URL?
Quote from: gospacex on 06/26/2010 06:08 pmURL?My companies website is still under construction, but it's http://www.gravitecinc.com
Quote from: hec031 on 06/26/2010 06:22 pmQuote from: gospacex on 06/26/2010 06:08 pmURL?My companies website is still under construction, but it's http://www.gravitecinc.comHow large is your vacuum chamber? Generally speaking, when in a vacuum, these devices do develop a thrust by electrostatically reacting against the chamber
Need to also clarify that the force is not oscillatory or transitory, it's steady state and displaces the device from it's resting Level Pendulum position forward and up where it holds this position for as long as power is being applied to the device.
Quote from: hec031 on 06/26/2010 10:01 pmNeed to also clarify that the force is not oscillatory or transitory, it's steady state and displaces the device from it's resting Level Pendulum position forward and up where it holds this position for as long as power is being applied to the device.Have you flipped it over?
This last winter under a government funded effort we tested our Asymmetrical capacitor devices in both Air (atmospheric conditions) and Vacuum ( lower than 4.5x10^-6 Torr). In both test cases the results were identical. The devices showed a force averaging 2mN.Currently we are working on trying to get someone to confirm the work but every organization that has been approached has shown great reservations in being the one to confirm the findings. The same issue keeps being sighted. While no researcher that has seen our final report has been able to identify the source or cause of the force, they retain the position that the effect must have a conventional origin despite their failure to identify it.That puts me in a catch 22 at the moment. In either case I needed a fresh perspective and ideas so I figured this would be a great place to get it at.Feel free to comment, make suggestion or ask questions. I will warn you that while the work is not secret, it is proprietary and non of the people and organizations involved want anyone to know who they are at the moment. The choice is mind, but I rather not burn any bridges, just yet.I'll do my best to answer questions.
Quote from: hec031 on 06/26/2010 04:32 pmThis last winter under a government funded effort we tested our Asymmetrical capacitor devices in both Air (atmospheric conditions) and Vacuum ( lower than 4.5x10^-6 Torr). In both test cases the results were identical. The devices showed a force averaging 2mN.Currently we are working on trying to get someone to confirm the work but every organization that has been approached has shown great reservations in being the one to confirm the findings. The same issue keeps being sighted. While no researcher that has seen our final report has been able to identify the source or cause of the force, they retain the position that the effect must have a conventional origin despite their failure to identify it.That puts me in a catch 22 at the moment. In either case I needed a fresh perspective and ideas so I figured this would be a great place to get it at.Feel free to comment, make suggestion or ask questions. I will warn you that while the work is not secret, it is proprietary and non of the people and organizations involved want anyone to know who they are at the moment. The choice is mind, but I rather not burn any bridges, just yet.I'll do my best to answer questions.Hmm. Well, I don't know what you meant so googled it:"Asymmetrical Capacitor Thrusters have been proposed as a source of propulsion. For over eighty years, it has been known that a thrust results when a high voltage is placed across an asymmetrical capacitor, when that voltage causes a leakage current to flow. However, there is surprisingly little experimental or theoretical data explaining this effect. This paper reports on the results of tests of several Asymmetrical Capacitor Thrusters (ACTs). The thrust they produce has been measured for various voltages, polarities, and ground configurations and their radiation in the VHF range has been recorded. These tests were performed at atmospheric pressure and at various reduced pressures."http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/citations/all/cr-2004-213312.htmlAnd:"One description I read says that the high voltage of the top conductor ionizes air (by removing or adding electrons?), which is then attracted to the bottom conductor. On its way to the bottom conductor it collides with neutral air molecules, and imparts momentum to them. The neutral molecules are not attracted to the conductor, so they just keep on moving in the same direction, creating the wind. The charged particles keep going until they hit the bottom electrode, give up their charge, and become free-floating neutral particles again."http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=80986I know you can not create a perfect vacuum. But it seems possible that if you reduce the amount air by making a vacuum, it might reasonable that the effect should affect it in some way. Or if you increase the air pressure it should similarly have some effect. Or if you change the content of the air into say hydrogen gas, one should see some effect.But my question is other some science value [perhaps earth shattering in it's importance] what use would this have?I assume the importance is you get propulsion without using rocket fuel, but it seems this has little practical importance unless one can get a lot of propulsion- that's it's an efficient means of moving.
