Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Ok no problem. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 5:31 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters I understand your example and I can see how it applies to this lifter. Never mind me...I was just deluding myself. Harry Michel Jullian wrote: ??? Look, this tubular lifter has nothing special, it just has a loose skirt moving under internal forces. Think of the paddle wheel having a loose axle. The axle will jump forward, trying to leave the boat behind, when you engage the clutch in forward gear, and then will stay there as long as the boat pushes on its paddles. Very much the same, very prosaic. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 7:56 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters Michel Jullian wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: However, concerning the tubular lifter, I would argue that the elevated tube when the lifter is _accelerating upwards is evidence that the _internal forces_ don't add up to zero. The elevated tube is merely a deformation due to internal forces. I think it means the weight of the elevated tube has essentially disappeared (although the tube's inertia remains unchanged). In other words, the lifter's ascending weight is less than its stationary weight. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Michel Jullian wrote: The lifter will simply rise if the force exceeds its weight, in which case its acceleration is (force - weight)/mass, as long as the aerodynamic drag remains negligible as is the case in all practical lifters. Would the lifter also have to overcome a lorenz force? Harry
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
No, because any net Lorentz force (due to the geomagnetic field?) would be not only very small, but at 90° from the thrust direction. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters Michel Jullian wrote: The lifter will simply rise if the force exceeds its weight, in which case its acceleration is (force - weight)/mass, as long as the aerodynamic drag remains negligible as is the case in all practical lifters. Would the lifter also have to overcome a lorenz force? Harry
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
- Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 5:46 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters Ok, now I understand the essentials of this explanation. Good. However, concerning the tubular lifter, I would argue that the elevated tube when the lifter is _accelerating upwards is evidence that the _internal forces_ don't add up to zero. The elevated tube is merely a deformation due to internal forces. Michel
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
The motion of the ions does not generate a magnetic field? Harry Michel Jullian wrote: No, because any net Lorentz force (due to the geomagnetic field?) would be not only very small, but at 90° from the thrust direction. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters Michel Jullian wrote: The lifter will simply rise if the force exceeds its weight, in which case its acceleration is (force - weight)/mass, as long as the aerodynamic drag remains negligible as is the case in all practical lifters. Would the lifter also have to overcome a lorenz force? Harry
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 5:46 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters Ok, now I understand the essentials of this explanation. Good. However, concerning the tubular lifter, I would argue that the elevated tube when the lifter is _accelerating upwards is evidence that the _internal forces_ don't add up to zero. The elevated tube is merely a deformation due to internal forces. Michel Is it really necessary to include the affectation 'merely'? It sounds like you are speaking on behalf of Laplace. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Of course it does, but nothing much, no more than a wire a few mm long carrying a few mA current. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 3:11 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters The motion of the ions does not generate a magnetic field? Harry Michel Jullian wrote: No, because any net Lorentz force (due to the geomagnetic field?) would be not only very small, but at 90° from the thrust direction. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters Michel Jullian wrote: The lifter will simply rise if the force exceeds its weight, in which case its acceleration is (force - weight)/mass, as long as the aerodynamic drag remains negligible as is the case in all practical lifters. Would the lifter also have to overcome a lorenz force? Harry
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Michel Jullian wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: However, concerning the tubular lifter, I would argue that the elevated tube when the lifter is _accelerating upwards is evidence that the _internal forces_ don't add up to zero. The elevated tube is merely a deformation due to internal forces. I think it means the weight of the elevated tube has essentially disappeared (although the tube's inertia remains unchanged). In other words, the lifter's ascending weight is less than its stationary weight. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Ok. Harry Michel Jullian wrote: Of course it does, but nothing much, no more than a wire a few mm long carrying a few mA current. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 3:11 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters The motion of the ions does not generate a magnetic field? Harry Michel Jullian wrote: No, because any net Lorentz force (due to the geomagnetic field?) would be not only very small, but at 90° from the thrust direction. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters Michel Jullian wrote: The lifter will simply rise if the force exceeds its weight, in which case its acceleration is (force - weight)/mass, as long as the aerodynamic drag remains negligible as is the case in all practical lifters. Would the lifter also have to overcome a lorenz force? Harry
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
??? Look, this tubular lifter has nothing special, it just has a loose skirt moving under internal forces. Think of the paddle wheel having a loose axle. The axle will jump forward, trying to leave the boat behind, when you engage the clutch in forward gear, and then will stay there as long as the boat pushes on its paddles. Very much the same, very prosaic. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 7:56 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters Michel Jullian wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: However, concerning the tubular lifter, I would argue that the elevated tube when the lifter is _accelerating upwards is evidence that the _internal forces_ don't add up to zero. The elevated tube is merely a deformation due to internal forces. I think it means the weight of the elevated tube has essentially disappeared (although the tube's inertia remains unchanged). In other words, the lifter's ascending weight is less than its stationary weight. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Did you watch the video and listen to the commentary closely? Harry Michel Jullian wrote: ??? Look, this tubular lifter has nothing special, it just has a loose skirt moving under internal forces. Think of the paddle wheel having a loose axle. The axle will jump forward, trying to leave the boat behind, when you engage the clutch in forward gear, and then will stay there as long as the boat pushes on its paddles. Very much the same, very prosaic. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 7:56 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters Michel Jullian wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: However, concerning the tubular lifter, I would argue that the elevated tube when the lifter is _accelerating upwards is evidence that the _internal forces_ don't add up to zero. The elevated tube is merely a deformation due to internal forces. I think it means the weight of the elevated tube has essentially disappeared (although the tube's inertia remains unchanged). In other words, the lifter's ascending weight is less than its stationary weight. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
