Asymmetric Capacitor In Vacuum

[hec031]

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.

[hec031]

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.

[GraphGuy]

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.

[GraphGuy]

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.

[hec031]

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.

[Star-Drive]

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.

[mlorrey]

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.

[Idol Revolver]

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

[hec031]

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

[hec031]

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.

[hec031]

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.

[Star-Drive]

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.

[hec031]

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

[GraphGuy]

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?

[lemonbalm]

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.

[hec031]

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.

[GraphGuy]

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?

[hec031]

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.

[mikorangester]

http://mykaitan.blogspot.com/2009/06/propellantless-propulsion.html is why this happens

[mlorrey]

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.