Searching \ for '[EE]: Propellantless thrust using leaky dielectric' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=propellantless+thrust
Search entire site for: 'Propellantless thrust using leaky dielectric'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE]: Propellantless thrust using leaky dielectric'
2002\11\26@083259 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
Electrodynamic thrusters using asymmetric leaky dielectric capacitors.
Stunning.
Method of producing propellantless thrust using EHT energy source.

       http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifters.htm

Based on 1928 Biefeld-Brown effect. 1960 patent and 2002 NASA patent for a
propellantless thruster.
Many examples of practical flying models.
(Flying the requisite EHT supply may be more difficult :-) ).

___

Have yet to really convince myself that this is not an elaborate hoax.

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email spam_OUTlistservTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\11\26@091852 by Rad R. Rad

picon face
They say propellantless, except for the
high voltage DC powersupply...

I think this, so far, amounts to something like
a 'surface-tension' motor, or when you examine
the phenomenom of surface tension of a bubble or
a drop of water, you can make all sorts of fantastic
projections, but so far, impracticle...

we'll see...
{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservspamKILLspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\11\26@120135 by Bob Blick

face picon face
> Many examples of practical flying models.

It's a fake, I see the wires!

:)   Bob

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email .....listservKILLspamspam.....mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\11\26@160355 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Rad R. Rad wrote:

*>They say propellantless, except for the
*>high voltage DC powersupply...
*>
*>I think this, so far, amounts to something like
*>a 'surface-tension' motor, or when you examine
*>the phenomenom of surface tension of a bubble or
*>a drop of water, you can make all sorts of fantastic
*>projections, but so far, impracticle...
*>
*>we'll see...

The voltage supply is not the issue, the size required to fly it is. You
need to look at it from the power density pov. If the required power
density is within range for present day technology then it could fly. I
suspect that a Helium balloon of the same size and weight (of the load)
would be more efficient.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email EraseMElistservspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\11\27@060750 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> They say propellantless, except for the
> high voltage DC powersupply...
>
> I think this, so far, amounts to something like
> a 'surface-tension' motor, or when you examine
> the phenomenom of surface tension of a bubble or
> a drop of water, you can make all sorts of fantastic
> projections, but so far, impracticle...
>
> we'll see...

Looks pretty impractical as a drive in atmosphere.
BUT if it produces even very small quantities of thrust in space and uses no
physical propellenat then it can be solar powered and used to position
space-craft in long term orbits. There is currently NOTHING available that
can do this. Even the very high Isp (aka high "fuel efficiency") ion motors
need some propellant which ultimately gets expended. This may be impractical
where external energy is unavailable but in the inner solar system it would
be unique.

       RM



> > Electrodynamic thrusters using asymmetric leaky dielectric capacitors.
> > Stunning.
> > Method of producing propellantless thrust using EHT energy source.
> >
> >         http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifters.htm

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
piclist-unsubscribe-requestspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu


2002\11\27@063736 by Roman Black

flavicon
face
I believe these electrostatic/capacitive
whatever systems ionise the surrounding air and
push upon it with the "asymetrical" charge.
In space there will be no matter to push against
and it won't work. :o)

There are a couple of inertial systems out there
claiming to produce thrust but AFAIK none have
passed the critical "pendulum test" yet.
-Roman



Russell McMahon wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
@spam@piclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu


2002\11\27@065223 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> I believe these electrostatic/capacitive
> whatever systems ionise the surrounding air and
> push upon it with the "asymetrical" charge.
> In space there will be no matter to push against
> and it won't work. :o)


The website SAYS that there is a larger effect in air and a smaller one in
vacuum with the latter not being well understood by NASA. This is what I
referred to when suggesting use as a thruster. Conceivably one could look at
arcane effects such as generation of an "electron beam" - they didn't say
how small the small effect was :-)



       RM

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
KILLspampiclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu


2002\11\27@070900 by Roman Black

flavicon
face
Russell McMahon wrote:
>
> > I believe these electrostatic/capacitive
> > whatever systems ionise the surrounding air and
> > push upon it with the "asymetrical" charge.
> > In space there will be no matter to push against
> > and it won't work. :o)
>
> The website SAYS that there is a larger effect in air and a smaller one in
> vacuum with the latter not being well understood by NASA. This is what I
> referred to when suggesting use as a thruster. Conceivably one could look at
> arcane effects such as generation of an "electron beam" - they didn't say
> how small the small effect was :-)


Sure, you're right if it DID work in a vacuum
this is a major breakthrough. But *I believe*
again that these need some matter to push against.

The vacuum used in the test was most likely a
vacuum chamber with some mass (ie chamber wall?)
close enough for the electrostatic forces to react
upon.