I understand your example and I can see how it applies to this lifter. Never mind me...I was just deluding myself. Harry Michel Jullian wrote: ??? Look, this tubular lifter has nothing special, it just has a loose skirt moving under internal forces. Think of the paddle wheel having a loose axle. The axle will jump forward, trying to leave the boat behind, when you engage the clutch in forward gear, and then will stay there as long as the boat pushes on its paddles. Very much the same, very prosaic. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 7:56 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters Michel Jullian wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: However, concerning the tubular lifter, I would argue that the elevated tube when the lifter is _accelerating upwards is evidence that the _internal forces_ don't add up to zero. The elevated tube is merely a deformation due to internal forces. I think it means the weight of the elevated tube has essentially disappeared (although the tube's inertia remains unchanged). In other words, the lifter's ascending weight is less than its stationary weight. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Yes, a long time ago. Why? Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 1:11 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters Did you watch the video and listen to the commentary closely? Harry Michel Jullian wrote: ??? Look, this tubular lifter has nothing special, it just has a loose skirt moving under internal forces. Think of the paddle wheel having a loose axle. The axle will jump forward, trying to leave the boat behind, when you engage the clutch in forward gear, and then will stay there as long as the boat pushes on its paddles. Very much the same, very prosaic. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 7:56 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters Michel Jullian wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: However, concerning the tubular lifter, I would argue that the elevated tube when the lifter is _accelerating upwards is evidence that the _internal forces_ don't add up to zero. The elevated tube is merely a deformation due to internal forces. I think it means the weight of the elevated tube has essentially disappeared (although the tube's inertia remains unchanged). In other words, the lifter's ascending weight is less than its stationary weight. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
- Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 8:04 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters ... ...Sigmond's derivation for the lifter thrust (or rather it's opposite namely the force exerted by the ions on the air ... However, what about the force of reaction by the air on the ions? That's the thrust, and as I said, it's exactly the opposite vectorially to the force exerted by the ions on the air calculated by Sigmond (they are equal in magnitude: action=reaction). You see the recirculated charges are internal parts of the lifter, just like the paddles are internal parts of the paddle wheel boat, so any external force on them is a force on the lifter. To clear up a possible confusion, the forces we discussed wrt the tubular lifter between the electrodes and the flying charges are all internal forces, like one could discuss the internal actions between the paddles and the ship, or the propeller and the helicopter. They are interesting as a way to visualize what pushes the _electrodes_ up, but they cancel when you add them all up (e.g. force of charges on cathode + force of cathode on charges = 0), what really applies a net force to the lifter is the reaction of the medium. Unless this force exceeds the force exerted by the ions on the air the lifter will not rise. If it is less than this, the lifter is just an air pump. Not at all, they are equal in magnitude in all circumstances :) The lifter will simply rise if the force exceeds its weight, in which case its acceleration is (force - weight)/mass, as long as the aerodynamic drag remains negligible as is the case in all practical lifters. Michel
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 8:04 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters ... ...Sigmond's derivation for the lifter thrust (or rather it's opposite namely the force exerted by the ions on the air ... However, what about the force of reaction by the air on the ions? That's the thrust, and as I said, it's exactly the opposite vectorially to the force exerted by the ions on the air calculated by Sigmond (they are equal in magnitude: action=reaction). You see the recirculated charges are internal parts of the lifter, just like the paddles are internal parts of the paddle wheel boat, so any external force on them is a force on the lifter. To clear up a possible confusion, the forces we discussed wrt the tubular lifter between the electrodes and the flying charges are all internal forces, like one could discuss the internal actions between the paddles and the ship, or the propeller and the helicopter. They are interesting as a way to visualize what pushes the _electrodes_ up, but they cancel when you add them all up (e.g. force of charges on cathode + force of cathode on charges = 0), what really applies a net force to the lifter is the reaction of the medium. Unless this force exceeds the force exerted by the ions on the air the lifter will not rise. If it is less than this, the lifter is just an air pump. Not at all, they are equal in magnitude in all circumstances :) The lifter will simply rise if the force exceeds its weight, in which case its acceleration is (force - weight)/mass, as long as the aerodynamic drag remains negligible as is the case in all practical lifters. Michel Ok, now I understand the essentials of this explanation. However, concerning the tubular lifter, I would argue that the elevated tube when the lifter is _accelerating upwards is evidence that the _internal forces_ don't add up to zero. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
