Re: [Vo]: Tubular Lifter (again)
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 01 Mar 2007 00:46:34 -0500: Hi Harry, [snip] Yes, but how can you be certain (other than by a the laws of physics argument) that the tube is not contributing a novel lifting force when the power exceeds a certain value. I can't. I'm just explaining it as I see it. If you think I'm wrong, then build the device, and measure the lift. Then you will know for sure who's right. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk I thinking more along the lines...how would one test the hypothesis experimentally? [snip] You suggest a new force that only takes effect when the power exceeds a certain level. If this happens then it would show up as a kink in the graph of lifting force plotted against input power. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: Tubular Lifter (again)
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 23 Feb 2007 01:29:58 -0500: Hi Harry, [snip] Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:11:03 -0500: Hi, [snip] Michel Jullian wrote: The tube doesn't oscillate because the process Robin described is continuous. For this to be plausible the tube could never be neutral. In fact, if the tube's charge were to fall below some minimum value the tube's weight will cause it to drop. Harry As long as power is supplied, it isn't neutral. Since the mass of the tube(s) is by definition less than that of the whole lifter, as power is applied, the tube will lift first, then with application of additional power, the whole lifter will rise. Yes, but how can you be certain (other than by a the laws of physics argument) that the tube is not contributing a novel lifting force when the power exceeds a certain value. I can't. I'm just explaining it as I see it. If you think I'm wrong, then build the device, and measure the lift. Then you will know for sure who's right. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: Tubular Lifter (again)
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 23 Feb 2007 01:29:58 -0500: Hi Harry, [snip] Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:11:03 -0500: Hi, [snip] Michel Jullian wrote: The tube doesn't oscillate because the process Robin described is continuous. For this to be plausible the tube could never be neutral. In fact, if the tube's charge were to fall below some minimum value the tube's weight will cause it to drop. Harry As long as power is supplied, it isn't neutral. Since the mass of the tube(s) is by definition less than that of the whole lifter, as power is applied, the tube will lift first, then with application of additional power, the whole lifter will rise. Yes, but how can you be certain (other than by a the laws of physics argument) that the tube is not contributing a novel lifting force when the power exceeds a certain value. I can't. I'm just explaining it as I see it. If you think I'm wrong, then build the device, and measure the lift. Then you will know for sure who's right. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk I thinking more along the lines...how would one test the hypothesis experimentally? Harry
Re: [Vo]: Tubular Lifter (again)
- Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 7:29 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Tubular Lifter (again) For this to be plausible the tube could never be neutral. In fact, if the tube's charge were to fall below some minimum value the tube's weight will cause it to drop. Harry As long as power is supplied, it isn't neutral. Since the mass of the tube(s) is by definition less than that of the whole lifter, as power is applied, the tube will lift first, then with application of additional power, the whole lifter will rise. Yes, but how can you be certain (other than by a the laws of physics argument) that the tube is not contributing a novel lifting force when the power exceeds a certain value. We could quote Laplace: Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis. Michel
Re: [Vo]: Tubular Lifter (again)
Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 7:29 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Tubular Lifter (again) For this to be plausible the tube could never be neutral. In fact, if the tube's charge were to fall below some minimum value the tube's weight will cause it to drop. Harry As long as power is supplied, it isn't neutral. Since the mass of the tube(s) is by definition less than that of the whole lifter, as power is applied, the tube will lift first, then with application of additional power, the whole lifter will rise. Yes, but how can you be certain (other than by a the laws of physics argument) that the tube is not contributing a novel lifting force when the power exceeds a certain value. We could quote Laplace: Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis. Michel Who is We? Harry
Re: [Vo]: Tubular Lifter (again)
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:20:29 -0500: Hi, [snip] The upper positive wire produces a positive ion cloud beneath so they repel each other. If I have understood the EHD account correctly, the force of repulsion is predicted to be greater than the force of attraction between the upper positive wire and the lower negative tube. As a result there is a [snip] The wire creates a positive cloud. The tube attached to the negative terminal is negative, and hence attracts the positive air cloud. This pulls the tube up, and the cloud down. When the positive cloud comes in contact with the tube, it is neutralized, but the power source soon creates more positive ions around the wire, and concurrently pumps more electrons into the tube. Wouldn't this make the tube noticeably oscillate up and down? The only force of repulsion is between the cloud and the wire, however this pushes the cloud down, while the cathode pulls the cloud down. IOW both wire and tube work together, there is no opposing force. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk Taken as whole this differs from Michel's explanation. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Tubular Lifter (again)