Have you seen some of the work done using Brown's
patent (from memory) of two opposing weights, one
fired into a lossy gel etc and the other into a
spring? There seems to be a lot of scientific
reason for these designs to produce force in one
direction as the energy in one weight will definitely
be dissipated mainly as heat where the other weight
causes movement of the device...
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu


2002\11\28@121542 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Roman Black wrote:

*>I believe these electrostatic/capacitive
*>whatever systems ionise the surrounding air and
*>push upon it with the "asymetrical" charge.

The original subject does not ionize air (it goes to great lengths to do
that). It relies on the fact that strongly polarised gas (air) suffers
changes in density during polarisation with DC. What exactly is going on
seems to elude the inventors.

*>In space there will be no matter to push against
*>and it won't work. :o)

I aggree.

*>There are a couple of inertial systems out there
*>claiming to produce thrust but AFAIK none have
*>passed the critical "pendulum test" yet.

What is that ?

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\11\28@213537 by robert nelson

picon face
Peter L. Peres wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Roman Black wrote:
>
>*>I believe these electrostatic/capacitive
>*>whatever systems ionise the surrounding air and
>*>push upon it with the "asymetrical" charge.
>
>The original subject does not ionize air (it goes to great lengths to do
>that). It relies on the fact that strongly polarised gas (air) suffers
>changes in density during polarisation with DC. What exactly is going on
>seems to elude the inventors.
>
>*>In space there will be no matter to push against
>*>and it won't work. :o)
>
>I aggree.
>
>
SO WHAT DO THE ROCKET ENGINES  PUSH AGAINST?
HOW DO THEY WORK?

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\11\28@215207 by Jinx

face picon face
> SO WHAT DO THE ROCKET ENGINES  PUSH AGAINST?
> HOW DO THEY WORK?

I haven't follwed the thread too closely but

"For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction". In a
location with no atmosphere (eg a Yanni concert, jk) the rocket
is as much moving away from the exhaust as the exhaust is
moving away from the rocket, like a continuous recoil. Momentum
either side of the exhaust nozzle is equal

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\11\29@052236 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> >*>In space there will be no matter to push against
> >*>and it won't work. :o)
> >
> >I agree.

The *suggestion* (NASA patent ?)  is that it DOES work at a reduced level in
a matterless environment but by an as yet unknown mechanism.

> SO WHAT DO THE ROCKET ENGINES  PUSH AGAINST?
> HOW DO THEY WORK?

As Jinx says, rockets effectively push against themselves.
The momentum change in the mass thrown out as "exhaust" is matched by an
equal and opposite momentum change in the rocket itself.

Simple experiment.
Obtain wheeled platform (shopping trolley, luggage dolly or whatever.
Obtain LARGE mass that a person can lift.
Stand / sit /crouch whatever in /on platform holding mass.
Throw mass away from trolley along axis the trolley can move in.
Note that the trolley and the thrower move in the opposite directions.
This will of course work as well in space (ir better as there is no
friction).
This is exactly the principle on which a rocket works.

A gun can be thought of as a rocket where the bullet is the same as the
"fuel" being ejected and the gun is the equivalent of the rocket. The
"recoil" is the transfer of an equal amount of momentum to the gun as is
imparted to the bullet by the chemical reaction of firing. In "space" the
gun would gain velocity in a direction opposite to the bullet direction. On
earth this energy is transferred to the environment. Face West when firing
and the earth spins slightly faster :-)



       Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\11\29@062520 by Morgan Olsson

picon face
Hej robert nelson. Tack för ditt meddelande 03:35 2002-11-29 enligt nedan:
>SO WHAT DO THE ROCKET ENGINES  PUSH AGAINST?
>HOW DO THEY WORK?

If i get it correctly the air ionizes at the wire.  Then the charged air is pulled to the large surfaces where the ions discharge, and air continues flowing, thus thrust.

/Morgan

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\11\29@081055 by Roman Black

flavicon
face
Peter L. Peres wrote:

> The original subject does not ionize air (it goes to great lengths to do
> that).

I'd like to see how they attach 20kV++ to an
aluminium foil antennae and get no ionised air...


> *>There are a couple of inertial systems out there
> *>claiming to produce thrust but AFAIK none have
> *>passed the critical "pendulum test" yet.
>
> What is that ?

The so called "holy grail" of inertial engine tests,
if you hang the engine by a string pendulum, and
it does indeed produce linear force, the engine
swings to the side (+up) and stays there, hence
proving it produces force when powered up.

The standard tests with load cells and strain gauges
are easier to fool considering these engines usually
have a number of reciprocating or vibrating components,
the pendulum test is considered a simple and
relatively foolproof test. :o)
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\11\29@081923 by Roman Black

flavicon
face
Russell McMahon wrote:
>
> > >*>In space there will be no matter to push against
> > >*>and it won't work. :o)

> The *suggestion* (NASA patent ?)  is that it DOES work at a reduced level in
> a matterless environment but by an as yet unknown mechanism.