There are two big values to the research, if and when confirmed which will take years I'm sure. First it's the fact that it would open new avenues in physics. New paths new phenomenology. Second on the practical side the device is generating 24mN/W, which means it far exceeds any known form of Electric Space Propulsion. Then the issue is, if it's scalable and we have already found one sure way were we can scale the force linearly with power. Another simpler way to achieve scalability is going to be tested soon, that is simpler and therefore more practical. There are many types of "Electric Space Propulsion", though all involve using propellent. And since this doesn't use a propellent is seem rather difficult to compared it. The significant of all known "Electric Space Propulsion" is speed in which it can propel mass. You aren't propelling mass, so how and why would you compare to them.Most common "Electric Space Propulsion" such ion engine have very little thrust. And that is their disadvantage as compared to chemical rockets.A ion engine compares favorably with a chemical rocket not because of it's thrust but because it uses less propellent mass more efficiently.So instead comparing to an ion engine, why, other than it provides low thrust, not compare it to a chemical rocket. Or a solar sail. Or numerous other ways of moving in a vacuum."In one simulation by a major Aerospace company they Calculated that using this form of propulsion they could move a spacecraft from low earth orbit to Mars Low orbit and back in 21 days. In another simulation they could move a satellite from low earth orbit to high earth orbit in one hour. So there are a lot of practical applications that could use this kind of performance."Ok. But since you haven't scale it up, it can't move spacecraft.
This isn't a new concept, it's pretty old, and there's a lot of people aware of it and have tested it (myself included). The thrust produced does fall off with atmospheric pressure, so there is a very significant ion wind component to the thrust, however I've never seen any tests of it at pressures equivalent to low earth orbit. If you are so sure it works, then I'd suggest you build a CubeSat that uses one of these thrusters, fed by solar cells. If you can maintain the 24 mN/W in orbit, then you should easily be able to demonstrate that with significant orbital changes. Publishing that data would be undeniable proof.
Quote from: mlorrey on 06/28/2010 06:43 amThis isn't a new concept, it's pretty old, and there's a lot of people aware of it and have tested it (myself included). The thrust produced does fall off with atmospheric pressure, so there is a very significant ion wind component to the thrust, however I've never seen any tests of it at pressures equivalent to low earth orbit. If you are so sure it works, then I'd suggest you build a CubeSat that uses one of these thrusters, fed by solar cells. If you can maintain the 24 mN/W in orbit, then you should easily be able to demonstrate that with significant orbital changes. Publishing that data would be undeniable proof.Currently the plan is to have the results independently verified, then presented at an industry conference and publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal. Eventually as you suggest we would like to see it tested in orbit. Just a note. There is no ion wind to our devices. While I used Asymmetric capacitor in the title of this post, our test device are unique examples of this technology. Ion wind is not even under debate by the experts that are looking at the work. In our case the performance did not change from atmospheric to high vacuum, it remains the same and constant.I appreciate your suggestion, but we are still a few steps away from any kind of in orbit testing, but I'm sure it will come.
Interesting. Have you folks tried purging the vacuum chamber with different compositions of gasses before vacuum pumping? For instance purging with helium and run the experiment. And then purge with nitrogen and run the same experiment. And then try one with an obvious electrical conductivity, like Neon.If you get different results it could be an 'ion wind' effect. If you get the same results, it could be what you are looking for. Anyways, it maybe worth a try. It might be interesting to see if there is any correlation to the composition of your purge gas.I woulld even try a run in Sulfur Hexaflouride gas which is a common high voltage insulating gas used in high voltage switching gear. If you get exactly the same force readings under all of those conditions I think you can definitively rule out ion wind.
