electrical potentials being applied to a relativistic charge carrying fluid. The solenoids (both thrust and
cancellation) are shown tilted projecting a field. These solenoids are shielded from electret by a
conducting box at the craft’s potential. Thus since no field impinges on the solenoids, the hidden
momentum argument is irrelevant.

© Remi Cornwall 2004

 -6-

Electret solenoid
Conductive box

∂A/dt

Figure 6
solenoid

Method of propulsion not by mass energy displacement or photons

Other objections to the scheme are tackled here. Electromagnetic energy is projected outwards
from the craft but this is not the net mechanism by which the craft is propelled forwards. The energy is
recalled to the craft at the end of the cycle. The net momentum from this setting up and removal of the
field is zero - the time average is zero (similar to equation 6). Sure enough the flow of energy can be
represented by a Poynting vector of the propagation of the changing E and B fields but it is distinct
from the propulsive effect of the changing E field on the electret. One displays momentum transfer by
acting on the solenoid (the radiation field, see later), the other on the electret (the induction field). Thus
we have two momentum density terms on a half cycle:

∂ 2
g Solenoid = ε 0
∂t
( )
B

g Electret = ε 0 (B × E )

For the first expression it is easier to divide the known final expression for the energy density
by c2 than compute the time varying Poynting expression. The two expressions are not equal and so
clearly the argument that the propulsion comes from ejection of field energy of the solenoid is not
valid.

Inevitably with cycling of electrical or magnetic fields electromagnetic radiation is

produced but this is not the main mechanism by which the craft is propelled – a photon rocket is a puny
thing; the majority of the energy developed goes into the rearward beam and not the kinetic energy of
the craft. In no way is it implied by the classic Feynman disk example that radiation emanates and
provides all the momentum balance. Radiation effects are put off to the second order in the vector
potential2 and the force is of the order:
'( 2 ) 2 eqn. 7
A =− ev
3c 2
The E field from the above expression is then E=-(1/c)∂A/∂t. The force on charged entities
constituting the solenoid current from the radiation field is thus of the order of 1/c3 down on the forces
generated on the electret by the induction fields:

∂
ε0 (B × E )dV Ref. eqns. 2 and 4
V
∂t

In fact the radiation is so miniscule that we didn’t even calculate it and can say with very high
accuracy that all the useful energy transfer goes into the kinetic energy of the craft, much as though we
were pushing against a very large mass. To stress the point again that we are dealing with two different
effects, the momentum exchange from the radiation field and the force on the electret from the
induction field, note that for a photon rocket momentum flux is independent of frequency, however for
the device it is linear in frequency (equation 5).

© Remi Cornwall 2004

 -7-

Incidentally the radiation resistance of the Lorentz frictional force2 from the moving electric
field around dielectric drive element is negligible being an order c3.

2e
f res = d eqn. 8
3c 3

The magnitude of the forces generated

We shall now with reference to figures 4a, 4b, 4c and 5 calculate the magnitude of the force of
propulsion. In doing so we shall see the effect of the field strengths, the frequency of cycling, and the
volume of the electret and shifting of the craft from the initial centre of mass by projecting the thrust
and cancellation fields.

First we shall proceed on the basis that the thrust and cancellation fields are projected outside
the craft, this is not essential. Calculating the centre of mass from the matter distribution (the notation
is by figure 2 and 4, m1=m2=m):

( )
m fTH RTH + rcmTH + mrcmTH − m L − rcmTH = 0 ( )
mL − m fTH RTH
rcmTH = eqn. 9
2 m + m fTH
Note that according to figure 4c and the arrangement of forces mentioned earlier, we need
only calculate the force on m2, is the torque:

τ
f m2 = eqn. 10
TH
L − rcmTH
If the cancellation field is projected externally too, the same procedure to the derivation of
equation 9 gives the derivation of the centre of mass when the cancellation field is present (to a good
approximation neglecting mfth) in the same form.

( )
m f C RC + rcmC + mrcmC − m L − rcmC = 0 ( )
mL − m f C RC
rcmC =
2m + m f C
Once again we calculate the force at m2 due to this rotation and arrive at the same form as
equation 10 with rcm.c substituted for rcm.th).

