-
Asymmetric Capacitor In Vacuum
by
hec031
on 26 Jun, 2010 16:32
-
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.
-
#1
by
gospacex
on 26 Jun, 2010 18:08
-
URL?
-
#2
by
hec031
on 26 Jun, 2010 18:22
-
-
#3
by
mlorrey
on 26 Jun, 2010 21:22
-
URL?
My companies website is still under construction, but it's http://www.gravitecinc.com
How large is your vacuum chamber? Generally speaking, when in a vacuum, these devices do develop a thrust by electrostatically reacting against the chamber
-
#4
by
hec031
on 26 Jun, 2010 22:01
-
URL?
My companies website is still under construction, but it's http://www.gravitecinc.com
How large is your vacuum chamber? Generally speaking, when in a vacuum, these devices do develop a thrust by electrostatically reacting against the chamber
The chamber is small 15 inches in Length by 12-1/2" in diameter. It is horizontally oriented as is the test device. Both Coulomb and Mirror/Image charges have been calculated at the applied voltage with the charges focused in the direct of displacement and they simply cannot account for the observed force. They are at least one order of magnitude to small. In addition Mirror charges cannot account for the same volume and direction of the force in the absence of the chamber door, which would be the closest point at which the device could create a Mirror charge on. Prior and post testing on separate test stands, which have ranged in scale and size from a 24" inch cube to over 8' ft show the same level of performance for the same device in air as in vacuum.
In addition the devices showed no change in performance while simultaneously wrapped in Mu-Metal and enclosed inside a Faraday Cage, both of which had to be displaced with the device as they were integrated components.
There was also no change in performance when the above mentioned device was exposed to a -/+200 Gauss magnetic field.
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.
In addition any Mirror charges perpendicular to the axial displacement of the tests device cannot account for the observed axial displacement force of the device. Our analysis of Mirror charges was an upper limit case were all the charge was perfectly mirrored with a perfect linear axial vector, with no allowance for losses or diffusion in any other direction. In other words it does not get any better than this. We gave it every possible change to account for the observed force.
I must admit that I'm ignorant of the reference you sight for the observation of these kinds of devices producing visible thrust under high vacuum conditions and the conclusion that it was the result of Coulomb or Mirror charges. In all prior studies in vacuum that I'm aware off, such as Talley, Campbell and The Institute for Scientific Research, I saw no such reference to th effect you sight. Please share if possible.
Thanks for your interest.
-
#5
by
mlorrey
on 27 Jun, 2010 00:38
-
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.
Have you flipped it over?
-
#6
by
hec031
on 27 Jun, 2010 04:00
-
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.
Have you flipped it over?
If you mean have we tested it in different orientations, the answer is yes. Went so far as using our F.W. Bell 7030 Guass Tesla meter to find mangetic North and South. We have moved the chamber 180 degrees. Pointed the device up and down. You name it we've done it.
We've done all the classical tests looking for a classical explanation.
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.
When we started vacuum testing the goal was to prove that the effect was not the product of ion wind or ion propulsion. The pressure measurements and the weighing of the device going in and coming out have not found any change in weight on the devices either down to 1mg of accuracy.
Thanks for the good question.
-
#7
by
gbaikie
on 27 Jun, 2010 09:18
-
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.
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.
-
#8
by
hec031
on 27 Jun, 2010 10:05
-
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.
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.html
And:
"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=80986
I 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.
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.
-
#9
by
gbaikie
on 28 Jun, 2010 02:55
-
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.
-
#10
by
hec031
on 28 Jun, 2010 03:16
-
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.
Can't think of many technologies that began their life fully realized in their potential. Everything has to start somewhere.
-
#11
by
mlorrey
on 28 Jun, 2010 06:43
-
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.
-
#12
by
hec031
on 28 Jun, 2010 11:00
-
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.
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.
-
#13
by
mboeller
on 28 Jun, 2010 11:20
-
If I understand you correct, you/your company have managed to confirm the Biefeld-Brown effect, or?
Is your system some "grown up" version of the Lifters? Like here:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/main.htmkind regards
-
#14
by
gbaikie
on 28 Jun, 2010 11:53
-
Can't think of many technologies that began their life fully realized in their potential. Everything has to start somewhere.