Lets assume that the NASA vacuum chamber has a
finite size, and walls possibly of glass or metal.
I've had the hairs on my arm stand up when switching
on a big TV set half a metre away. And that PSU
*wasn't* optimised for its electrostatic effect. :o)

And don't most vacuum chambers still have 1% or so
air left in them??
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\11\29@082339 by Roman Black

flavicon
face
robert nelson wrote:

> SO WHAT DO THE ROCKET ENGINES  PUSH AGAINST?
> HOW DO THEY WORK?


They push mass of gas out the back, when there
is no more gas (fuel) left they are worthless.
An ideal solution is to provide thrust from energy
alone, so thrust can be maintained indefinitely
provided the vehicle has energy. To date it
hasn't been done, although many are trying...
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\11\29@082753 by Jinx

face picon face
> They push mass of gas out the back, when there
> is no more gas (fuel) left they are worthless.
> An ideal solution is to provide thrust from energy
> alone, so thrust can be maintained indefinitely
> provided the vehicle has energy. To date it
> hasn't been done, although many are trying...
> -Roman

Aren't they looking at dark matter or interstellar hydrogen
as fuel ? Suck it in at the front, blow it out the back

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\11\29@083232 by Roman Black

flavicon
face
Sorry Russell, I looked up my bookmarks it was
Bull's impulse engine patent, not Brown's.
Here are a couple of links, see Bull's patent
and some tests etc on this page;

JLN Labs - Inertial Propulsion Engine
... systems which are automatically propelled by inertia forces"
FR2651279 by ... test run 1; The TIE pendulum test run ...
The Inertial Drive Engine Aircraft the IDEA V3.0 ...
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/IPEmain.htm
(also see the "linear force machine" on this page,
very interesting...

And another interesting page;

... ITEM #AGN-104: THE BEST INERTIA ENGINE PATENTS & DATA. ...
overview of the types of inertia engines, methods ... models
suspended as a free pendulum with oscilloscope ...
http://www.padrak.com/agn/AGN4SALE.html

:o)
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\11\29@114259 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Sat, 30 Nov 2002, Roman Black wrote:

*>Russell McMahon wrote:
*>>
*>> > >*>In space there will be no matter to push against
*>> > >*>and it won't work. :o)
*>
*>> The *suggestion* (NASA patent ?)  is that it DOES work at a reduced level in
*>> a matterless environment but by an as yet unknown mechanism.
*>
*>Lets assume that the NASA vacuum chamber has a
*>finite size, and walls possibly of glass or metal.
*>I've had the hairs on my arm stand up when switching
*>on a big TV set half a metre away. And that PSU
*>*wasn't* optimised for its electrostatic effect. :o)

Really. There are simple ways to make the walls irrelevant (by putting in
shield electrodes with the same potential as the apparatus). Size does not
matter except large chambers take longer to pump out and cost more.

*>And don't most vacuum chambers still have 1% or so
*>air left in them??

You are joking, right ? 1% is about 7.6mm Hg. That's a lot of pressure for
a vacuum! Even a mechanical pump will go down to 1e-3 (0.1%).  An electron
tube will have something like 1e-6 mmHg in it and vacuum chambers for lab
applications can improve that by another 1e-6 or so. You can COUNT on NASA
knowing about these things especially when funding something that
resembles a perpetuum mobile.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\11\29@114301 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, robert nelson wrote:

*>>*>In space there will be no matter to push against
*>>*>and it won't work. :o)
*>>
*>>I aggree.
*>>
*>>
*>SO WHAT DO THE ROCKET ENGINES  PUSH AGAINST?
*>HOW DO THEY WORK?

They throw out some mass at some speed so they generate some impulse. The
point being that at least one of the items involved (the vehicle or the
space) must have some mass that can be moved. A propellantless engine
either uses the medium it moves through (like a propeller or jet airplane)
or something else. The something else is the mystery in the op. Since NASA
has tested the device in a vacuum and found that there still is thrust.
They used ion detectors to make sure that whatever pushes the vehicle is
not ions.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\11\29@114304 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Sat, 30 Nov 2002, Roman Black wrote:

*>Peter L. Peres wrote:
*>
*>> The original subject does not ionize air (it goes to great lengths to do
*>> that).
*>
*>I'd like to see how they attach 20kV++ to an
*>aluminium foil antennae and get no ionised air...

By putting ion detectors around the device in a vacuumed chamber. If you
get too few ions to explain the thrust you have a problem.