−τ
f m2 =
C
L − rcmC
The force, then, for a dual-sided device is twice the sum of fm2.th and fm2.c and substitution of
expressions for field mass and torque due to the Poynting force give, after routine algebraic
manipulation and approximation the following expression for the force on the craft:

m f ≈ ε 0 B 2V
Let B(t ) = Bmax Ft E (t ) = Emax Ft

τ TH = ε 0 EBFve rcm TH
(τ C similar )

Thus
ε 0 EBFve (rcm − rcm ) eqn. 11
f ≈4 TH C

© Remi Cornwall 2004

 -8-

Other forms of field projection – internal or a combination of internal and external lead to
essentially the same formula. We have represented the fields as a symmetrical sawtooth going up to a
maximum value which we neglect as a subscript in following formulae. The volume of the electret
drive element is ve. The force is proportional to the frequency of cycling and reliant on the field centres
for the thrust and cancellation solenoids being different. Thus we benefit from the mass of the craft
being small; the shifting of the centre of mass of the craft is set against the small mass of the fields.

We see that it is better to have the craft as a propulsion sub-assembly (P.S.A.) inside a greater
craft towed intermittently by smaller sub-craft (figure 9); decoupling the large mass of the greater craft
allows a large force and momentum to be developed by the smaller craft – the centre of mass shift can
then be large even though the greater craft is massive. Figure 9 shows the device of figure 5 as a
propulsion sub-assembly inside a greater craft coupled to the P.S.A. by a low friction electromagnetic,
intermittent spherical joint coupling. Since no torque is developed by the joint, the greater craft is
reduced to a point mass acting at the device’s (P.S.A.) centre. This doesn’t interfere with the device’s
operation and its need to have the electromagnetic fields shift its centre of mass for “leverage” to
translate through space; thus greater craft is towed and pushed along by the device. In addition, the
coupling can be made periodic and intermittent to allow the sub-assembly to develop momentum
before “catching” and then releasing it.

The cavity space between the craft and the P.S.A can be made into a resonant cavity allowing
the electromagnetic fields to be set up in operation at microwave frequencies and above. This offers
advantages for higher force production because the device is linear in frequency (eqn. 11) given the
higher speed over a LCR arrangement. Also the field energy is recouped too on each cycle by the
natural action of a resonant cavity. The cavities are tuned to the Fourier components to allow a
waveform such as figure 3 to be constructed. Radiation pressure will not interfere with torque-less
coupling between the crafts and because as we have seen (eqn. 8) radiative field effects are miniscule
compared to the inductive field effects responsible for the motive force of device.

Spherical
joints

Greater PSA
craft
Cavity

Figure 9

Conclusion
A method of electromagnetic propulsion not reliant on expulsion of propellant has been presented. The
physical phenomena it is based upon is the field momentum as exemplified by the Feynman disk
thought experiment and real experiments on the angular momentum of the electromagnetic field in
static situations. It was shown how to convert the purely angular momentum into linear momentum and
to get around the net-zero torque by a system of two solenoids acting on an electret setting up different
torque fields; the unbalanced forces had a linear element. Two such devices coupled together cancelled
any angular momentum leaving a linear force. We showed that this device does not fall into the hidden
momentum trap or other “conventional” means of electromagnetic propulsion.

© Remi Cornwall 2004

 -9-

References

1) L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, Course of Theoretical Physics: Mechanics, Butterworth
Heinemann, Vol. 1, 3rd ed. 1980.

2) L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, Course of Theoretical Physics: The Classical Theory of Fields,
Butterworth Heinemann, Vol. 2, 4th ed. 1982.

3) G. Graham and D.G. Lahoz “Observation of static electromagnetic angular momentum in vacuo”,
Nature 285, 154 (1980).

4) V. Hnizdo “Hidden momentum of a relativistic fluid carrying current in an external field”, Am. J.
Phys. 65, 92 (1997).

© Remi Cornwall 2004