Ok, but you brought up the computer sim of taking round trip to Mars in less than 21 days.
Anyways I did a bit more reading regarding this and the important aspect seems to me that you need a lot of voltage for this to work.
And that size and shape of the capacitor is important.
So I assume it wouldn't work with low voltage. So one question is what is the lowest voltage it will work. And if you are using the lowest voltage does different air densities or different properties of the air make any difference.
As I said before, you can't make a perfect vacuum- NASA can't make a perfect vacuum. But nor is space a perfect vacuum- and low earth orbit is not even close to normal space in this regard. So, since space has atoms in it, and if this device is using ions, then it possible it could work in space.
Next question is does it work better with significantly higher voltages than are used.
And general question what is highest voltage one can use on earth. And could even higher voltage be used in space environment.
Next question is, if one Asymmetric Capacitor provides "thrust" can you have multiple Asymmetric Capacitors. Do they "interfere" with one another. Or how big can you make this Asymmetric Capacitor. Why can't you make one the size of a house.
It seems hobbyist are having great fun with these things- making flying things that confound their friends [apparently]. I suppose it will be these guys that will try things which might be interesting.
-
#15
by
Star-Drive
on 28 Jun, 2010 14:44
-
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.
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.
-
#16
by
TyMoore
on 28 Jun, 2010 18:38
-
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.
-
#17
by
hec031
on 28 Jun, 2010 22:15
-
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.
Good ideas. The chamber turbo-pump is currently getting a full rebuild so I will have to wait another week of two before I can try any of this, but I have about 38lbs of SF6 that I can use. It will probably affect pumping time, but like I said it's worth trying all of the above mentioned experiment since they would only add to our body of evidence.
Thanks.
-
#18
by
hec031
on 28 Jun, 2010 22:22
-
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.
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.
-
#19
by
Star-Drive
on 29 Jun, 2010 03:59
-
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.
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.
-
#20
by
hec031
on 29 Jun, 2010 11:37
-
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.
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.
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.
Ripple, the Oscilloscope tracks show very clean wave forms on all our runs. We used a Spellman SL40PN30, which has an ripple of 0.1% p-p +1Vrms. We simply did not see any noticeable amounts of voltage variance on the waveform.
We used s a Level Pendulum not a Simple Pendulum, so we have two suspension cables and the power and grounding cable. The average weight of a test unit is only 18.5 grams without the Mu-metal shielding or Faraday cage. These are not complicated devices.
The length of the suspension cables were kept at 17.3cm through all reported tests. Most deflections in our testing were in the 1 to 2.5mm range.
As for Calibration, that would take some time to explain in detail, but we used the Meter to deflect the device which would give us a measure of the force that it would take to get 1-3mm of displacement. This was in agreement within the 1mN increment range of the meter and what the force would be based on Level pendulum calculations. In addition the meter itself was calibrated using a 100gram weight using it's force downward on the load cell as the measure of force. In the upcoming testing the calibration will be more detail since we will be checking the calibration at the beginning and ending of every tests and not just at the beginning of a series of tests.
Just a note, if you're a civil servant such as a researcher at NASA, Air Force or other government agency or are willing to sign an NDA if your in the private sector, we will provide you with access to the report and test data for your review and opinion. In fact we are trying to find civil servants at NASA and other government bodies that will review our work and offer their opinions. I know a lot of you on this forum fall in this criteria.
Hector
-
#21
by
clongton
on 29 Jun, 2010 16:00
-
Interesting - very interesting. What are the terms of the NDA?
-
#22
by
GraphGuy
on 29 Jun, 2010 18:20
-
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.
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.
-
#23
by
Star-Drive
on 29 Jun, 2010 18:27
-
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
-
#24
by
hec031
on 29 Jun, 2010 18:59
-
Interesting - very interesting. What are the terms of the NDA?
Send me and email at
[email protected] and I will send you the NDA and you can read it. If you have any problems with the language we can talk about it. We will also have to know a little more about who the person or organization is that is asking to see the report.
The terms are standard NDA language.
We've been around for over 11yrs pursuing this research, we are easy to find on the Internet or anywhere else. Our company is Gravitec Inc.
-
#25
by
hec031
on 29 Jun, 2010 19:05
-
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.
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.