- Original Message - From: Kyle R. Mcallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:32 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters ... If you think that the Lifter will work if it is surrounded by an enclosed container with a gas inside it, to allow for ion circulation, but outside the container is the vacuum of interstellar space, then explain why it didn't produce thrust when I completely enclosed it in a large (but lightweight) dielectric shield? Right. BTW Kyle I only just understood what you meant by no thrust when enclosed, you were talking about the whole system, not about the lifter per se as I initially thought! Same as Stephen's hens in the truck, the hens do fly but the truck doesn't get lighter (unless you drill holes in the truck's ceiling and floor of course :-) This is really getting ridiculous. Jean-Louis and everyone will parade around any Joe Blow who puts together a lifter with some sandwich wrap and matchsticks, and flies it from hacking into the guts of an old computer monitor, but if anyone sets out to do some real, controlled science on this thing and see what is actually going onwell, the rest is as they say, history. Myself, Michel, Xavier, etc. have all been attacked in some form for trying to do some real research into this and find out what is going on. What we found wasn't what the Lifter people wanted to hear, so *obviously* we just don't know what we are doing. Indeed. It would be like insisting that a helicopter doesn't work by pushing itself against the air, it just doesn't make sense scientifically. But I guess it does make sense economically for the people who make a living on promoting the more mysterious hypotheses :) Michel P.S. If it can convince anyone that lifters are interesting but well understood technical objects rather than mystery stuff, I enclose a lifter engineering guide (27 kB pdf, it might just about make it to the list (40kB max total)), share and enjoy. P.P.S. It hasn't gone through after an hour (in spite of OE telling me the whole message was only 39kB) so I am reposting this with a link instead (would have given it earlier but Blazelabs site was temporarily down), if anything was unclear do ask: http://blazelabs.com/Multiwire-plane.pdf
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
I wrote the other day: BTW2 the derivation is elegant but admittedly it could be a little more rigorous wrt distinguishing between scalars and vectors. For more clarity in this respect, I enclose an annotated version of Sigmond's derivation for the lifter thrust (or rather it's opposite namely the force exerted by the ions on the air), where I have added arrow signs to the vector variables plus a few words of explanations. I hope it helps. Corrections welcome. Michel P.S. For those not familiar with the ion mobility concept, the fine zig zag trajectory due to the multiple collisions of an ion ploughing through the medium's neutrals under the effect of an electric field distribution is commonly modeled by a smooth path along the local electric field line (which, as may not be obvious, can have any odd shape in Sigmond's derivation including a forwards and then backwards path as is the case for ions emitted from the front part of the wire), with ion velocity vi equal to the ion mobility µ (ion and medium specific statistical parameter) times the local electric field modulus E (which is not assumed to be constant along the path in the derivation, which is a good thing since it isn't!). - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 9:38 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters ... BTW2 the derivation is elegant but admittedly it could be a little more rigorous wrt distinguishing between scalars and vectors. ... Because ion [induced] wind yields exactly the above thrust formula if you do the maths, here is an elegant derivation by R.S. Sigmond (if the 16 kB gif image makes it to the list) Michel IonWindThrustDerivationAnnotated.gif Description: GIF image
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Michel Jullian wrote: Indeed. It would be like insisting that a helicopter doesn't work by pushing itself against the air, it just doesn't make sense scientifically. But I guess it does make sense economically for the people who make a living on promoting the more mysterious hypotheses :) The design in the attachment is suppose to fly by pushing the air. Well it will certainly push air but it won't fly. However, it can be made to work as a pump. But suppose it did fly...would knowing how it works as pump be sufficient to explain how it flies? Harry attachment: Leo-Copter.jpg
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Of course, what would be the difference? Would a paddle boat pushing against the quay (i.e. acting as a pump, pumping water backwards) work any differently than when it's on the move? It's still paddles, or whatever, pushing a medium backwards in order for the craft to go forwards if nothing prevents it (the quay for the paddle boat, excessive weight in the case of the Leonardo copter) Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters Michel Jullian wrote: Indeed. It would be like insisting that a helicopter doesn't work by pushing itself against the air, it just doesn't make sense scientifically. But I guess it does make sense economically for the people who make a living on promoting the more mysterious hypotheses :) The design in the attachment is suppose to fly by pushing the air. Well it will certainly push air but it won't fly. However, it can be made to work as a pump. But suppose it did fly...would knowing how it works as pump be sufficient to explain how it flies? Harry
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Yes, a paddle boat is either a pump or a boat depending on how you wish to use the boat's paddles. Are saying Leonardo's copter could lift itself in theory if it were light enough? That would be something to see. I always thought it was impossible in theory. Harry Michel Jullian wrote: Of course, what would be the difference? Would a paddle boat pushing against the quay (i.e. acting as a pump, pumping water backwards) work any differently than when it's on the move? It's still paddles, or whatever, pushing a medium backwards in order for the craft to go forwards if nothing prevents it (the quay for the paddle boat, excessive weight in the case of the Leonardo copter) Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters Michel Jullian wrote: Indeed. It would be like insisting that a helicopter doesn't work by pushing itself against the air, it just doesn't make sense scientifically. But I guess it does make sense economically for the people who make a living on promoting the more mysterious hypotheses :) The design in the attachment is suppose to fly by pushing the air. Well it will certainly push air but it won't fly. However, it can be made to work as a pump. But suppose it did fly...would knowing how it works as pump be sufficient to explain how it flies? Harry
