-
#1340 by Monomorphic on 16 Apr, 2016 20:53
-
I think i'm getting somewhere with thermal imaging now that i've added three coats of paint. I've eliminated most of the IR reflections, except for some along the glancing edges. I'm also getting a heat signature from my hand, when before I saw nothing. Watch how quickly the heat begins to dissipate...
-
#1341 by X_RaY on 16 Apr, 2016 20:58
-
If i am right the difference between Cu+ and Cu++ is the presence of an electron.
Yes, there are swimming Cu+ inside the frustum, temporarily disconnected from the mass (walls) of the frustum. They are excited by the pulsed magnetron and strike the far endplate, and according to LBL if conditions are right, lay down more copper without an appreciable increase in input current (power)...a sort of self-sputtering phenomena.
Rfmwguy do you remenber, there was a discussion in thread4 about "swimming in curved spacetime":
If a bowling ball was removed from floor, given to a floating astronaut, it then become something from "outside". The astronaut does too as they throw it, except they will hit the opposite wall, equaling the original force.
If the bowling ball was already inside the space shuttle and was an integral part of the mass of the space shuttle, the center of mass never accelerated by the actions of this astronaut, because the mass of the space shuttle did not change by any of these actions. For the center of mass to accelerate, the mass of the space shuttle has to change (for example by ejecting some propellant). Or otherwise an external field has to act on the space shuttle (like gravitational forces, solar radiation, magnetic forces from the earth, drag from the atmosphere, etc.)
a bowling ball that was already inside the space shuttle and was an integral part of the mass of the space shuttle ?...A floating astronaut in an open shuttle bay has a bowling ball handed to them. They throw it against the far wall...
For this thought-experiment you need to specify the system further than just "has a bowling ball handed to the floating astronaut".
Where did the ball come from?
Is is a meteorite that came from outer space?
Of is it a bowling ball that was already inside the space shuttle and was an integral part of the mass of the space shuttle ?
Can't accelerate the space shuttle at all by throwing balls or by moving furniture inside it. Not by a micrometer, not by a nanometer. Need to change the mass of the space shuttle or otherwise be acted by external fields.
You can accelerate the space shuttle by throwing the ball out of the space shuttle, in order to decrease the mass.
To accelerate, you must throw objects out.
Better yet said, the bowling ball temporarily leaves the mass of the shuttle (picked up by temporary floating astronaut). If the astronaut leaves the shuttle, there's a force imbalance.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/mmedia/1367-2630/8/5/068/movie1.avi
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/6706/AIM-2002-017.pdf?sequence=2
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/SwimmingInCurvedSpace/
Is your suggestion something like this to the Cu ions swirling around inside the cavity?
No mass has to be expelled in this case. But as pointed out:Quote from: Jack WisdomThe curvature of spacetime is very slight,
so the ability to swim in spacetime is unlikely
to lead to new propulsion devices. For a
meter-sized object performing meter-sized
deformations at the surface of the Earth, the
displacement is of order 10^(-23) m .
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1423374#msg1423374
So my working theory back on T6 involved Cu+ striking one wall, some getting deposited, some bouncing off, getting recycled and jumping into a higher energy state and once again being slammed into the endplate (target) by the resonant TE field.
In this theory scenario, TM is of no consequence, nor would there be a need for a Quantum Vacuum...no CoM or CoE violation.
Granted, I am not a Theorist, my wording is less than desirable as I try to document my visualizations.
The HF field can kick an electron out of the already charged Cu+ ion. The electron would be deflected in another direction than the Cu++ ion because of its charge and the current field vectors inside the cavity...
But the electron is still inside the cavity and it may absorbed in the wall or by an ion again. Complex story, at the moment I can not see how a net thrust of the cavity itself would possible this way.
OK the swimming argument may be the emergency exit. -
#1342 by rq3 on 16 Apr, 2016 21:20
-
If a bowling ball was removed from floor, given to a floating astronaut, it then become something from "outside". The astronaut does too as they throw it, except they will hit the opposite wall, equaling the original force.