I agree, but first we are trying to get a serious discussion and terrestrial confirmation effort of our lab results. I agree with the cube sat, but that won't be cheap and should be done after lab test confirmations.
As for magnetic field interactions, at 2uA the interactions is orders of magnitude to low to account for the observed force. In fact as part of these lab test we exposed the device to an N50 permanent magnet with a magnetic field strength over 200 Gauss at the center of the device and tested it to see if its performance would change. It simply did not have any effect on the device performance. So I'm pretty confident that the Earths magnetic field will have no effect on the device performance.
-
#26
by
hec031
on 29 Jun, 2010 19:11
-
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
The direction of the force did not change with polarity, however the thrust diminished as did the efficiency. So instead of generating 2mN at +41.5Kv@2uA, the device produces 1mN at -41.4Kv@1uA.
The configuration is different, in fact it's like nothing that has ever been seen in this field of study. We refined the device and it's geometry. 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.
-
#27
by
GraphGuy
on 29 Jun, 2010 20:31
-
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.
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.
-
#28
by
hec031
on 29 Jun, 2010 20:56
-
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.
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.
Just for others that may be looking for the same info. The US Patent# is 6,492,784. The link below should work.
http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=6492784B1&KC=B1&FT=D&date=20021210&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EPAnd just so everyone knows, the US patent office examiner did challenge our patent applications and we presented evidence that convinced him that our device did work.
-
#29
by
GraphGuy
on 29 Jun, 2010 21:17
-
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.
-
#30
by
hec031
on 29 Jun, 2010 21:54
-
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.
Not to my knowledge. I did my best to flood the device in a magnetic field far stronger than what the Earth could put on it. In addition we used Mu-metal shielding in combination with our Faraday cage to shield much of the Earths ambient magnetic field. There were two more sources of magnetic fields. One was a small magnet on the outside of the chamber that was producing about 1.7 gauss at the center of the device, the other was towards the back of the chamber were the Cold Cathode magnet was producing just over 2.8 Gauss, but was only .8 Gauss by the time the field got to the center of the device. I used an F.W. Bell 7030 Gauss Tesla meter with a 3 axis temperature corrected hall sensor probe to conduct the magnetic survey.
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.
Superconductors are not used in these devices. They are far more mundane than that.
-
#31
by
neilh
on 29 Jun, 2010 23:43
-
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.
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.
-
#32
by
GraphGuy
on 30 Jun, 2010 01:13
-
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.
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/
-
#33
by
cuddihy
on 30 Jun, 2010 10:45
-
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.
If you have improved on your previous work then you probably have some suspicion as to what is causing this effect
yes, why the mysteriousness about what might be causing the effect? Are there literally no guesses about theoretical causes?
-
#34
by
Star-Drive
on 30 Jun, 2010 11:12
-
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.
If you have improved on your previous work then you probably have some suspicion as to what is causing this effect
yes, 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".
-
#35
by
Garrett
on 30 Jun, 2010 11:24
-
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.
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
-
#36
by
hec031
on 30 Jun, 2010 11:28
-
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.
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/
The focus of the work over the past three years has been in proving the existence of the effect through a very robust scientific device and testing protocol. We had to address the Ion wind issue once and for all. Testing in vacuum is not enough. We had to show that the effect was consistent between environmental pressures. We did it with a device who's physical configuration changes only by one component between the two environments. This left very little room for ion wind issues in air and zero for vacuum. So the focus of the work these last three years has been on a purely scientific device.
Like I have said before, the device we are testing is like no other Asymmetrical capacitor anyone has ever made. It's unique geometric rules is what allow it to consistently produce thrust. The circuit theory was not straight forward because of how the new device works and is powered, so running it in parallel had been a challenge. We found one way that worked, but was not very practical, so I've been studying the reason why the one method worked in order to design an alternative circuit theory that will be more conventional in nature.
We are about to test that new circuit theory this week. If it works then yes we should be able to increase the thrust to very visible levels which will not only add to our body of evidence, but will open the door to serious development of a technology demonstrator and prototype propulsion system. So your instincts are dead on.
Insulation is not as much of an issue for us like it is for the original Asymmetrical capacitor devices. The unique way in which the device produces thrust dramatically alleviates such issues. It's one of the key reason why the device operates at such high efficiencies.