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Michel Jullian wrote: I wrote the other day: BTW2 the derivation is elegant but admittedly it could be a little more rigorous wrt distinguishing between scalars and vectors. For more clarity in this respect, I enclose an annotated version of Sigmond's derivation for the lifter thrust (or rather it's opposite namely the force exerted by the ions on the air), where I have added arrow signs to the vector variables plus a few words of explanations. I hope it helps. Corrections welcome. I don't doubt your math skills. In the future I might ask for your help in that department. However, what about the force of reaction by the air on the ions? Unless this force exceeds the force exerted by the ions on the air the lifter will not rise. If it is less than this, the lifter is just an air pump. Michel P.S. For those not familiar with the ion mobility concept, the fine zig zag trajectory due to the multiple collisions of an ion ploughing through the medium's neutrals under the effect of an electric field distribution is commonly modeled by a smooth path along the local electric field line (which, as may not be obvious, can have any odd shape in Sigmond's derivation including a forwards and then backwards path as is the case for ions emitted from the front part of the wire), with ion velocity vi equal to the ion mobility µ (ion and medium specific statistical parameter) times the local electric field modulus E (which is not assumed to be constant along the path in the derivation, which is a good thing since it isn't!). Cool. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 2:06 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters hmmm A sheet of paper inserted in the gap of a spark plug will prevent my dad's lawn mower from working. Does that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that electricity is what powers the lawn mower? . . . No. I really fail to see the comparison. The point is, the Lifter requires some dielectric medium of a normal physical nature (by normal, I mean, not whatever makes up space, but gases, liquids, etc.) There is no medium of that nature in space. So, how are we supposed to travel anywhere via Lifter, if there is no medium there for it to push itself against? If you think that the Lifter will work if it is surrounded by an enclosed container with a gas inside it, to allow for ion circulation, but outside the container is the vacuum of interstellar space, then explain why it didn't produce thrust when I completely enclosed it in a large (but lightweight) dielectric shield? This is really getting ridiculous. Jean-Louis and everyone will parade around any Joe Blow who puts together a lifter with some sandwich wrap and matchsticks, and flies it from hacking into the guts of an old computer monitor, but if anyone sets out to do some real, controlled science on this thing and see what is actually going onwell, the rest is as they say, history. Myself, Michel, Xavier, etc. have all been attacked in some form for trying to do some real research into this and find out what is going on. What we found wasn't what the Lifter people wanted to hear, so *obviously* we just don't know what we are doing. --Kyle
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 2:06 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters hmmm A sheet of paper inserted in the gap of a spark plug will prevent my dad's lawn mower from working. Does that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that electricity is what powers the lawn mower? . . . No. I really fail to see the comparison. The point is, the Lifter requires some dielectric medium of a normal physical nature (by normal, I mean, not whatever makes up space, but gases, liquids, etc.) There is no medium of that nature in space. So, how are we supposed to travel anywhere via Lifter, if there is no medium there for it to push itself against? I honestly don't know how or if it can work in space. If you think that the Lifter will work if it is surrounded by an enclosed container with a gas inside it, to allow for ion circulation, but outside the container is the vacuum of interstellar space, then explain why it didn't produce thrust when I completely enclosed it in a large (but lightweight) dielectric shield? Perhaps it won't work no matter what... but then again...perhaps an enclosed lifter will not work while it is resting on the Earth. Instead it may need to be in free fall briefly before it will work. If that turns out to be true then it will work in space. This is entirely speculative, so don't ask me to explain it at this time. This is really getting ridiculous. Jean-Louis and everyone will parade around any Joe Blow who puts together a lifter with some sandwich wrap and matchsticks, and flies it from hacking into the guts of an old computer monitor, but if anyone sets out to do some real, controlled science on this thing and see what is actually going onwell, the rest is as they say, history. Myself, Michel, Xavier, etc. have all been attacked in some form for trying to do some real research into this and find out what is going on. What we found wasn't what the Lifter people wanted to hear, so *obviously* we just don't know what we are doing. I am all for careful experimentation. It helps to bring issues into focus and tacit assumptions to light. If you are sure you have the right explanation why do you care what they say ? However, I get the impression you feel more resigned and annoyed than sure. ;-) Harry
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: All I know is, when properly shielded, the lifters and similar devices do not produce anomalous thrust. Not only I have found this, but many others, in particular, Xavier as Michel pointed out. But what we found is not really very romantic. hmmm A sheet of paper inserted in the gap of a spark plug will prevent my dad's lawn mower from working. Does that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that electricity is what powers the lawn mower? Harry
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
- Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 1:56 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters I did it with a balance beam and a pointer, and saw nothing significant. Also did it set up as a torsion arm. How did you calibrate your scale? You don't really calibrate a simple balance beam or torsion arm. There is no scale, just beam, pointer, and a ruler positioned next to the pointer. A laser pointer is unnecessary and inacurate as well... consider the spot size of a red laser pointer compared the the thickness of a sewing needle. You just make it long enough and rigid enough that if you drop a bit of lint on one end of it, the pointer at the other end will give a visible indication of movement. An unshielded, open-air lifter will move a long balance beam undeniably. Very easy to see. The torsion arm is even better, you can make the thing spin complete revolutions. When the shield is added, nothing happens. I know it is going to be suggested that the added weight of the shields increased the weight and swamped the effect. This thought was not lost on my, so I hung the shield just below the test Lifter, with the lifter exposed to air, to see if it could visibly push the added mass of the shields. It did with little difficulty. When the lifter was then placed within the shield, no thrust. I suggest, if anyone else wishes to try this, to run one lead wire up from the floor to the lifter, and one down from the ceiling to it, and make the wires meet close to the pivot or axis of the balance beam. Otherwise, the lead wires will give artifacts. --Kyle
RE: [Vo]: Lifters