If the bowling ball was already inside the space shuttle and was an integral part of the mass of the space shuttle, the center of mass never accelerated by the actions of this astronaut, because the mass of the space shuttle did not change by any of these actions. For the center of mass to accelerate, the mass of the space shuttle has to change (for example by ejecting some propellant). Or otherwise an external field has to act on the space shuttle (like gravitational forces, solar radiation, magnetic forces from the earth, drag from the atmosphere, etc.)
a bowling ball that was already inside the space shuttle and was an integral part of the mass of the space shuttle ?...A floating astronaut in an open shuttle bay has a bowling ball handed to them. They throw it against the far wall...
For this thought-experiment you need to specify the system further than just "has a bowling ball handed to the floating astronaut".
Where did the ball come from?
Is is a meteorite that came from outer space?
Of is it a bowling ball that was already inside the space shuttle and was an integral part of the mass of the space shuttle ?
Can't accelerate the space shuttle at all by throwing balls or by moving furniture inside it. Not by a micrometer, not by a nanometer. Need to change the mass of the space shuttle or otherwise be acted by external fields.
You can accelerate the space shuttle by throwing the ball out of the space shuttle, in order to decrease the mass.
To accelerate, you must throw objects out.
Better yet said, the bowling ball temporarily leaves the mass of the shuttle (picked up by temporary floating astronaut). If the astronaut leaves the shuttle, there's a force imbalance.
Gawd, this reminds me of a grade school science class, where I vociferously insisted that if you stood in the center isle of the school bus and jumped, the school bus WOULD NOT move under you and hit you in the ass (or face). The vast majority of the class insisted I was absolutely wrong, and I got in fairly deep trouble the next day due to the number of students jumping up and down on school buses. Today, I'd probably have been jailed.
So after promising the principal of the school that I wouldn't further incite to riot, I asked the class what would happen if 100 chickens in a flying airplane suddenly all decided to fly around the cabin of the plane. Would the plane go up? Go down? No change? Sadly, our school buses didn't fly or (generally) transport avians.
And last was: "Which way does a helium balloon, floating in an automobile on the end of a string, lean during turns?". The teacher finally took control of his class after that one (day 3). But not before he went to the cafeteria to make change, gave each kid a quarter, and told us all to try it and report back with the results.
I decidedly recall the science teacher sitting quietly, in his own class, with a mild grin on his face while these three arguments went on. One of the best teachers I ever had. -
#1343 by rfmwguy on 16 Apr, 2016 21:57
-
This model has been interesting for a while. A detached mass, Cu ions, from the frustum has its own frame of reference. A perpendicular force, or rf energy picks them up and they strike a far wall, some deposition but the berkeley paper states there is a regenerative cycle without more power input needed...self-sputtering they call it. Deposition of copper atoms on a target plate or wall...from a mass that is no longer part of the frustum, nor moving at the same speed, they are moving far faster thanks to the rf.
If i am right the difference between Cu+ and Cu++ is the presence of an electron.
Yes, there are swimming Cu+ inside the frustum, temporarily disconnected from the mass (walls) of the frustum. They are excited by the pulsed magnetron and strike the far endplate, and according to LBL if conditions are right, lay down more copper without an appreciable increase in input current (power)...a sort of self-sputtering phenomena.
Rfmwguy do you remenber, there was a discussion in thread4 about "swimming in curved spacetime":
If a bowling ball was removed from floor, given to a floating astronaut, it then become something from "outside". The astronaut does too as they throw it, except they will hit the opposite wall, equaling the original force.
If the bowling ball was already inside the space shuttle and was an integral part of the mass of the space shuttle, the center of mass never accelerated by the actions of this astronaut, because the mass of the space shuttle did not change by any of these actions. For the center of mass to accelerate, the mass of the space shuttle has to change (for example by ejecting some propellant). Or otherwise an external field has to act on the space shuttle (like gravitational forces, solar radiation, magnetic forces from the earth, drag from the atmosphere, etc.)
a bowling ball that was already inside the space shuttle and was an integral part of the mass of the space shuttle ?...A floating astronaut in an open shuttle bay has a bowling ball handed to them. They throw it against the far wall...
For this thought-experiment you need to specify the system further than just "has a bowling ball handed to the floating astronaut".
Where did the ball come from?
Is is a meteorite that came from outer space?
Of is it a bowling ball that was already inside the space shuttle and was an integral part of the mass of the space shuttle ?