-
#37
by
hec031
on 30 Jun, 2010 11:30
-
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.
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.
I agree. At the moment the work is a scientific demonstrator. A lab device. Scaling the force in a practical way is how we will transition from TRL 1 to TRL 6 and beyond. Working on that as I type.
-
#38
by
hec031
on 30 Jun, 2010 11:39
-
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.
If you have improved on your previous work then you probably have some suspicion as to what is causing this effect
yes, 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".
Have a friend that is a leading theoretical physicist that has been modeling the effect along the lines of what you are suggesting here.
He was shocked when he saw the device and what it could do.
In the case of our device there is one key feature that makes you invoke some kind of quantum field interaction. I'm sorry to be a tease here, but I'm working very hard to finish what I need to do, so you can all see what I'm talking about. I have to balance science with corporate and political issues.
-
#39
by
hec031
on 30 Jun, 2010 11:46
-
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.
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.pdf
Sorry for asking only questions and a lack of insight. Maybe in another post ...
Cheers
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.
-
#40
by
hec031
on 30 Jun, 2010 11:58
-
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.
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.pdf
Sorry for asking only questions and a lack of insight. Maybe in another post ...
Cheers
US 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".
Lots of drama here.
After the FBI and OIG investigation NASA Marshall gave us a letter stating that their device and patent did not infringe on our work.
In 2003 I used to pass every morning by Dr. Campbells office on my way to doing my vacuum tests at the LEEIF facility at the back of the NSSTC building. This is one of the reason I've been so low profile with my research until now. Don't want a repeat of this kind of thing.
Hate Drama.
-
#41
by
hec031
on 30 Jun, 2010 12:03
-
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.
If you have improved on your previous work then you probably have some suspicion as to what is causing this effect
yes, 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.
-
#42
by
GraphGuy
on 30 Jun, 2010 17:34
-
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.
If you have improved on your previous work then you probably have some suspicion as to what is causing this effect
yes, 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.
Quite exciting! No need to worry about being a tease wrt limited release of information. I suspect that changing the momentum of the vacuum is one of those things that will have very far reaching implications for science, engineering and exploration. 24 mN/W is incredible, almost unbelievable. A cube sat with 100W of solar cells would easily outperform every other ion based propulsion system. Imagine what a 5MW nuclear reactor would do...
When I was in college (92) as a physics major so much of physics seemed solved and there seemed to be no room for creative ideas. I switched to computer science and never really looked back. If true this would be pretty amazing and a good reminder that there is always so much more to know and to understand.
-
#43
by
GraphGuy
on 30 Jun, 2010 17:40
-
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.
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.
-
#44
by
hec031
on 30 Jun, 2010 18:36
-
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.
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.
The difficulty in testing as the pressure drops from atmosphere to high vacuum is that as the pressure drops into the 10^-4 Torr range the mean free path makes ionization very easy even at 1Kv. While it's not impossible to do this, it is difficult and was considered unnecessary since if the device performance was strictly pressure dependent because of an ion wind the device should have produced zero thrust at 1.2x10^-6 Torr or at lest far less thrust than what we observed under atmospheric conditions. Instead the thrust and it's efficiency stayed constant.
Like I said not impossible to do, just a more involved setup and none of the researchers looking over the data believe the effect is any kind of Ion wind. So they have not requested the extra level of testing you propose.
To do this kind of test I would have make a different kind of matting system between the feed-through and device power cored. Might try it if it becomes a real concern, but at the moment it's simply not an issue.
-
#45
by
Star-Drive
on 30 Jun, 2010 19:08
-
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.
If you have improved on your previous work then you probably have some suspicion as to what is causing this effect
yes, 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.
-
#46
by
mlorrey
on 30 Jun, 2010 19:57
-
Also, what are the similarities to US Patent 6317310?
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6317310.pdf
Sorry for asking only questions and a lack of insight. Maybe in another post ...
Cheers
US 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.
-
#47
by
Idol Revolver
on 30 Jun, 2010 20:23
-
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.
This reminded me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/v/oIS5n9Oyzsc&rel=1
-
#48
by
hec031
on 01 Jul, 2010 10:23
-
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.
This reminded me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/v/oIS5n9Oyzsc&rel=1
I love this video, this is the funniest video I've seen in a while. LOL
-
#49
by
hec031
on 01 Jul, 2010 11:03
-
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.