Hi Kyle, Classical spacetime is not recognized as a medium, just some mathematics and tensors. And that means what? Do you really think the Universe is made out of dimensionless math equations? It will probably be eventually recognized that there is a physical something to the vacuum, but what it is, I don't know, and I doubt anyone else knows for sure either. You are wrong about that, too. I have fully quantified exactly what the physical something of the vacuum is. I have written a white paper on it and delivered it before the PIRT 2006 conference in London last fall. I have also written a book on the topic (Secrets of the Aether) and last weekend presented the theory before a group of scientists in Memphis, Tennessee. If you want to know what the vacuum is, just ask or read the paper. http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf Whether or not you can push against it, well, I am not saying you cannot. I am saying you can, and I am not alone. General Relativity also says you can. I am just saying it looks as if the lifter isn't pushing against anything but a normal dielectric medium of air or a liquid. I don't deny it looks that way to you. The physics of ion thrust are valid, but they are inapplicable to the lifter. Have you built a thruster device? http://www.fw.hu/bmiklos2000/unipolar.htm I really have little else to say on this subject, I've done the experiments and found that, to my knowledge and experience, the Lifters do not produce anomalous, unconventional thrust. I have about a dozen other projects to work on which may be promising, but if I continue to waste time with things that I know don't work, I am not going to get anywhere. I posted my findings, and that is all. It is one thing to get a negative result, it is another thing to assume you have fully understood the result. I can't blame you for wanting to do other projects, however. There is not enough thrust in the lifters or thrusters for me to continue with them at this time, either. Dave
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
On 2/16/07, David Thomson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Michel, Beware of the MIB Dave, unless the MIW get hold of you first? :) I have no clue what you are talking about. Men In White . . . coats, that is. BTW, 'Michel' is usually a man's name in french. Probably the first rap record: http://it.stlawu.edu/~x0tsing/takeaway.htm Terry
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 1:56 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters I did it with a balance beam and a pointer, and saw nothing significant. Also did it set up as a torsion arm. How did you calibrate your scale? You don't really calibrate a simple balance beam or torsion arm. There is no scale, just beam, pointer, and a ruler positioned next to the pointer. A laser pointer is unnecessary and inacurate as well... consider the spot size of a red laser pointer compared the the thickness of a sewing needle. You just make it long enough and rigid enough that if you drop a bit of lint on one end of it, the pointer at the other end will give a visible indication of movement. ok. An unshielded, open-air lifter will move a long balance beam undeniably. Very easy to see. The torsion arm is even better, you can make the thing spin complete revolutions. When the shield is added, nothing happens. So the lifter was oriented so it would move horizontally rather than vertically ? I know it is going to be suggested that the added weight of the shields increased the weight and swamped the effect. This thought was not lost on my, so I hung the shield just below the test Lifter, with the lifter exposed to air, to see if it could visibly push the added mass of the shields. It did with little difficulty. When the lifter was then placed within the shield, no thrust. Very good. Did both tests rely on horizontal motion? I suggest, if anyone else wishes to try this, to run one lead wire up from the floor to the lifter, and one down from the ceiling to it, and make the wires meet close to the pivot or axis of the balance beam. Otherwise, the lead wires will give artifacts. --Kyle harry
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
- Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 1:30 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters So the lifter was oriented so it would move horizontally rather than vertically ? In some tests, it was set to move horizontally, in others, upwards or downwards. I know it is going to be suggested that the added weight of the shields increased the weight and swamped the effect. This thought was not lost on my, so I hung the shield just below the test Lifter, with the lifter exposed to air, to see if it could visibly push the added mass of the shields. It did with little difficulty. When the lifter was then placed within the shield, no thrust. Very good. Did both tests rely on horizontal motion? No, I did both. --Kyle
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
- Original Message - From: David Thomson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 4:08 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]: Lifters ... My guess is that the potential needs to be increased proportional to the vacuum. So if you double the vacuum, you need to double the potential. ... Multiply it by root 2 in fact. To maintain the same thrust, every time you halve the pressure you must double the current, as per the thrust formula I*d/mu where ion mobility mu is doubled (inversely proportional to air density). In order to double the current you must indeed increase voltage, but not by a factor two, only root 2 as the I(V) law is quadratic for a corona discharge. There is a brick wall limit to this scheme though: breakdown voltage goes down with pressure, so you can't increase voltage much, hardly at all in fact since a well designed lifter operates as close as possible to the breakdown voltage. Michel
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
On 2/15/07, Kyle R. Mcallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All, As far as the lifters go, I can say this: I have worked with these little gizmos quite a bit in the past, particularly several years ago when Transdimensional and all started the hype. I don't know what NASA has to say about them, nor do I particularly care, given their (NASA's) rather dubious track record. Kyle, Here's what NASA has to say about them in their patent. I can find no reference to ionic wind in it: http://snipurl.com/1aef8 United States Patent 6,317,310 Campbell November 13, 2001 Apparatus and method for generating thrust using a two dimensional, asymmetrical capacitor module Abstract A capacitor module system is provided for creating a thrust force. The system includes a capacitor module provided with a first conductive element having a cylindrical geometry. The first conductive element can be a hollow cylinder or a solid cylinder. The capacitor module also includes a second conductive element axially spaced from the first conductive element and of smaller axial extent. The second conductive element can be a flat disk, a dome, or a conductive tip at the end of a dielectric rod. A dielectric element is disposed between the first conductive element and the second conductive element. The system also includes a high voltage source having first and second terminals connected respectively to the first and second conductive elements. The high voltage source applies a high voltage to the conductive elements of sufficient value to create a thrust force on the module inducing movement thereof. Inventors: Campbell; Jonathan W. (Harvest, AL) Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Washington, DC) Appl. No.: 09/520,817 