Quote from: hec031 on 06/28/2010 11:00 amQuote from: mlorrey on 06/28/2010 06:43 amThis isn't a new concept, it's pretty old, and there's a lot of people aware of it and have tested it (myself included). The thrust produced does fall off with atmospheric pressure, so there is a very significant ion wind component to the thrust, however I've never seen any tests of it at pressures equivalent to low earth orbit. If you are so sure it works, then I'd suggest you build a CubeSat that uses one of these thrusters, fed by solar cells. If you can maintain the 24 mN/W in orbit, then you should easily be able to demonstrate that with significant orbital changes. Publishing that data would be undeniable proof.Currently the plan is to have the results independently verified, then presented at an industry conference and publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal. Eventually as you suggest we would like to see it tested in orbit. Just a note. There is no ion wind to our devices. While I used Asymmetric capacitor in the title of this post, our test device are unique examples of this technology. Ion wind is not even under debate by the experts that are looking at the work. In our case the performance did not change from atmospheric to high vacuum, it remains the same and constant.I appreciate your suggestion, but we are still a few steps away from any kind of in orbit testing, but I'm sure it will come.Hector:I have a few questions for you:1. Does your thruster device work off dc or ac power? 2. If dc, what is the magnitude of the drive voltage at the noted 2.0 milli-Newtons output? If ac, what is the frequency and peak voltage at the same thrust level? Is there a differnce in thrust production between the ac and dc cases for a given input voltage??3. Is the power supply for the device mounted with the device, i.e., is it battery powered and therefore self-contianed with the device, or do you supply power to the device remotely via a twisted pair or coaxial cable?Thanks much.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 06/28/2010 02:44 pmQuote from: hec031 on 06/28/2010 11:00 amQuote from: mlorrey on 06/28/2010 06:43 amThis isn't a new concept, it's pretty old, and there's a lot of people aware of it and have tested it (myself included). The thrust produced does fall off with atmospheric pressure, so there is a very significant ion wind component to the thrust, however I've never seen any tests of it at pressures equivalent to low earth orbit. If you are so sure it works, then I'd suggest you build a CubeSat that uses one of these thrusters, fed by solar cells. If you can maintain the 24 mN/W in orbit, then you should easily be able to demonstrate that with significant orbital changes. Publishing that data would be undeniable proof.Currently the plan is to have the results independently verified, then presented at an industry conference and publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal. Eventually as you suggest we would like to see it tested in orbit. Just a note. There is no ion wind to our devices. While I used Asymmetric capacitor in the title of this post, our test device are unique examples of this technology. Ion wind is not even under debate by the experts that are looking at the work. In our case the performance did not change from atmospheric to high vacuum, it remains the same and constant.I appreciate your suggestion, but we are still a few steps away from any kind of in orbit testing, but I'm sure it will come.Hector:I have a few questions for you:1. Does your thruster device work off dc or ac power? 2. If dc, what is the magnitude of the drive voltage at the noted 2.0 milli-Newtons output? If ac, what is the frequency and peak voltage at the same thrust level? Is there a differnce in thrust production between the ac and dc cases for a given input voltage??3. Is the power supply for the device mounted with the device, i.e., is it battery powered and therefore self-contianed with the device, or do you supply power to the device remotely via a twisted pair or coaxial cable?Thanks much.DC, +41.5Kv@2uA and -41.4Kv@6uA. While the device is exposed to the vacuum, the Electrodes are not. The Electrodes are fully encapsulated and operating in their own environment, this is why the performance does not change regardless of what's on the outside of the device. Currently the device is powered via a high voltage feedthrough and umbilical cable. A self contained power supply and source is a few steps ahead of were we are at the moment, but it is one of our future experimental goals.