Taken as whole this differs from Michel's explanation. No it doesn't, this is exactly it. The only thing missing in Robin's excellent explanation is that the ion cloud in its downwards motion pushes against the neutral ambient air it ploughs through (otherwise there would be no net lift) The tube doesn't oscillate because the process Robin described is continuous. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Tubular Lifter (again) Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:20:29 -0500: Hi, [snip] The upper positive wire produces a positive ion cloud beneath so they repel each other. If I have understood the EHD account correctly, the force of repulsion is predicted to be greater than the force of attraction between the upper positive wire and the lower negative tube. As a result there is a [snip] The wire creates a positive cloud. The tube attached to the negative terminal is negative, and hence attracts the positive air cloud. This pulls the tube up, and the cloud down. When the positive cloud comes in contact with the tube, it is neutralized, but the power source soon creates more positive ions around the wire, and concurrently pumps more electrons into the tube. Wouldn't this make the tube noticeably oscillate up and down? The only force of repulsion is between the cloud and the wire, however this pushes the cloud down, while the cathode pulls the cloud down. IOW both wire and tube work together, there is no opposing force. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk Taken as whole this differs from Michel's explanation. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Tubular Lifter (again)
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:57:25 -0500: Hi, [snip] The wire creates a positive cloud. The tube attached to the negative terminal is negative, and hence attracts the positive air cloud. This pulls the tube up, and the cloud down. When the positive cloud comes in contact with the tube, it is neutralized, but the power source soon creates more positive ions around the wire, and concurrently pumps more electrons into the tube. Wouldn't this make the tube noticeably oscillate up and down? No, because there is a continuous stream of air and current. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: Tubular Lifter (again)
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:57:25 -0500: Hi, [snip] The wire creates a positive cloud. The tube attached to the negative terminal is negative, and hence attracts the positive air cloud. This pulls the tube up, and the cloud down. When the positive cloud comes in contact with the tube, it is neutralized, but the power source soon creates more positive ions around the wire, and concurrently pumps more electrons into the tube. Wouldn't this make the tube noticeably oscillate up and down? No, because there is a continuous stream of air and current. Michel Jullian wrote: The tube doesn't oscillate because the process Robin described is continuous. For this to be plausible the tube could never be neutral. In fact, if the tube's charge were to fall below some minimum value the tube's weight will cause it to drop. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Tubular Lifter (again)
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:11:03 -0500: Hi, [snip] Michel Jullian wrote: The tube doesn't oscillate because the process Robin described is continuous. For this to be plausible the tube could never be neutral. In fact, if the tube's charge were to fall below some minimum value the tube's weight will cause it to drop. Harry As long as power is supplied, it isn't neutral. Since the mass of the tube(s) is by definition less than that of the whole lifter, as power is applied, the tube will lift first, then with application of additional power, the whole lifter will rise. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: Tubular Lifter (again)
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:11:03 -0500: Hi, [snip] Michel Jullian wrote: The tube doesn't oscillate because the process Robin described is continuous. For this to be plausible the tube could never be neutral. In fact, if the tube's charge were to fall below some minimum value the tube's weight will cause it to drop. Harry As long as power is supplied, it isn't neutral. Since the mass of the tube(s) is by definition less than that of the whole lifter, as power is applied, the tube will lift first, then with application of additional power, the whole lifter will rise. Yes, but how can you be certain (other than by a the laws of physics argument) that the tube is not contributing a novel lifting force when the power exceeds a certain value. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Tubular Lifter (again)