Can't accelerate the space shuttle at all by throwing balls or by moving furniture inside it. Not by a micrometer, not by a nanometer. Need to change the mass of the space shuttle or otherwise be acted by external fields.
You can accelerate the space shuttle by throwing the ball out of the space shuttle, in order to decrease the mass.
To accelerate, you must throw objects out.
Better yet said, the bowling ball temporarily leaves the mass of the shuttle (picked up by temporary floating astronaut). If the astronaut leaves the shuttle, there's a force imbalance.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/mmedia/1367-2630/8/5/068/movie1.avi
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/6706/AIM-2002-017.pdf?sequence=2
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/SwimmingInCurvedSpace/
Is your suggestion something like this to the Cu ions swirling around inside the cavity?
No mass has to be expelled in this case. But as pointed out:Quote from: Jack WisdomThe curvature of spacetime is very slight,
so the ability to swim in spacetime is unlikely
to lead to new propulsion devices. For a
meter-sized object performing meter-sized
deformations at the surface of the Earth, the
displacement is of order 10^(-23) m .
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1423374#msg1423374
So my working theory back on T6 involved Cu+ striking one wall, some getting deposited, some bouncing off, getting recycled and jumping into a higher energy state and once again being slammed into the endplate (target) by the resonant TE field.
In this theory scenario, TM is of no consequence, nor would there be a need for a Quantum Vacuum...no CoM or CoE violation.
Granted, I am not a Theorist, my wording is less than desirable as I try to document my visualizations.
The HF field can kick an electron out of the already charged Cu+ ion. The electron would be deflected in another direction than the Cu++ ion because of its charge and the current field vectors inside the cavity...
But the electron is still inside the cavity and it may absorbed in the wall or by an ion again. Complex story, at the moment I can not see how a net thrust of the cavity itself would possible this way.
OK the swimming argument may be the emergency exit.
So the key to me is validating if copper ions in the frustum are present and if some unequal deposition is occuring...mainly on the small base.
Deposition will impart kinetic energy. If it is asymmetric, we just might have a plausible emdrive theory. Long way to go yet.
Edit - tablet typos... -
#1344 by masterharper1082 on 17 Apr, 2016 01:15
-
I think i'm getting somewhere with thermal imaging now that i've added three coats of paint. I've eliminated most of the IR reflections, except for some along the glancing edges. I'm also getting a heat signature from my hand, when before I saw nothing. Watch how quickly the heat begins to dissipate...
Nicely done - that's what I would expect.
Sent from my SM-T710 using Tapatalk
-
#1345 by Slyver on 17 Apr, 2016 02:06
-
I have read that some emDrive researchers claim that the emdrive frustum must be set in motion in order for the thrust effect to be observed. I would assume this actually means that the frustum must be accelerated, if for only a small amount of time (we all have velocity around the sun already). Remembering back to high school physics now, aren't an accelerating object and an object in a gravitation field indistinguishable as far as i forget if it is Special or General Relativity? Since all emdrive experiments were performed on earth, and thus were performed within a gravitational field, this would seem to contradict the claim that the frustum must be set in motion in order to observe the thrust, as it would be impossible to conduct an experiment without these conditions baked in. .... Sorry for the amateur observation, back to the real scientists!
This is an excellent observation, and in a closed system, the idea that an external force is required "to create more force" is ludicrous, at least within the scope of everything we have done in physics up to point. However, in an open system, this is not so ludicrous.
For example, take various past experiments showing similar results to what is proposed by the EMDrive (apparent violation of CoM) with stiction. To reproduce these occasionally bewildering experiments (to the uninitiated) it requires an asymmetric frictional force (an external interaction) with sufficient symmetric internal force. In other words, it requires a vibration of the system, in the direction of motion, with a net force in each direction that is greater than the frictional force, in one direction. For these stiction examples, the rotation of the Earth, or orbit of the Earth around the Sun are both insufficient forces to overcome the frictional forces. It is possible something similar is occurring with the EMDrive.
I propose, if there is an external force requirement (an induced "motor mode", which is supported by the substantially reduced observed force in a vacuum), that this would provide the direction that theoretical musings should take (such as looking at a vacuum friction, per recent posts). I am not suggesting that it is true that this system does require an external "motor mode" force, but it does behoove us to listen to the one person who has (according to self accounts) performed more experiments on this topic than anyone else. We don't have to agree with the "why" to listen to the "how", especially since we are in a purely experimental (data gathering) phase.