Quote from: hec031 on 06/28/2010 10:22 pmQuote from: Star-Drive on 06/28/2010 02:44 pmQuote from: hec031 on 06/28/2010 11:00 amQuote from: mlorrey on 06/28/2010 06:43 amThis isn't a new concept, it's pretty old, and there's a lot of people aware of it and have tested it (myself included). The thrust produced does fall off with atmospheric pressure, so there is a very significant ion wind component to the thrust, however I've never seen any tests of it at pressures equivalent to low earth orbit. If you are so sure it works, then I'd suggest you build a CubeSat that uses one of these thrusters, fed by solar cells. If you can maintain the 24 mN/W in orbit, then you should easily be able to demonstrate that with significant orbital changes. Publishing that data would be undeniable proof.Currently the plan is to have the results independently verified, then presented at an industry conference and publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal. Eventually as you suggest we would like to see it tested in orbit. Just a note. There is no ion wind to our devices. While I used Asymmetric capacitor in the title of this post, our test device are unique examples of this technology. Ion wind is not even under debate by the experts that are looking at the work. In our case the performance did not change from atmospheric to high vacuum, it remains the same and constant.I appreciate your suggestion, but we are still a few steps away from any kind of in orbit testing, but I'm sure it will come.Hector:I have a few questions for you:1. Does your thruster device work off dc or ac power? 2. If dc, what is the magnitude of the drive voltage at the noted 2.0 milli-Newtons output? If ac, what is the frequency and peak voltage at the same thrust level? Is there a differnce in thrust production between the ac and dc cases for a given input voltage??3. Is the power supply for the device mounted with the device, i.e., is it battery powered and therefore self-contianed with the device, or do you supply power to the device remotely via a twisted pair or coaxial cable?Thanks much.DC, +41.5Kv@2uA and -41.4Kv@6uA. While the device is exposed to the vacuum, the Electrodes are not. The Electrodes are fully encapsulated and operating in their own environment, this is why the performance does not change regardless of what's on the outside of the device. Currently the device is powered via a high voltage feedthrough and umbilical cable. A self contained power supply and source is a few steps ahead of were we are at the moment, but it is one of our future experimental goals.Hector:Since you are running a fairly high voltage into this test article, I need to know what the ac ripple voltage and frequency are that may be riding on top of this ~83kV total dc supply voltage. As Robert Talley showed in his 1991 AFRL report, ac ripple or impulse signals can have a marked effect on the output response of these types of devices and he was only dealing with 19kV. However if your input HV is pure dc, it rules out a number of possible explanations for its thrust signature and the mechanisms behind it. Second question. How are you meauring this thrust signature? Is it on a standard pendulum? If so, it can't be much longer than 10 inches, or it wouldn't fit in your 12-1/2 inch OD by 15 inch long vacuum chamber. That brings up the third question and that is how did you calibrate your force sensor and how are you detecting the 2.0 mN force signature? With a 10" pendulum and say a 200 gram test article, the pendulum's deflection with that thrust level is not going to be very large. All the best.
If you are so sure it works, then I'd suggest you build a CubeSat that uses one of these thrusters, fed by solar cells. If you can maintain the 24 mN/W in orbit, then you should easily be able to demonstrate that with significant orbital changes. Publishing that data would be undeniable proof.
Interesting - very interesting. What are the terms of the NDA?
Quote from: mlorrey on 06/28/2010 06:43 amIf you are so sure it works, then I'd suggest you build a CubeSat that uses one of these thrusters, fed by solar cells. If you can maintain the 24 mN/W in orbit, then you should easily be able to demonstrate that with significant orbital changes. Publishing that data would be undeniable proof.That is what I was thinking- make a cubesat and put it as a rider on a SpaceX launch. Of course this is not undeniable proof as you need to eliminate interaction with the Earth's magnetic field, but it would be pretty close to undeniable proof.
Hector:"Sorry I gave you the wrong impression. The experiments were performanced first by applying +41.5Kv@2uA and repeated afterwards using a -41.4Kv@6uA."OK then, did the test article's thrustvector reverse with this voltage polarity reversal or did it stay the same direction? Also is your current vacuum chamber test article like the one shown at the below URL, but perhaps smaller in diameter so it fits in the chamber? I'm still trying to understand how this test article might work...http://lifters.online.fr/html/sfptv1.htm
I'm sorry to say that until I finish filling our next patent I really don't want to show what we did, because as you will see in a while, it is very different than what anyone else has done. Like I said same principals as my prior patent, just refined to get much better performance in a more consistent manner.
Quote from: hec031 on 06/29/2010 07:11 pmI'm sorry to say that until I finish filling our next patent I really don't want to show what we did, because as you will see in a while, it is very different than what anyone else has done. Like I said same principals as my prior patent, just refined to get much better performance in a more consistent manner.May your patent be successful and may you become filthy rich. Can you provide a URL for your previous patent?Edit: nevermind, I learned to Google and found the information.
Were there any stray magnetic fields/superconductors that could interact with the magnetic field of your device? My physics days are far behind me but I wonder if there is some unknown environmental effect present.
I took great care in these experiments and I'm currently working on the next round of testing using even better testing methods to try to find any evidence of a conventional force mechanism.