If you have improved on your previous work then you probably have some suspicion as to what is causing this effect
yes, 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.
We've tried pulsing and even a/c and neither seems as good as steady steady state positive DC. Pulsing does show some promise, but needs to be studied much closer. The reason the current experiments focus almost exclusively on steady state DC is that it leaves little room for issues over the effect being some kind of EM interaction. The first thing I have to do is establish that the effect is real. Steady state DC thrust makes that a lot easier than a/c or pulsing. I can't prove what the effect is, but I can prove what it is not.
Our dielectric is Polycarbonate has been for over 5 years.
When we make this report available for everyone to read you will notice that while the effect is similar to the Bifield Brown effect, in reality you have to categorize what our devices do as either a major refinement of the B-B effect or something new. Many of our observations and empirical facts do not match the reported properties of B-B effect. One example is that in our device mass has no effect on thrust, were in the B-B effect it was reported otherwise.
-
#50
by
hec031
on 01 Jul, 2010 11:05
-
Also, what are the similarities to US Patent 6317310?
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6317310.pdf
Sorry for asking only questions and a lack of insight. Maybe in another post ...
Cheers
US 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.
-
#51
by
Star-Drive
on 01 Jul, 2010 11:44
-
Also, what are the similarities to US Patent 6317310?
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6317310.pdf
Sorry for asking only questions and a lack of insight. Maybe in another post ...
Cheers
US 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.
-
#52
by
hec031
on 01 Jul, 2010 12:37
-
Also, what are the similarities to US Patent 6317310?
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6317310.pdf
Sorry for asking only questions and a lack of insight. Maybe in another post ...
Cheers
US 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.
Hector
-
#53
by
GraphGuy
on 01 Jul, 2010 17:23
-
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.
Any idea when the report will be released? How certain is your NASA friend that the thrust is not being produced by an ion wind?
-
#54
by
lemonbalm
on 13 Jul, 2010 23:19
-
Hello hec031 and everyone else.
I am interested and excited to read about your research with asymmetrical capacitors.
I have some suggestions, hope this is OK and that you have not heard them before.
I remember reading, in depths of an internet forum, that rapidly rotating an asymmetrical capacitor produced a huge increase in thrust. I think doing this could be a real breakthrough in the efficiency of ACs.
Also, I have read that a magnetic field can be used to 'refresh' the dielectric, to improve performance. I guess that static, alternating or pulsed fields could be used.
Thank you for reading my post and I look forward to any replies.
-
#55
by
hec031
on 01 Sep, 2010 13:31
-
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.
-
#56
by
GraphGuy
on 01 Sep, 2010 20:44
-
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.
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?
-
#57
by
hec031
on 01 Sep, 2010 21:10
-
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.
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.
-
#58
by
mikorangester
on 31 Oct, 2010 14:52
-
-
#59
by
mlorrey
on 04 Nov, 2010 20:55
-
-
#60
by
mikorangester
on 05 Nov, 2010 15:27
-
http://mykaitan.blogspot.com/2009/06/propellantless-propulsion.html is why this happens
The 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.
-
#61
by
mikorangester
on 05 Nov, 2010 15:47
-
http://mykaitan.blogspot.com/2009/06/propellantless-propulsion.html is why this happens
The 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.
I forgot to add, this model also provides a solution to artificial gravity (imagine a vibrating plate with a net force - say from a air-conditioner - towards the plate) and force fields (which is self explanatory - just take away the model atom). Holy grails of space technologies.
-
#62
by
mlorrey
on 12 Nov, 2010 07:47
-
http://mykaitan.blogspot.com/2009/06/propellantless-propulsion.html is why this happens
The 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.
You don't understand what you are talking about. My points stand. Go take some actual physics classes.
-
#63
by
tnphysics
on 13 Nov, 2010 02:59
-
The aforementioned blog neglects radiation reaction on the EM wave generator.
As for your config, can you exclude the power feedthroughs as a source of force?
-
#64
by
Cinder
on 07 Jun, 2011 12:11
-
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.
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.
Any news?
-
#65
by
Cinder
on 21 Jun, 2011 18:00
-
-
#66
by
jel
on 06 Mar, 2012 05:47
-
Its been a while, are we to guess there's been no volunteers to verify the experiments, or perhaps, no one can repeat the findings?