Filed: March 8, 2000 Current U.S. Class: 361/306.1 ; 361/811 Current International Class: H02N 1/00 (20060101) Field of Search: 361/306.1,15,16,17,715,821,311 References Cited [Referenced By] U.S. Patent Documents 4392179 July 1983 Nelson et al. Primary Examiner: Dinkins; Anthony Attorney, Agent or Firm: McGroary; James J. Government Interests ORIGIN OF THE INVENTION This invention was made by an employee of the United States Government and may be manufactured and used by or for the Government for Governmental purposes without the payment of royalties. Claims What is claimed is: 1. A capacitor module system for creating a thrust, said system comprising: a capacitor module comprising a first conductive element having a cylindrical geometry; a second conductive element axially spaced from said first conductive element and having a geometry of smaller axial extent than said first conductive element; and a dielectric element disposed between said first conductive element and said second conductive element so as to form the capacitor module; and, a high voltage source, having first and second terminals connected respectively to said first and second conductive elements, for applying a high voltage to said conductive elements of sufficient value to create a thrust force on said module inducing movement thereof. more
RE: [Vo]: Lifters
Hi Michel, ... My guess is that the potential needs to be increased proportional to the vacuum. So if you double the vacuum, you need to double the potential. ... Multiply it by root 2 in fact. To maintain the same thrust, every time you halve the pressure you must double the current, as per the thrust formula I*d/mu where ion mobility mu is doubled (inversely proportional to air density). In order to double the current you must indeed increase voltage, but not by a factor two, only root 2 as the I(V) law is quadratic for a corona discharge. Thanks, I wasn't aware of this reasoning. So the question stands for Kyle, was the vacuum experiment properly conducted? Also, for you Michel, why does the ion mobility equation necessarily interpret as being ion wind? Why can't the force term refer to the force between the ions on the lifter and the electrostatic dipoles in the space surrounding it? Dave
RE: [Vo]: Lifters
Hi Michel, The only problem with ion wind theory is that there isn't enough thrust in the ions to cause a lifter to lift. What's more, you can reverse the polarity of the wire and broad conductor and the lift is the same. If electrons were being emitted as ion wind in one case, they would not be in the other case. Since there are no positively charged electrons and any protons would have 1836 times the mass of the electron and give different results, the ion wind theory is bust. Just because a mathematical formula gives a number doesn't mean that number can be applied to a non-existent phenomenon. Dave Also, for you Michel, why does the ion mobility equation necessarily interpret as being ion wind? ... Dave Because ion [induced] wind yields exactly the above thrust formula if you do the maths, here is an elegant derivation by R.S. Sigmond (if the 16 kB gif image makes it to the list) Michel
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Good try Dave, but you need to learn a bit more about corona discharges. As a matter of fact you do get air entraining ion flow, aka ion wind or electric wind, in both corona polarities: +ve ions when the wire is +ve wrt the skirt, -ve ions when you reverse polarity. Air ions of both signs have about the same mobility, hence the unchanged lift. Of course as you correctly pointed out the wire cannot emit ions. It can only emit or receive electrons, and that's what it does actually at the end of the complex chemistry (about 40 reactions) occurring in the thin neutral plasma sheath (bright purple glow) around the wire. It's the plasma sheath that emits the monopolar (+ve or -ve but not both) ions in fact, not the wire. If you're interested in a straightforward derivation of some of the characteristics (thickness, voltage drop) of the plasma sheath, here is one I wrote some time ago http://www.blazelabs.com/coronaradius.pdf Michel P.S. I wonder what's so hideous about EHD that so many apparently sensible people want to debunk it? - Original Message - From: David Thomson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 4:14 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]: Lifters Hi Michel, The only problem with ion wind theory is that there isn't enough thrust in the ions to cause a lifter to lift. What's more, you can reverse the polarity of the wire and broad conductor and the lift is the same. If electrons were being emitted as ion wind in one case, they would not be in the other case. Since there are no positively charged electrons and any protons would have 1836 times the mass of the electron and give different results, the ion wind theory is bust. Just because a mathematical formula gives a number doesn't mean that number can be applied to a non-existent phenomenon. Dave Also, for you Michel, why does the ion mobility equation necessarily interpret as being ion wind? ... Dave Because ion [induced] wind yields exactly the above thrust formula if you do the maths, here is an elegant derivation by R.S. Sigmond (if the 16 kB gif image makes it to the list) Michel
RE: [Vo]: Lifters
Hi Michel, Good try Dave, but you need to learn a bit more about corona discharges. Was it necessary to make this dig? If you're interested in a straightforward derivation of some of the characteristics (thickness, voltage drop) of the plasma sheath, here is one I wrote some time ago I would have been interested, but I think I would like to stay as far away from you and your condescending attitude as possible. Dave
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Dave, Honestly it was not a dig, a mere statement of a fact. The fact is not a disgrace either, no-one can be expected to know everything. The remark might have been legitimately interpreted as an insult if I had stopped at that maybe, but instead I endeavoured to explain what you had missed in your shrewd objection that wires can't possibly emit positive stuff. However if you still feel vindicated, please accept my apologies. Michel - Original Message - From: David Thomson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 6:47 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]: Lifters Hi Michel, Good try Dave, but you need to learn a bit more about corona discharges. Was it necessary to make this dig? If you're interested in a straightforward derivation of some of the characteristics (thickness, voltage drop) of the plasma sheath, here is one I wrote some time ago I would have been interested, but I think I would like to stay as far away from you and your condescending attitude as possible. Dave