Quote from: hec031 on 06/29/2010 09:54 pmI took great care in these experiments and I'm currently working on the next round of testing using even better testing methods to try to find any evidence of a conventional force mechanism.If you have improved on your previous work then you probably have some suspicion as to what is causing this effect
Quote from: GraphGuy on 06/30/2010 01:13 amQuote from: hec031 on 06/29/2010 09:54 pmI took great care in these experiments and I'm currently working on the next round of testing using even better testing methods to try to find any evidence of a conventional force mechanism.If you have improved on your previous work then you probably have some suspicion as to what is causing this effectyes, why the mysteriousness about what might be causing the effect? Are there literally no guesses about theoretical causes?
It's a good sign to see that there is interest in this kind of research. We are planning on doing a presentation in a conference later this year. We also are planning on submitting a paper so we can present our findings at STAIF, next year.
Quote from: hec031 on 06/29/2010 09:54 pmI took great care in these experiments and I'm currently working on the next round of testing using even better testing methods to try to find any evidence of a conventional force mechanism.If you have improved on your previous work then you probably have some suspicion as to what is causing this effect (unless you just made a larger machine with a larger flux). 24 mN/W means that 100 watts would provide an easily measurable effect. Are you unable to increase the power going into the device without shorting your insulators?As for an explanation perhaps you are doing something like this:http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24499/
Quote from: GraphGuy on 06/29/2010 06:20 pmQuote from: mlorrey on 06/28/2010 06:43 amIf you are so sure it works, then I'd suggest you build a CubeSat that uses one of these thrusters, fed by solar cells. If you can maintain the 24 mN/W in orbit, then you should easily be able to demonstrate that with significant orbital changes. Publishing that data would be undeniable proof.That is what I was thinking- make a cubesat and put it as a rider on a SpaceX launch. Of course this is not undeniable proof as you need to eliminate interaction with the Earth's magnetic field, but it would be pretty close to undeniable proof.Something like that might be useful at TRL 6 or so, but right now this is way down at TRL 1.
Quote from: cuddihy on 06/30/2010 10:45 amQuote from: GraphGuy on 06/30/2010 01:13 amQuote from: hec031 on 06/29/2010 09:54 pmI took great care in these experiments and I'm currently working on the next round of testing using even better testing methods to try to find any evidence of a conventional force mechanism.If you have improved on your previous work then you probably have some suspicion as to what is causing this effectyes, why the mysteriousness about what might be causing the effect? Are there literally no guesses about theoretical causes?Apparently it's another version of the Biefeld-Brown (B-B) effect, but that just gives it a name. As to its underlying thrust producing mechanism, my guess at the moment would concur with Graphguy. I.e., it's some type of qunatum vacuum E&M momentum exchange interaction that depends on an unsymmetrical array of non-linear dielectrics and large E-fields. Past that we wait for Hector to provide details on his new and improved "Electric Rocket".
Quote from: hec031 on 06/27/2010 04:00 amIt's a good sign to see that there is interest in this kind of research. We are planning on doing a presentation in a conference later this year. We also are planning on submitting a paper so we can present our findings at STAIF, next year.Just curious: what conference this year?Also, are both the atmospheric and vacuum tests carried out in the vacuum chamber setup? Any plans to use a larger vacuum chamber?Also, what are the similarities to US Patent 6317310?http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6317310.pdfSorry for asking only questions and a lack of insight. Maybe in another post ...Cheers
Quote from: cuddihy on 06/30/2010 10:45 amQuote from: GraphGuy on 06/30/2010 01:13 amQuote from: hec031 on 06/29/2010 09:54 pmI took great care in these experiments and I'm currently working on the next round of testing using even better testing methods to try to find any evidence of a conventional force mechanism.If you have improved on your previous work then you probably have some suspicion as to what is causing this effectyes, why the mysteriousness about what might be causing the effect? Are there literally no guesses about theoretical causes?I'm not a theoretical physicist, but my friend who is a leading Theoretical physicist is modeling the effect as Star-Drive points out, as being a momentum exchange between the device electric field and a quantum vacuum field. Still under development.
I'm working with our Theoretical physicist friend to decide on a conference. The device was tested under atmospheric pressure and high vacuum in the same chamber. The only thing that changes in the configuration is that we add an extra piece of insulation over the exposed connection point between the high voltage feedthrough and the device umbilical power cord when operating in air. The device itself stays the same.There is a second party that is planning on doing confirmation work. Their results would be unquestionable simply because of who they are. They have much larger chambers that can go far deeper in vacuum than my setup. There confirmation efforts would start at my level but in a 24" diameter chamber.
