----- Original Message ----- From: "Horace Heffner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 3:13 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miklos Borbas Thruster??
> > 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. Yes you're quite right Horace, the rotor couldn't possibly accidentally leak ions reproducibly in the same direction. But the explanation is still ions (coming from the other electrode's "hidden" pointed ends)I am afraid, cf Kyle's post and my answer to it. Let us know if you agree with that mundane explanation. Michel >>> 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 > >