Either way, sounds like you have the conviction to drive this to a conclusion. Would be nice if there was something new.
-
#67
by
mrflora
on 07 Mar, 2012 10:01
-
X-Ray Propulsor: Physical Principle for an Electromagnetic Propellantless Propulsion System, by Alexandre Martins of the Portuguese Institute for Plasmas and Nuclear Fusion.
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.
Regards,
M.R.F.
-
#68
by
Tass
on 08 Mar, 2012 05:26
-
He claims to generate thrusts in the newton range, at least on paper.
I don't give much for Newtons on paper.
-
#69
by
yamato
on 14 Mar, 2012 18:08
-
how about building a cube-sat with strong enough power source and verify the device in space environment? It's the easiest way to rule out any unidentified influence.
-
#70
by
simonbp
on 14 Mar, 2012 19:07
-
To paraphrase Futurama (talking about Bigfoot): That would take money, and most people who believe in propellantless propulsion don't have any money.
-
#71
by
QuantumG
on 14 Mar, 2012 21:23
-
To paraphrase Futurama (talking about Bigfoot): That would take money, and most people who believe in propellantless propulsion don't have any money.
The truth is, they simply don't believe.. they're self-deluding. If they did believe, they'd be pouring their life's savings into their experiments, recruiting access to institutional facilities to prove it, taking out second mortgages, etc.
In the case of *these* experiments, the power requirements are too high to be practical, even if they did work. But it'll be perfect as soon as we have compact fusion!
-
#72
by
yamato
on 15 Mar, 2012 08:16
-
cube-sat is designed to be cheap, for students and amateur organisations. If couple of students can afford it, couple of inventors could afford it too.
If you really are on the edge of huge discovery, it´s worth it.
-
#73
by
antiquark
on 15 Mar, 2012 16:34
-
Has the original poster updated his progress recently? Maybe he discovered a flaw in the idea.
-
#74
by
albert_redditt
on 15 Mar, 2012 18:58
-
I was thinking about a a horseshoe magnet at the back of the ship,
so that a magnetic field flows across the rear of the ship
Then ions could be bombarded against the magnetic field to provide thrust.
I think the field would bend and the ions would stay in the ship and could be vacumed up and recycled.
This capacitor seems to be abel to displace itself by small amounts.
What if it was working against a connected magnetic field like describe above.
( you should test it with a built in power supply (battery and step up transformer) , maybe suspended from a rod with wheels to see if you can control the direction of motion.)
Off the rop of my head; I would think you wont get too much until you get up into the several thousnads of volts ( 100's or 1,000's of Kilovolts).
-
#75
by
mboeller
on 20 Mar, 2012 08:29
-
-
#76
by
wavelet
on 22 Mar, 2012 09:51
-
Oh, it is very simple to show that an asymmetric capacitor can be accelerated by an internal AC source, in air or vacuum and inside a conducting box.
It is so simple that the demonstration is written in four slides, including the title:
http://www.ing.unitn.it/~fontana/electrostatic_levitation.pdfThe problem is that I do not know if there is a conducting boundary at the edge of the universe. But also our operating spacecraft will never know and stop operating as a consequence of this knowledge.... sorry for the delicate confusion.
Wavelet
PS: using AC for the capacitor, a dielectric bubble boundary (with mass - a reaction mass) somewhere in space is good enough for making this thing work.
-
#77
by
albert_redditt
on 23 Mar, 2012 07:30
-
So you plan on levitating away from the sun by repulsing its polarity..
That works until you get near an opposing sun that has a different polarity from our sun.
Higgs sucks, so don't plan on creating any Higgs wave to propell the craft.
Exploding small nuclear bombs in the nozzle might work, with each explosion you get an extra couple thousand miles an hour.
Actually it depends on the absorbtion rate of the space around the craft.
If the craft can expell more than the absorbtion rate, it can move forward...
-
#78
by
wavelet
on 23 Mar, 2012 10:38
-
Don't go off topic that way....
Here we talk of small effects. Let's say that the orbit of a space object can be changed by electrical asymmetric capacitor propulsion driven by AC voltages, provided that there exist some dielectric discontinuity far from our object. It works in vacuum, and it is not ionic propulsion.