Edit: I am not suggesting that Shawyer's "how's" are correct, merely that they should not be dismissed because we disagree with his "why's" or have our own idea's of "how things should be". -
#1346 by SeeShells on 17 Apr, 2016 03:41
-
The anomaly of the increase self-sputtering without an increase in current in LBL's paper is counterintuitive as they say. In other words, Cu+ reach a high, self-sustained state without putting more energy (current) into it.
Remember that even though you are adding energy to the ions the accelerated movement you're talking about must take momentum from something else and that something else is the magnetic fields within the cavity. The fields warp just a little when they accelerate the ions those conservation and opposite actions are felt in the internal walls of the frustum. Conservation is preserved.
This apparent CoE violation is described in detail in their paper. So, effectively what I am positing is Cu+ are self-generating to higher energy state as they are "floating in the shuttle bay" and impacting one wall by the pulsed RF of the magnetron. The higher energy state causes a more energy released on impact on the target (end plate of frustum), thus no opposite reaction when they drop to the low energy state. And the cycle repeats itself.
You must be able to have something penetrate the walls in either direction of the frustum to maintain the conservation laws.
Shell -
#1347 by FattyLumpkin on 17 Apr, 2016 07:03
-
rfmwguy, it's not clear to me why you say linear accelerators are a open system. Don't they operate in a hard vacuum? Attached an asymmetric cavity of the LHC
-
#1348 by rfmwguy on 17 Apr, 2016 11:06
-
rfmwguy, it's not clear to me why you say linear accelerators are a open system. Don't they operate in a hard vacuum? Attached an asymmetric cavity of the LHC
Yes, I should have been clear that the accelerator cavities are an open system in and of themselves, not the output which is closed. Was trying to illustrate the cavities are a through-line device, and used alone would be open. Good catch. -
#1349 by rfmwguy on 17 Apr, 2016 11:17
-
This makes sense, but am trying to determine where the jump in energy of the Cu ions comes from. Dr Anders appears to infer it is taken from the pulsed magnetron. We know there is a very slight radiation pressure from the rf source, all balanced symmetrically but the higher energy ions should strike the target plate with more force at the plate than elsewhere. See his paper and illustration of Cu ions.The anomaly of the increase self-sputtering without an increase in current in LBL's paper is counterintuitive as they say. In other words, Cu+ reach a high, self-sustained state without putting more energy (current) into it.
Remember that even though you are adding energy to the ions the accelerated movement you're talking about must take momentum from something else and that something else is the magnetic fields within the cavity. The fields warp just a little when they accelerate the ions those conservation and opposite actions are felt in the internal walls of the frustum. Conservation is preserved.
This apparent CoE violation is described in detail in their paper. So, effectively what I am positing is Cu+ are self-generating to higher energy state as they are "floating in the shuttle bay" and impacting one wall by the pulsed RF of the magnetron. The higher energy state causes a more energy released on impact on the target (end plate of frustum), thus no opposite reaction when they drop to the low energy state. And the cycle repeats itself.
You must be able to have something penetrate the walls in either direction of the frustum to maintain the conservation laws.
Shell
The 4th state of matter, plasma, Is fascinating, I'm wondering if through its energy jump, it translates to an asymmetric kinetic force. Like I said, my weakness is theory, but I'm giving it a go best I can. -
#1350 by rfmwguy on 17 Apr, 2016 12:20
-
If there is anything to my fledgling "Distler Theory", I think this illustration from LBL is the key:
The concentration of Cu ions is asymmetric in this chamber. They are no longer part of the mass of the frustum, being released by the magnetrons energy and "free floating". A deposition primarily on the endplate would infer more kinetic force present there. It all hinges on the energy state jump and the inference the rf field is responsible for it.
It could be like the bowling ball in the shuttle bay thought experiment...the floating astronaut throws the ball with force X, before it reaches the wall, it gains an energy jump (force Y), the ball and the astronaut hit opposite walls simultaneously, but the ball is at a higher energy state than the astronaut threw it. Result...asymmetric kinetic force...the ball moves the shuttle a bit more than the astronaut (force X) with force X+Y. No matter is expelled from this closed system.