Quote from: hec031 on 06/30/2010 11:46 amI'm working with our Theoretical physicist friend to decide on a conference. The device was tested under atmospheric pressure and high vacuum in the same chamber. The only thing that changes in the configuration is that we add an extra piece of insulation over the exposed connection point between the high voltage feedthrough and the device umbilical power cord when operating in air. The device itself stays the same.There is a second party that is planning on doing confirmation work. Their results would be unquestionable simply because of who they are. They have much larger chambers that can go far deeper in vacuum than my setup. There confirmation efforts would start at my level but in a 24" diameter chamber.If this effect was a result of "air" (not just N2/O2) then you could run the device at varying levels of atmospheric pressure and chart the thrust produced. If the thrust was a result of ambient air then the thrust should trend towards zero as pressure goes to zero. If there is an ion wind component then the thrust will trend downwards as pressure drops but thrust will trend towards a non zero floor as pressure goes to zero.
Quote from: Garrett on 06/30/2010 11:24 amAlso, what are the similarities to US Patent 6317310?http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6317310.pdfSorry for asking only questions and a lack of insight. Maybe in another post ...CheersUS Patent 6317310. You guys don't know this, but I was the inspiration for this patent and the work from Transdimensional. To be fair Transdimensional guys did not know what Dr. Campbell was showing them was inspired by our work. Dr. Jonathan Campbell came to see our work in Florida and I have a real nice video of him looking over our demonstrators two years before he ever made or file a patent for anything. This what they usually refer to as "Damming evidence".
Also, what are the similarities to US Patent 6317310?http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6317310.pdfSorry for asking only questions and a lack of insight. Maybe in another post ...Cheers
Have you ever thought of modulating the current 41.5 kV-dc input signal with a frequency sweep of say 100 Hz up to 100 kHz with a modualtion index of 0-to-50% to see if there would be any improvements in its thrust output capabilities? Don't forget Talley's 1991 torque pendulum impulse results...Addition: One other thought: does your test article's active dielectrics have any measurable piezoelectric response? That might not explain your pure steady state dc results, but since there is a residual ac ripple component ridding on the Spellman HV power supply's output on the order of 20V-peak max at a frequency greater than 20kHz, there still may be some ac effects being expressed in this test article. Especially if a parametric amplifcation effect was being expressed.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 06/30/2010 07:08 pmHave you ever thought of modulating the current 41.5 kV-dc input signal with a frequency sweep of say 100 Hz up to 100 kHz with a modualtion index of 0-to-50% to see if there would be any improvements in its thrust output capabilities? Don't forget Talley's 1991 torque pendulum impulse results...Addition: One other thought: does your test article's active dielectrics have any measurable piezoelectric response? That might not explain your pure steady state dc results, but since there is a residual ac ripple component ridding on the Spellman HV power supply's output on the order of 20V-peak max at a frequency greater than 20kHz, there still may be some ac effects being expressed in this test article. Especially if a parametric amplifcation effect was being expressed. This reminded me of this:http://www.youtube.com/v/oIS5n9Oyzsc&rel=1
Quote from: hec031 on 06/30/2010 12:03 pmQuote from: cuddihy on 06/30/2010 10:45 amQuote from: GraphGuy on 06/30/2010 01:13 amQuote from: hec031 on 06/29/2010 09:54 pmI took great care in these experiments and I'm currently working on the next round of testing using even better testing methods to try to find any evidence of a conventional force mechanism.If you have improved on your previous work then you probably have some suspicion as to what is causing this effectyes, why the mysteriousness about what might be causing the effect? Are there literally no guesses about theoretical causes?I'm not a theoretical physicist, but my friend who is a leading Theoretical physicist is modeling the effect as Star-Drive points out, as being a momentum exchange between the device electric field and a quantum vacuum field. Still under development.Hector:Reading through your 2002 patent, I noticed you mentioned using ac drive signals in addition to dc drive signals. Have you ever thought of modulating the current 41.5 kV-dc input signal with a frequency sweep of say 100 Hz up to 100 kHz with a modualtion index of 0-to-50% to see if there would be any improvements in its thrust output capabilities? Don't forget Talley's 1991 torque pendulum impulse results...http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA237853 Addition: One other thought: does your test article's active dielectrics have any measurable piezoelectric response? That might not explain your pure steady state dc results, but since there is a residual ac ripple component ridding on the Spellman HV power supply's output on the order of 20V-peak max at a frequency greater than 20kHz, there still may be some ac effects being expressed in this test article. Especially if a parametric amplifcation effect was being expressed.
