Well, no, it's the attraction force between the -ve ions in front of the balls (drifting towards them to eventually neutralize on them) and the +ve charges on the ball fronts which causes the rotor to rotate. The entrained neutrals create a drag on the contrary (a backwards force).
Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 3:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miklos Borbas Thruster?? > Ok, so the entrained neutrals with the ping pong balls > decreases the air pressure just in front of balls, and this > causes the rotator to rotate? > > Harry > > On 3/6/2007 7:11 PM, Michel Jullian wrote: > >> Removing the balls doesn't change the polarity of the tips of course, but it >> does change the direction of the entrained neutrals, due to more +ve ions >> moving from the rotor tips towards the stator tips than there are -ve ions >> moving from the stator tips towards the rotor tips. Only the -ve ion flow is >> present with the balls on.(*) >> >> Michel >> >> (*)assuming +ve HV on the rotor, which is what a CRT flyback provides >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 9:32 PM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miklos Borbas Thruster?? >> >> >>> You mean the polarity of the tips can be switched by >>> adding or removing the ping pong ball? ;-) >>> >>> Harry >>> >>> >>> >>> On 3/6/2007 1:17 PM, Michel Jullian wrote: >>> >>>> Afterthought: to make the phenomenon completely clear it might also be >>>> interesting to take a picture of the net ion wind going the other way (from >>>> the rotor tips to the stator tips) when the balls are removed from the >>>> locked >>>> rotor. >>>> >>>> Michel >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Michel Jullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> To: <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 8:05 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miklos Borbas Thruster?? >>>> >>>> >>>> Great work again Kyle! >>>> >>>> I had expected things would be easier to see with the rotor locked. As a >>>> matter of fact I believe I had suggested this test to Miklos himself ages >>>> ago, >>>> as well as what just turned out to be the correct explanation, but he >>>> wasn't >>>> interested. So the front of the balls is indeed the ion discharge point as >>>> we >>>> had imagined initially, due to the ball being a lousy insulator. >>>> >>>> Can you post a photograph or a video of your test #2 somewhere? Ideally you >>>> would need a smoke source under each corona emitter for results to be >>>> totally >>>> unambiguous, but this may not be easy to arrange, not to mention the smell >>>> ;-) >>>> >>>> Michel >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> To: <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 6:43 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miklos Borbas Thruster?? >>>> >>>> >>>>> Gentlemen, an update from the lab, >>>>> >>>>> Tests using smoke reveal the following: >>>>> >>>>> 1. With the Borbas device free to rotate, smoke is relatively unaffected >>>>> in proximity to the device. It is hard to tell however exactly what is >>>>> going on as the smoke is also being stirred around by the device motion. >>>>> >>>>> 2. With the device locked and unable to rotate, things get more >>>>> interesting. There is a slight general movement of the smoke opposite >>>>> the direction of which the device would want to rotate, were it free to >>>>> do so. But the velocity of the smoke is very small; the volume of >>>>> movement is very large however, extending several inches from the device >>>>> in all directions, less so above and below it. Now, if the column of >>>>> rising smoke is allowed to touch the stator corona wire, things are very >>>>> clear to see: upon touching the corona wire, the smoke instantly makes a >>>>> 90 degree turn and goes straight towards the balls, and at a much higher >>>>> speed. It doesn't stop at the balls either, it goes right past them and >>>>> then immediately behind them spreads out and joins the rest of the >>>>> slowly moving air. >>>>> >>>>> 3. Outside of a thin polyethylene bag, there is still air flow. Image >>>>> charges? It isn't high speed, but certainly is enough to contribute to >>>>> thrusting action. >>>>> >>>>> 4. Removing the balls from the rotor wires and covering them with >>>>> silicone resin reduced motion of the device (now set up free to rotate >>>>> again) by about 1/2. Turning the corona wires in the opposite direction >>>>> reversed the thrust. Making the corona wires point exactly radially >>>>> outwards reduced the thrust to zero. Putting the corona wires back into >>>>> their original (pointing towards the rotor) configuration but covered >>>>> with silicone resin again gave zero thrust. It is my belief that given >>>>> these results, the Borbas device is clearly conventional. >>>>> >>>>> 5. Per Horace's suggestion, I powered the device with AC. The results, >>>>> were to say the least, disappointing. No thrust was observed using any >>>>> of the configurations given above, save one. With rotor electrodes >>>>> having a more flattened surface and corona wires very pointed, there was >>>>> a slight motion, but I determined this to be again corona >>>>> wind....insulating the pointed electrodes killed the effect. These >>>>> results remained the same at 60cps, 400cps, 1500cps, 5000cps and 8000cps. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> --Kyle >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