Perhaps a better definition of the system is contained rather than closed. Copper ions are contained but no longer part of the mass of frustum.
So I consider the Y force EM pressure exerted symmetrically throughout the cavity. However, it picks up mass (Cu ions) asymmetrically and directs it towards one endplate.
Counterintuitive? Guilty as "charged". -
#1351 by X_RaY on 17 Apr, 2016 12:38
-
I found an interesting mode changing effect at fixed frequency(5.3GHz) in the scaled FattyLumpkin frustum with dielectric disc.
Edit
Looks like the TE012 modeshape is degenerated by one or even two other modes.
-
#1352 by Rodal on 17 Apr, 2016 13:09
-
If there is anything to my fledgling "Distler Theory", I think this illustration from LBL is the key:
The concentration of Cu ions is asymmetric in this chamber. They are no longer part of the mass of the frustum, being released by the magnetrons energy and "free floating". A deposition primarily on the endplate would infer more kinetic force present there. It all hinges on the energy state jump and the inference the rf field is responsible for it.
It could be like the bowling ball in the shuttle bay thought experiment...the floating astronaut throws the ball with force X, before it reaches the wall, it gains an energy jump (force Y), the ball and the astronaut hit opposite walls simultaneously, but the ball is at a higher energy state than the astronaut threw it. Result...asymmetric kinetic force...the ball moves the shuttle a bit more than the astronaut (force X) with force X+Y. No matter is expelled from this closed system.
Perhaps a better definition of the system is contained rather than closed. Copper ions are contained but no longer part of the mass of frustum.
So I consider the Y force EM pressure exerted symmetrically throughout the cavity. However, it picks up mass (Cu ions) asymmetrically and directs it towards one endplate.
Counterintuitive? Guilty as "charged".
Consider your above chamber as a black box. I let you have any distribution of particles vs. time as you like inside that black box.
QUESTION 1: does the mass of the black box and its contents ever change?
ANSWER 1: No.
QUESTION 2: is the black box ever acted by external fields?
ANSWER 2: No.
CONCLUSION: Since the mass of the black box and its contents never changes, and since the black box is not acted by exterior fields, the center of mass of the black box never accelerates. It never accelerates, no matter what may be the distribution of particles inside the black box vs. time, no matter what is the shape of the box (it could be a truncated cone), whether it contains elementary particles, bowling balls and/or astronauts (or even a Maxwell demon) . For the center of mass of the black box and its contents to accelerate either its total mass must change and/or an external field must act on it.
-
#1353 by SeeShells on 17 Apr, 2016 13:50
-
Sometimes we can't see the forest for the trees and need a refresher on some of the basics of how space, time, fundamental particles and matter interact. This is a great summation of how it all works and it's not math heavy. (plus Gabe Perez-Giz is very easy to look at and listen to)
Shell
The Origin of Matter and Time
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsPUh22kYmNCLrXgf8e6nC_xEzxdx4nmY -
#1354 by rfmwguy on 17 Apr, 2016 13:54
-
I agree 100%. It is counterintuitive. Dr Anders saw a higher output current without an increase in input current due to self-sputtering. As he said, it seems like a violation but is another way of looking at it.
I'm far from convinced, just is a possibility I find very encouraging. Reason I'm willing to put it out here is to have the braintrusts pick it apart. I have no problem with criticism of it...no ego to bruise. As McCoy said, "Dammit Jim, I'm a builder...not a Theorist"!...or something like that.
-
#1355 by Notsosureofit on 17 Apr, 2016 13:55
-
I agree 100%. It is counterintuitive. Dr Anders saw a higher output current without an increase in input current due to self-sputtering. As he said, it seems like a violation but is another way of looking at it.
I'm far from convinced, just is a possibility I find very encouraging. Reason I'm willing to put it out here is to have the braintrusts pick it apart. I have no problem with criticism of it...no ego to bruise. As McCoy said, "Dammit Jim, I'm a builder...not a Theorist"!...or something like that.
Yes, we see it all the time. The current stays the same but the voltage rises.
-
#1356 by rfmwguy on 17 Apr, 2016 14:04
-
Thanks Dr N, what external factor is this attributed to?I agree 100%. It is counterintuitive. Dr Anders saw a higher output current without an increase in input current due to self-sputtering. As he said, it seems like a violation but is another way of looking at it.