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Oops sorry my English, I meant insulted not vindicated. Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 7:42 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters Dave, Honestly it was not a dig, a mere statement of a fact. The fact is not a disgrace either, no-one can be expected to know everything. The remark might have been legitimately interpreted as an insult if I had stopped at that maybe, but instead I endeavoured to explain what you had missed in your shrewd objection that wires can't possibly emit positive stuff. However if you still feel vindicated, please accept my apologies. Michel - Original Message - From: David Thomson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 6:47 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]: Lifters Hi Michel, Good try Dave, but you need to learn a bit more about corona discharges. Was it necessary to make this dig? If you're interested in a straightforward derivation of some of the characteristics (thickness, voltage drop) of the plasma sheath, here is one I wrote some time ago I would have been interested, but I think I would like to stay as far away from you and your condescending attitude as possible. Dave
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
At the beginning of the derivation it says ion mass is irrelevant here (no inertia effects). If it is irrelevant than the derived force does not really correspond to a thrust. Harry Michel Jullian wrote: ...the thrust formula I*d/mu where ion mobility mu... Also, for you Michel, why does the ion mobility equation necessarily interpret as being ion wind? ... Dave Because ion [induced] wind yields exactly the above thrust formula if you do the maths, here is an elegant derivation by R.S. Sigmond (if the 16 kB gif image makes it to the list) Michel
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
But the air propelled downwards by the ion has a mass (hidden in the ion mobility parameter), that's what's matters, just like the mass of a helicopter's propeller is irrelevant. If one can speak of thrust for a helicopter, one can speak of thrust for a lifter. BTW the momentum of the discharged+ejected ions is negligible compared to that of the neutrals they drag along, because their concentration is very small. BTW2 the derivation is elegant but admittedly it could be a little more rigorous wrt distinguishing between scalars and vectors. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 8:14 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters At the beginning of the derivation it says ion mass is irrelevant here (no inertia effects). If it is irrelevant than the derived force does not really correspond to a thrust. Harry Michel Jullian wrote: ...the thrust formula I*d/mu where ion mobility mu... Also, for you Michel, why does the ion mobility equation necessarily interpret as being ion wind? ... Dave Because ion [induced] wind yields exactly the above thrust formula if you do the maths, here is an elegant derivation by R.S. Sigmond (if the 16 kB gif image makes it to the list) Michel
RE: [Vo]: Lifters
Hi Michel, But the air propelled downwards by the ion has a mass (hidden in the ion mobility parameter), that's what's matters, just like the mass of a helicopter's propeller is irrelevant. If one can speak of thrust for a helicopter, one can speak of thrust for a lifter. Several people have constructed lifters (and the related thruster) to block airflow, which clearly demonstrates that airflow has nothing to do with the lift. Dave
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
The airflow blocking experiments I am aware of (e.g. at Blazelabs a continuous plate was used as the ion collector instead of a grid) demonstrated the opposite: no lift. Which is only to be expected: if you block the airflow by a plate attached to the lifter, the momentum given to the air is given back to the lifter when the air hits the plate, so the net thrust is zero. Would be the same if a helicoper carried a wide plate attached to its wheels, it wouldn't fly. Michel - Original Message - From: David Thomson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 10:04 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]: Lifters Hi Michel, But the air propelled downwards by the ion has a mass (hidden in the ion mobility parameter), that's what's matters, just like the mass of a helicopter's propeller is irrelevant. If one can speak of thrust for a helicopter, one can speak of thrust for a lifter. Several people have constructed lifters (and the related thruster) to block airflow, which clearly demonstrates that airflow has nothing to do with the lift. Dave
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
- Original Message - From: David Thomson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:08 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]: Lifters What was the highest potential used in the vacuum experiments? Around 20kV. As I see it, there is a balance between the charges of the lifter and the dipole structure of the surrounding medium. It is my belief that if you are going to increase the vacuum, then you also need to increase the potential. This is not because of ion wind, but because the air molecules become dipoles with much mass, which provide a more viscous dipole medium for the charges on the lifter to operate against. Either way, in an interstellar vacuum of 1 hydrogen atom per cubic meter, this thing will not give you any thrust. The hardcore lifter believer crowd thinks this thing is really antigravity or reactionless propulsion that is going to get us to Mars and beyond. It isn't, never was, barking up the wrong tree, etc. My guess is that the potential needs to be increased proportional to the vacuum. So if you double the vacuum, you need to double the potential. But to what end? If there is no medium to push against, even if you have 100MV across the thing, it won't fly around. As I understand it, the hard vacuum experiments did not include an increase in potential. So naturally, if the medium is less dense the lifter has less to pull against and needs more potential. I may be misreading you, are you agreeing that the lifter is just a reaction fan that needs a medium (gas, liquid) to push against? Or are you of the opinion that it is reactionless? --Kyle
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
- Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:25 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters Did they place the box (with lifter inside) on a scale? The weight should not change if it is ion wind. I did it with a balance beam and a pointer, and saw nothing significant. Also did it set up as a torsion arm. Some tests have been done with digital scales that give odd readings. Things like this must never be tested with digital scales...they are easily spoofed by nearby fields, especially when people are using high frequency supplies, like old computer monitors, to drive the lifters. --Kyle
RE: [Vo]: Lifters
Hi Kyle, My guess is that the potential needs to be increased proportional to the vacuum. So if you double the vacuum, you need to double the potential. But to what end? If there is no medium to push against, even if you have 100MV across the thing, it won't fly around. Space-time is a medium. Haven't you ever heard of General Relativity theory? Matter exerts a force on space-time. I may be misreading you, are you agreeing that the lifter is just a reaction fan that needs a medium (gas, liquid) to push against? Or are you of the opinion that it is reactionless? Nothing is reactionless. I am of the informed opinion that space-time has a quantum structure, complete with electrostatic dipoles. Matter can directly interact with space-time. However, lifters are not very efficient. I'm working on a different method, which creates space-time bubbles around a vehicle. The vehicle can then move free from gravity. It is much like a soap bubble, which separates a region of air from another region of air and yet moves within it. With the space-time bubble there is no path for the gravitational field of the Earth to interact with the mass of the encapsulated vehicle. This allows the vehicle to merely float in space, whether on the surface of the planet or in the vacuum of empty space. The power system for this method is based upon Tesla's Wardencliffe technology. I already have the miniature Wardencliffe system built and the special coils for creating the bubble and driving the vehicle are half constructed. With any luck, I'll get the wireless power transmission system operational tomorrow, but the weather isn't looking so good. It might have to wait until Monday. Dave