Quote from: hec031 on 06/30/2010 11:58 amQuote from: Garrett on 06/30/2010 11:24 amAlso, what are the similarities to US Patent 6317310?http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6317310.pdfSorry for asking only questions and a lack of insight. Maybe in another post ...CheersUS Patent 6317310. You guys don't know this, but I was the inspiration for this patent and the work from Transdimensional. To be fair Transdimensional guys did not know what Dr. Campbell was showing them was inspired by our work. Dr. Jonathan Campbell came to see our work in Florida and I have a real nice video of him looking over our demonstrators two years before he ever made or file a patent for anything. This what they usually refer to as "Damming evidence".OK, this explains a LOT. This device is what has been getting debunked for several years and is a modern derivation of TT Brown's work. I am really interested in seeing data on this. I'm curious as to why so many people have been so intent on debunking it.
Quote from: mlorrey on 06/30/2010 07:57 pmQuote from: hec031 on 06/30/2010 11:58 amQuote from: Garrett on 06/30/2010 11:24 amAlso, what are the similarities to US Patent 6317310?http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6317310.pdfSorry for asking only questions and a lack of insight. Maybe in another post ...CheersUS Patent 6317310. You guys don't know this, but I was the inspiration for this patent and the work from Transdimensional. To be fair Transdimensional guys did not know what Dr. Campbell was showing them was inspired by our work. Dr. Jonathan Campbell came to see our work in Florida and I have a real nice video of him looking over our demonstrators two years before he ever made or file a patent for anything. This what they usually refer to as "Damming evidence".OK, this explains a LOT. This device is what has been getting debunked for several years and is a modern derivation of TT Brown's work. I am really interested in seeing data on this. I'm curious as to why so many people have been so intent on debunking it.Primarily because in the majority of tests the focus has been on using devices that produced a tremendous amount of Ion wind to produce thrust.
Quote from: hec031 on 07/01/2010 11:05 amQuote from: mlorrey on 06/30/2010 07:57 pmQuote from: hec031 on 06/30/2010 11:58 amQuote from: Garrett on 06/30/2010 11:24 amAlso, what are the similarities to US Patent 6317310?http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6317310.pdfSorry for asking only questions and a lack of insight. Maybe in another post ...CheersUS Patent 6317310. You guys don't know this, but I was the inspiration for this patent and the work from Transdimensional. To be fair Transdimensional guys did not know what Dr. Campbell was showing them was inspired by our work. Dr. Jonathan Campbell came to see our work in Florida and I have a real nice video of him looking over our demonstrators two years before he ever made or file a patent for anything. This what they usually refer to as "Damming evidence".OK, this explains a LOT. This device is what has been getting debunked for several years and is a modern derivation of TT Brown's work. I am really interested in seeing data on this. I'm curious as to why so many people have been so intent on debunking it.Primarily because in the majority of tests the focus has been on using devices that produced a tremendous amount of Ion wind to produce thrust. Hector:Speaking of ion wind, could you please describe your HV power feeds going from the vacuum chamber wall down to the test article, providing separation distance between the + and - HV leads if any and the insulation/shielding system used? I'm still worried about ion wind issues being induced by the HV power feed wires themselves if they are separated by any distance other than their HV insulation. In fact, to preclude all possibilities of ion wind coming from the power leads, they should be twisted and shielded with the shield connected to the metallic vacuum chamber wall, which is in turn should be connected to a good green-wire Earth ground. I know this will affect the flexibility of this power feed cable for the worse, but that issue can be addressed by a 360 degree service loop in the HV power feed cable as it goes from the chamber wall down to the test article.BTW, just insulating the power feed terminals does NOT kill off the possibility of generating ion winds, for the E-field gradients between the HV power lead terminals will still be there. You have to apply a grounded electrostatic shield around the power terminals to kill off all possibilites of ions wind coming from this terminal source. At 41kV, you've got to treat this thing like sealing a submarine from high pressure water leaks.
