On Jun 1, 2007, at 4:15 PM, Michel Jullian wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Horace Heffner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miklos Borbas Thruster??
On Jun 1, 2007, at 6:19 AM, Michel Jullian wrote:
I am not sure a virtual current needs to be invoked until a real
one, which would point to a mundane ion wind effect, has been ruled
out. Can you measure the current delivered by your flyback GOB?
Note that when the ping pong balls are added, suppressing external
ion breeze, the direction of rotation changes from that when an ion
breeze is made.
This may simply mean that the few ions that still leak out of the
high voltage rotating arm (the few tens of microamps you quote
below, or those estimated by GOB in his own device) leak backwards
since they can't leak forwards anymore. Since the rotating arm is
frictionless, it requires very little thrust to rotate.
The objective of the balls was to prevent just that. It would be
experimental incompetence if ions could "leak" directionally in that
quantity. I doubt the experiment would be replicated in that case.
A real current, consisting of only electrons,
well, an ion current is quite real too
can not produce a net
thrust in a vacuum.
Now you mention it, why couldn't you get a net thrust in a vacuum
if the rotating arm was emitting electrons to ground?
To obtain significant torque from a radial flow of microamps of
electrons would take a colossal magnetic field, and there is no
evidence for that field being present in the experiments. Electron
inertia alone will not do it - I've been down that route, but feel
free to slog through the calcs if you feel the need.
Here I was mostly talking in the larger sense of a propulsion device
in a ship, along the lines shown in the first drawing of the web
site. The electrons in a circuit merely make for closed circuits,
which are well known to produce no net thrust except that
corresponding to any radiation. Also, I've done experiments with
electrolytes that show ordinary magnetic field generation and forces
from ion flow as well. I think plasma models have been throughly
verified as well. The key to net thrust for ship propulsion is
operating on the vacuum. Many unsuccessful attempts have been made
at the ExB or ExBxS stuff. What I have suggested here, if I have the
formulation correct, is maximizing the integral of E (dE/dt) grad E
through the vacuum gap volume as the key ingredient, which I think is
different. If my contention is correct, then AC should work much
better. I think the asymmetric plate capacitor stuff, (Beifeld
Brown, the Alcuberrie drive, etc.?) is based on DC concepts, true?
If so then that is different from the above. The issue I am focusing
on here is one of AC vs DC. I think an AC component is essential to
gain a purchase on the vacuum and further that one is present in the
experiments as described.
It is only the effect of a gradient on the
virtual current that can produce true net thrust. BTW, I don't think
that is a Biefeld Brown effect is it? Isn't his effect based on DC
capacitors? I'm not up on his stuff.
Those things are DC capacitors indeed, albeit leaky ones. If they
didn't leak there would be no thrust most probably.
I expect the DC leakage through plastic would be in nano-amps,
clearly not enough to power the rotation. However, the load on the
flyback just from supply wire leakage (including inductive,
capacitive, and corona) is probably enough that the voltage is very
spiky, so the balls can directly conduct AC power through them to the
surface. There is no reason that significant ion thrust should
develop from such leakage though, because the surface area is large
enough to prevent an ion wind due to the low surface field. Further,
it takes a conductor to generate a substantial ion wind.
It seems to me a good place to start is probably multiple independent
replications. Then all the baloney can be sorted through in short
order.
Regards,
Horace Heffner