Harry Veeder wrote: I would like to reconsider the tubular lifter experiment which I mentioned last week. The upper positive wire produces a positive ion cloud beneath so they repel each other. If I have understood the EHD account correctly, the force of repulsion is predicted to be greater than the force of attraction between the upper positive wire and the lower negative tube. As a result there is a net force upwards and the lifter rises. The tendency of the lower negative tube to be pulled upwards does not contribute to the net upwards force. Now, when the lifter is stationary the tube will be elevated by its attraction to the positive wire and ions. However, as seen on the video even as the lifter accelerates the tube remains elevated. While this is happening, the structural design of this particular lifter makes it logically impossible for the upper wire to be credited with lifting all the components. Based on that premise a force analysis will end in circular reasoning. Therefore the lower tube must be credited with all or at least some of the lifting force. This is inconsistent with EHD theory. This _sounds_ remarkably like some of the weird things you can do with the Bernoulli effect. Have you ever tried to blow a ping pong ball out of a funnel, by blowing in through the point of the funnel? If you start blowing with the funnel upright, with the ball just held in by gravity, and you have enough lung power, you can actually turn it upside down and as long as you keep blowing, the ping pong ball will stick until you stop blowing. (Experiment last tried in Junior High School, so don't press me on the details!) A breeze from the wire to the tube, passing around the tube, could very well exert a pull on the tube, rather than a push, as you might have expected. (It all depends on the direction the air flow takes once it breaks away from the surface -- if it goes part way around the tube and breaks away while heading down, conservation of momentum says the force on the tube is up, not down. But Bernoulli must enter the game to explain how that could possibly work.) It is often very difficult to see which item is being pushed on when thrust is exerted on gas. A ram jet is another wonderful example (though unrelated to the Bernoulli effect, AFAIK) -- the air comes in the front, accelerates, and goes out the back, so the engine develops thrust -- but unlike a turbofan there's nothing /obvious/ for the air to push against. At first glance it seems like it can't possibly work. I am not in the possession of any conventional, mysterious, or silly explanation of why this is so. I am just arguing that the behaviour of the parts and some basic logic suggests that it so. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Tubular Lifter (again)
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: I would like to reconsider the tubular lifter experiment which I mentioned last week. The upper positive wire produces a positive ion cloud beneath so they repel each other. If I have understood the EHD account correctly, the force of repulsion is predicted to be greater than the force of attraction between the upper positive wire and the lower negative tube. As a result there is a net force upwards and the lifter rises. The tendency of the lower negative tube to be pulled upwards does not contribute to the net upwards force. Now, when the lifter is stationary the tube will be elevated by its attraction to the positive wire and ions. However, as seen on the video even as the lifter accelerates the tube remains elevated. While this is happening, the structural design of this particular lifter makes it logically impossible for the upper wire to be credited with lifting all the components. Based on that premise a force analysis will end in circular reasoning. Therefore the lower tube must be credited with all or at least some of the lifting force. This is inconsistent with EHD theory. This _sounds_ remarkably like some of the weird things you can do with the Bernoulli effect. Have you ever tried to blow a ping pong ball out of a funnel, by blowing in through the point of the funnel? If you start blowing with the funnel upright, with the ball just held in by gravity, and you have enough lung power, you can actually turn it upside down and as long as you keep blowing, the ping pong ball will stick until you stop blowing. (Experiment last tried in Junior High School, so don't press me on the details!) The coanda effect? A breeze from the wire to the tube, passing around the tube, could very well exert a pull on the tube, rather than a push, as you might have expected. (It all depends on the direction the air flow takes once it breaks away from the surface -- if it goes part way around the tube and breaks away while heading down, conservation of momentum says the force on the tube is up, not down. But Bernoulli must enter the game to explain how that could possibly work.) In theory this phenomena eliminates the logical problem, but in reality is the air moving fast enough over the tube to actually lift the tube? How would you test this? It is often very difficult to see which item is being pushed on when thrust is exerted on gas. A ram jet is another wonderful example (though unrelated to the Bernoulli effect, AFAIK) -- the air comes in the front, accelerates, and goes out the back, so the engine develops thrust -- but unlike a turbofan there's nothing /obvious/ for the air to push against. At first glance it seems like it can't possibly work. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Tubular Lifter (again)
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:20:29 -0500: Hi, [snip] The upper positive wire produces a positive ion cloud beneath so they repel each other. If I have understood the EHD account correctly, the force of repulsion is predicted to be greater than the force of attraction between the upper positive wire and the lower negative tube. As a result there is a [snip] The wire creates a positive cloud. The tube attached to the negative terminal is negative, and hence attracts the positive air cloud. This pulls the tube up, and the cloud down. When the positive cloud comes in contact with the tube, it is neutralized, but the power source soon creates more positive ions around the wire, and concurrently pumps more electrons into the tube. The only force of repulsion is between the cloud and the wire, however this pushes the cloud down, while the cathode pulls the cloud down. IOW both wire and tube work together, there is no opposing force. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