Here I have to take the 5th. because this goes to the core of the unique nature of the device. So I will have to answer this later when you guys get to see the report.I will tell you that no one including our mutual friend at NASA suspects ion wind.
Just to let those that are interested know. We will be presenting a paper on our work at the SPESIF 2011 conference. If you're attending the conference and would like to meet in person let me know.For those of you in Europe who are helping us thanks for your interest.
Quote from: hec031 on 09/01/2010 01:31 pmJust to let those that are interested know. We will be presenting a paper on our work at the SPESIF 2011 conference. If you're attending the conference and would like to meet in person let me know.For those of you in Europe who are helping us thanks for your interest.If possible, can you provide a link to a pdf/ppt in this forum (after the conference) for those of us who won't be there?
http://mykaitan.blogspot.com/2009/06/propellantless-propulsion.html is why this happens
Quote from: mikorangester on 10/31/2010 02:52 pmhttp://mykaitan.blogspot.com/2009/06/propellantless-propulsion.html is why this happensThe article cited here does NOT actually show a propellantless scheme. In the drawing the model atom is the propellant, and the EM waves are emitted by the spacecraft engine. This is essentially how the Hall Thruster works.
Quote from: mlorrey on 11/04/2010 08:55 pmQuote from: mikorangester on 10/31/2010 02:52 pmhttp://mykaitan.blogspot.com/2009/06/propellantless-propulsion.html is why this happensThe article cited here does NOT actually show a propellantless scheme. In the drawing the model atom is the propellant, and the EM waves are emitted by the spacecraft engine. This is essentially how the Hall Thruster works.You missed the point. What you are seeing is an effect caused by a movement of the centre of mass, itself caused by electromagnetic waves moving the electron field away from the source of the wave. The effect is miniscule for current experiments because its messy and not the precision of the theoretical model. I read somewhere that there is no theory behind this, well thats not quite right. Standard atomic models can explain the effect simply.
Quote from: GraphGuy on 09/01/2010 08:44 pmQuote from: hec031 on 09/01/2010 01:31 pmJust to let those that are interested know. We will be presenting a paper on our work at the SPESIF 2011 conference. If you're attending the conference and would like to meet in person let me know.For those of you in Europe who are helping us thanks for your interest.If possible, can you provide a link to a pdf/ppt in this forum (after the conference) for those of us who won't be there?No problem. I'm signing up for doing a presentation and publication of our paper. In addition if all goes well we might have a much more robust set of tests finished by the time of the conference that could be made available by then. The new testing will address all the concerns raised in our current study.
Just wanted to let every know that I had posted a video on youtube of my experiments with an Asymmetric capacitor operating in a high vacuum environment. Follow the link if you want to see it.Sincerely,Hector
Abstract. In this work we are going to develop a physical model that explains how propulsion may be developed in a vacuum by the collision of electrons with an anode. Instead of using principles related to the conservation of only the mechanical momentum to achieve propulsion, like all the current propulsion systems do, the present system achieves propulsion by using principles related to the conservation of the canonical momentum. The complete physical model will be provided and comparison with preliminary experimental results will be performed. These results are important since they show that it is possible to achieve a radical different propulsion system with many advantages.
He claims to generate thrusts in the newton range, at least on paper.
To paraphrase Futurama (talking about Bigfoot): That would take money, and most people who believe in propellantless propulsion don't have any money.
The smooth and growing deviation from theHermitian starting point A = 0 ends at a certain critical A(crit) where the two energiesmerge. Next, they form a conjugate pair which moves further in the complex plane.The PT symmetry of the system becomes spontaneously broken. The phenomenonof this type has been detected by the various methods in the spectra of many differentPT symmetric Hamiltonians
The force goes to zero with the conducting boundary going to infinite distance.
It is very simple to show using electrostatics (Maxwell theory) that an asymmetric capacitor can be accelerated by an internal AC/DC source, in air or vacuum and inside a conducting box. The explanation is indeed related to the existence of a conducting box or enclosure.It is so simple that the demonstration is written in four slides, including the title:http://www.ing.unitn.it/~fontana/electrostatic_levitation.pdfThe force goes to zero with the conducting boundary going to infinite distance.