I'm far from convinced, just is a possibility I find very encouraging. Reason I'm willing to put it out here is to have the braintrusts pick it apart. I have no problem with criticism of it...no ego to bruise. As McCoy said, "Dammit Jim, I'm a builder...not a Theorist"!...or something like that.
Yes, we see it all the time. The current stays the same but the voltage rises. -
#1357 by Notsosureofit on 17 Apr, 2016 14:12
-
I agree 100%. It is counterintuitive. Dr Anders saw a higher output current without an increase in input current due to self-sputtering. As he said, it seems like a violation but is another way of looking at it.
I'm far from convinced, just is a possibility I find very encouraging. Reason I'm willing to put it out here is to have the braintrusts pick it apart. I have no problem with criticism of it...no ego to bruise. As McCoy said, "Dammit Jim, I'm a builder...not a Theorist"!...or something like that.
Yes, we see it all the time. The current stays the same but the voltage rises.
Thanks Dr N, what external factor is this attributed to?
The constant current DC supply !
-
#1358 by Rodal on 17 Apr, 2016 14:16
-
Which points once again to the fact that the most convincing EM Drive experiment would be one where the EM Drive is completely self-integrated with the power source (for example batteries), such that the center of mass-energy is in the moving platform (preferably in a torque pendulum, like a Cavendish pendulum), as the experiments by Brito Marini and Galian that nullified a type of propellantless Thruster.I agree 100%. It is counterintuitive. Dr Anders saw a higher output current without an increase in input current due to self-sputtering. As he said, it seems like a violation but is another way of looking at it.
I'm far from convinced, just is a possibility I find very encouraging. Reason I'm willing to put it out here is to have the braintrusts pick it apart. I have no problem with criticism of it...no ego to bruise. As McCoy said, "Dammit Jim, I'm a builder...not a Theorist"!...or something like that.
Yes, we see it all the time. The current stays the same but the voltage rises.
Thanks Dr N, what external factor is this attributed to?
The constant current DC supply !
Null Findings on Electromagnetic Inertia Thruster Experiments using a Torsion Pendulum
Hector H. Brito, Ricardo Marini and Eugenio S. Galian
45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit
2 - 5 August 2009, Denver, Colorado
AIAA 2009-5070
Ricardo L. Marini and Eugenio S. Galian.
"Torsion Pendulum Investigation of Electromagnetic Inertia Manipulation Thrusting",
Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 26, No. 6 (2010), pp. 1283-1290.
doi: 10.2514/1.46541
--> Experiments, particularly with large amounts of power delivered from external sources (not located in the moving experimental platform) as those conducted at close to 1 KW delivered externally are unconvincing to demonstrate self-propulsion.
Aachen's team Baby EM Drive has power delivered from a self-integrated battery, but the results so far are inconclusive (the Baby EM Drive's power being only 0.04 watts. At 1kw Yang's experiment's power being up to 25,000 times greater than the one delivered to Baby EM Drive).
Since NASA has conducted tests from 2 to 100 watts, it is quite feasible for NASA to conduct self-integrated battery tests in a torque pendulum. I hope that NASA goes ahead with their 2014-suggested test with John Hopkins in a torque pendulum, with self-integrated power source.Quote from: Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum
David A. Brady*, Harold G. White†, Paul March‡, James T. Lawrence§, and Frank J. DaviesThe Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory has also expressed an interest in performing a Cavendish Balance style test with the IV&V shipset.
-
#1359 by rfmwguy on 17 Apr, 2016 14:40
-
So power in watts increase as a result of self-sputtering? And this is provided by the power supply itself?I agree 100%. It is counterintuitive. Dr Anders saw a higher output current without an increase in input current due to self-sputtering. As he said, it seems like a violation but is another way of looking at it.
I'm far from convinced, just is a possibility I find very encouraging. Reason I'm willing to put it out here is to have the braintrusts pick it apart. I have no problem with criticism of it...no ego to bruise. As McCoy said, "Dammit Jim, I'm a builder...not a Theorist"!...or something like that.
Yes, we see it all the time. The current stays the same but the voltage rises.
Thanks Dr N, what external factor is this attributed to?
The constant current DC supply !