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Beware of the MIB Dave, unless the MIW get hold of you first? :) Michel - Original Message - From: David Thomson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:48 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]: Lifters Hi Kyle, My guess is that the potential needs to be increased proportional to the vacuum. So if you double the vacuum, you need to double the potential. But to what end? If there is no medium to push against, even if you have 100MV across the thing, it won't fly around. Space-time is a medium. Haven't you ever heard of General Relativity theory? Matter exerts a force on space-time. I may be misreading you, are you agreeing that the lifter is just a reaction fan that needs a medium (gas, liquid) to push against? Or are you of the opinion that it is reactionless? Nothing is reactionless. I am of the informed opinion that space-time has a quantum structure, complete with electrostatic dipoles. Matter can directly interact with space-time. However, lifters are not very efficient. I'm working on a different method, which creates space-time bubbles around a vehicle. The vehicle can then move free from gravity. It is much like a soap bubble, which separates a region of air from another region of air and yet moves within it. With the space-time bubble there is no path for the gravitational field of the Earth to interact with the mass of the encapsulated vehicle. This allows the vehicle to merely float in space, whether on the surface of the planet or in the vacuum of empty space. The power system for this method is based upon Tesla's Wardencliffe technology. I already have the miniature Wardencliffe system built and the special coils for creating the bubble and driving the vehicle are half constructed. With any luck, I'll get the wireless power transmission system operational tomorrow, but the weather isn't looking so good. It might have to wait until Monday. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Lifters
Hi Michel, Beware of the MIB Dave, unless the MIW get hold of you first? :) I have no clue what you are talking about. Dave
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Michel Jullian wrote: But the air propelled downwards by the ion has a mass (hidden in the ion mobility parameter), that's what's matters, just like the mass of a helicopter's propeller is irrelevant. If one can speak of thrust for a helicopter, one can speak of thrust for a lifter. Ok. I presumed the phrase ion mass is irrelevant meant ion mass is physically irrelevant. BTW the momentum of the discharged+ejected ions is negligible compared to that of the neutrals they drag along, because their concentration is very small. BTW2 the derivation is elegant but admittedly it could be a little more rigorous wrt distinguishing between scalars and vectors. Michel Harry
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:25 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters Did they place the box (with lifter inside) on a scale? The weight should not change if it is ion wind. I did it with a balance beam and a pointer, and saw nothing significant. Also did it set up as a torsion arm. How did you calibrate your scale? Some tests have been done with digital scales that give odd readings. Things like this must never be tested with digital scales...they are easily spoofed by nearby fields, especially when people are using high frequency supplies, like old computer monitors, to drive the lifters. --Kyle Harry
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Michel Jullian wrote: The airflow blocking experiments I am aware of (e.g. at Blazelabs a continuous plate was used as the ion collector instead of a grid) demonstrated the opposite: no lift. Which is only to be expected: if you block the airflow by a plate attached to the lifter, the momentum given to the air is given back to the lifter when the air hits the plate, so the net thrust is zero. You when you say no lift, do you mean no movement upwards was detected or no weight change was detected ...or? Harry
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
David Thomson wrote: Hi Kyle, to push against? Or are you of the opinion that it is reactionless? Nothing is reactionless. I am of the informed opinion that space-time has a quantum structure, complete with electrostatic dipoles. Matter can directly interact with space-time. On the contrary. I have mentioned Robert Cook's inertial drive on Vortex, and last year someone posted on the emdrive.com . IMHO, a working inertial drive, ID, is head spinningly weird, there's just no reason for it to work. I'm reminded of Howard, who used to teach Chemical Engineering at the U of MN. He said that a working inertial drive would upset his paradign of reality. I always wanted to go visit the old boy with a working ID, especially one mounded in a pickup truck, one with no tires. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
RE: [Vo]: Lifters
Hi Kyle, 1. They do not work in hard vacuum. This has been tested many times, Blazelabs has tested this, I have tested it, others have as well. It is pretty well determined that they do not function in hard vacuum. In very soft vacuums they do work, as there is still air to push around, of course. Around 1 - 0.1 torr, there is nothing but glow discharge. At harder vacuums, as the residual gas is taken away and the voltage across the electrodes again climbs to several kV, no thrust reappears. What was the highest potential used in the vacuum experiments? As I see it, there is a balance between the charges of the lifter and the dipole structure of the surrounding medium. It is my belief that if you are going to increase the vacuum, then you also need to increase the potential. This is not because of ion wind, but because the air molecules become dipoles with much mass, which provide a more viscous dipole medium for the charges on the lifter to operate against. My guess is that the potential needs to be increased proportional to the vacuum. So if you double the vacuum, you need to double the potential. As I understand it, the hard vacuum experiments did not include an increase in potential. So naturally, if the medium is less dense the lifter has less to pull against and needs more potential. Dave
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: Some have just covered one electrode or the other, or had the lifter lift inside a stationary box. This proves nothing. Did they place the box (with lifter inside) on a scale? The weight should not change if it is ion wind. Harry
