On 2/15/07, Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "John Berry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 5:06 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Fred's Van de Graaff Antics > On 2/5/07, Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> It won't rise but some of the ions will go round or even through the paper >> so you'll get some remaining thrust, it's very hard to insulate high >> voltages. >> >> Anyway no one serious in the field still doubts the ion wind hypothesis, >> for thousands of reasons, not the least of them being that it has been >> experimentally shown that you get no thrust in vacuum. > > > Idiot skeptics are the only ones convinced it's only ion wind. > Firstly the ion wind has been shown to be insufficient to explain the > thrust. (according to NASA's calculations) You can calculate i*d/2E-4 (i current in A, d gap in m) for yourself can't you? Well that's the ion wind's contribution to the thrust in N. Measure more thrust than that in a device, and then you'll have found evidence of something else contributing, until then you're an idiot ion wind skeptic :)
I haven't really done any lifter experiments (not one light enough to take off anyway) and math isn't my strong suit, I'm basing the statement on something I read about a NASA (Nasa Ain't a Space Agency, or Not A Space Agency) mathematician, I believe it was saying that ion wind was not sufficient to account for the thrust, and honestly when you look at the different things that have been done to reduce or apparently rule out ion wind, well they paint a far more convincing picture, especially since as I said ion wind doesn't account for other embodiments of Brown's work hardly at all. Why when there is more evidence for a real effect do you choose to brush it aside in preference of a less likely mundane explanation, just consider the implications of such technology if it can be made effective. In fact if you think there is even a chance that there might be something in it you should realize it is too valuable to dismiss. Unless of course you are in reality a skeptic in which case what are you doing here? ...
>> Beware though that high voltages (25kV for a typical computer screen power >> supply) at any sizeable current (more than a few mA) can be lethal, and hurt >> a lot in the very least (feels a bit like having your arm caught in a meat >> chopper I was told). > > > Actually the only thing you feel is a pin point burn and the smell of > burning skin, plus a buzzing. > If it wasn't for the burn it's not painful though possibly irritating. The friend who made that description of the pain plays with high voltages at the kW level, do you? :)
No, not kW levels, in fact you can get what I described from a 12w flyback that powers a plasma globe. Honestly you seem to know very little about electricity in theory or practice. Electrical arc's are rather hot and burn holes into skin, as the nerves are instantly killed it doesn't hurt a whole heap though nerve damage from RF is a real concern but won't happen to and real extent from just the odd encounter with a flyback.
