I can see the -ve ions being channelled to the +ve front surface of the ping ball, but for rotation to result some of the -ve ions must end up _beyond_ the front surface. Why should this arise?
Harry On 3/6/2007 8:15 PM, Michel Jullian wrote: > 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