-
#79
by
Cinder
on 29 Aug, 2012 21:15
-
Any new developments?
-
#80
by
flux_capacitor
on 22 Jun, 2017 10:22
-
Have you experimented your HV capacitors with modern
high-κ dielectrics located in-between and wrapped around the asymmetric plates, to enhance the effect (high-κ dielectrics would allow tremendous voltage while preventing electrical breakdown)?
-
#81
by
Plugger
on 11 Aug, 2017 17:46
-
what is the last item that power goes thru prior to top of cap?
so what is equal to cap in voltage that affects output on the negative side of the cap?
-
#82
by
dustinthewind
on 11 Nov, 2017 05:21
-
I just realized this topic is here and wanted to add this to the list here. A previous post of mine in the EM drive thread. Deals with the high voltage asymmetric capacitor. 1st video is an experiment showing such a capacitor. There is another video here By David Waite. He comes up with a
general relativity solution for a negative energy term associated with a specific charge (unknown). An experiment needs to be performed to determine
which charge is associated with the negative energy term at 34 minutes. As a side note
David has other interesting videos associated with warp drive (2nd video down). https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1740386#msg1740386I then refer to another post of mine in another thread where there was some mention of a negative energy term. Possibly in the vacuum.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44030.msg1747898#msg1747898I suspect anti matter may be negative energy running backwards in time or PT symmetric. Looks like others have been interested in PT symmetry early on in the EM drive thread. Mulltron's thread is one post where such is cited
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1283569#msg1283569 . Some of his citations suggest there is a lot of phenomena exhibiting this PT behavior.
I found this interesting and seems to suggest a method for such matter-(PT anti matter) merging:
http://cds.cern.ch/record/490576/files/0103054.pdfWhat is PT symmetry?
Miloslav Znojil
Theory Group, Nuclear Physics Institute AS CR
CS 250 68 Re ˇ ˇz, Czech Republic 1
The smooth and growing deviation from the
Hermitian starting point A = 0 ends at a certain critical A(crit) where the two energies
merge. Next, they form a conjugate pair which moves further in the complex plane.
The PT symmetry of the system becomes spontaneously broken. The phenomenon
of this type has been detected by the various methods in the spectra of many different
PT symmetric Hamiltonians
I was asking if its possible that the negative energy reverse time anti matter when in its vacuum state might exhibit its negative energy state and be polarizable within the vacuum. Such a polarized state might exhibit a gradient in energy of the vacuum or maybe the appearance of a gradient in time in the vacuum or that of a gravity field.
-
#83
by
wavelet
on 11 Nov, 2017 07:07
-
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.
-
#84
by
PotomacNeuron
on 11 Nov, 2017 17:53
-
I can help. Just send me the capacitor (and better send me the power supply. If not, fine, I can use a TV high voltage source) and I will help to identify the cause of the movement. If I can't, I will write a report that I can't. If I can, I only charge $1000 for my effort and time. No charge if I can't find why with classical physics.
-
#85
by
meberbs
on 11 Nov, 2017 20:00
-
The force goes to zero with the conducting boundary going to infinite distance.
In other words, it is possible to use electromagnetic forces to push or pull on a piece of metal.
This is neither new nor particularly useful.
-
#86
by
ThinkerX
on 11 Nov, 2017 20:02
-
I have to wonder if this, or its first cousin, is the root cause of anomalous EM Drive movement, once the error sources are accounted for. It is described as 'capacitor-like' on occasion, after all. But, would this explanation produce the amount of movement demonstrated by EM Drives?
-
#87
by
dustinthewind
on 12 Nov, 2017 15:26
-
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.pdf
The force goes to zero with the conducting boundary going to infinite distance.
The existence of this force does not disprove the existence of David's derivation of a negative energy term associated with a particular charge. It does add a signal to subtract out if the test design does not make the conducting chamber an insignificant factor.
If I understand it correctly David's derivation of the field doesn't even require the capacitor to be asymmetric. What it does require are very high voltages and very fine wires.
Possibly a dielectric between.
-
#88
by
Plugger
on 05 Dec, 2017 14:57
-
Try a power supply for a HV headlight, i use them on my motorcycle . It's powered by 12VDC and you can much better voltage than 16KV