Remember that vacuum is a dielectric. With air you can 'explain' what
happens by saying that the ions get accelerated (more exactly the
dielectric of different density which is charged air) yada yada. With
vacuum there is nothing to be accelerated. Yet, vacuum is a very valid
dielectric, it has its dielectric constant Epsilon0 and works fine in any
capacitor. The problem with the explanation is, what is 'compressed' and
'accelerated' by the device in a vacuum, once the ion gauges prove that it
is not ions. I am not a physicist but for me the fact that vacuum has a
dielectric constant at all is a strangeness by itself. As you know any
capacitor stores a part of the charge in the dielectric, using well-known
polarisation mechanisms. Now, try to picture this for vacuum. Oops. And
don't say no energy is stored there. Epsilon0 says otherwise.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\11\29@141056 by Dave Tweed

face
flavicon
face
"Peter L. Peres" <spamBeGoneplpspamBeGonespamACTCOM.CO.IL> wrote:
> I am not a physicist ...

That's for sure.

> ... but for me the fact that vacuum has a dielectric constant at all is a
> strangeness by itself.

Why? It's mainly a way of resolving the various measurement units involved
relating to charge displacement and field strength. The units are Farads
per meter, and since Farads and meters are arbitrary units that aren't
related to each other, we end up with a proportionality factor of 8.85e-12.

> As you know any capacitor stores a part of the charge in the dielectric,
> using well-known polarisation mechanisms.

No, capacitors store *energy* in the dielectric, in the form of an electric
field. They store charge on the plates.

If you happen to have a dielectric that can be polarized, then this reduces
the field. Some of the energy goes into moving the dielectric charges
around, and this may or may not be reversible. (Consider the ferroelectric
memory cell.)

> Now, try to picture this for vacuum. Oops. And don't say no energy is
> stored there. Epsilon0 says otherwise.

Nobody says no energy is stored there, but you said that charge was stored
there. Big difference.

-- Dave Tweed

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\11\29@142129 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Dave Tweed wrote:

*>> Now, try to picture this for vacuum. Oops. And don't say no energy is
*>> stored there. Epsilon0 says otherwise.
*>
*>Nobody says no energy is stored there, but you said that charge was stored
*>there. Big difference.

Yes. It's words getting in the way of ideas ;-)

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\11\29@165956 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
> SO WHAT DO THE ROCKET ENGINES  PUSH AGAINST?

Propellant, which this scheme specifically claims to avoid.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\11\29@171829 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
> Face West when firing
> and the earth spins slightly faster :-)

Until the bullet lands back on the ground.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\11\29@192741 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
> > Now, try to picture this for vacuum. Oops. And don't say no energy is
> > stored there. Epsilon0 says otherwise.
>
> Nobody says no energy is stored there, but you said that charge was stored
> there. Big difference.

The energy stored on a capacitor with vacuum dielectric can be thought of as
the "potential" energy of two charges separated by some distance.  This
doesn't require the medium in between to do anything other than insulate and
take up space.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\11\29@193402 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> I'd like to see how they attach 20kV++ to an
> aluminium foil antennae and get no ionised air...

NASA note that they have some problems due to the high voltage discharging
:-)

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\11\29@193406 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> > Face West when firing
> > and the earth spins slightly faster :-)
>
> Until the bullet lands back on the ground.

Indeed. A minor second order systems effect entirely unrelated for purposes
of the argument :-)

You are of course right - the size of the planet and the magnitude of the
relative forces involved mean in the given example the planet happens to
recapture the bullet and "close" the system. Maybe I should have placed the
gunman (solidly anchored) on the Canadian manipulator arm on a Space Shuttle
:-). Or on Deimos.


       RM

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\11\29@195934 by Mike Singer

picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> > > Face West when firing
> > > and the earth spins slightly faster :-)
> >
> > Until the bullet lands back on the ground.
>
> Indeed. A minor second order systems effect entirely
> unrelated for purposes of the argument :-)
>
> You are of course right - the size of the planet and the magnitude of
the
> relative forces involved mean in the given example the planet happens
to
> recapture the bullet and "close" the system. Maybe I should have
placed the
> gunman (solidly anchored) on the Canadian manipulator arm on a Space
> Shuttle :-). Or on Deimos.

  Take away gun but place this man closer to the center
of the Earth: the planet will spin slightly faster like figure
skater, I think.

  Mike.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\11\29@215047 by Brendan Moran

flavicon
face
>Indeed. A minor second order systems effect entirely unrelated for purposes
>of the argument :-)
>
>You are of course right - the size of the planet and the magnitude of the
>relative forces involved mean in the given example the planet happens to
>recapture the bullet and "close" the system. Maybe I should have placed the
>gunman (solidly anchored) on the Canadian manipulator arm on a Space Shuttle
>:-). Or on Deimos.

Or a gun capable of escape velocity.

--Brendan

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\11\30@093307 by Roman Black

flavicon
face
Peter L. Peres wrote:

> *>I'd like to see how they attach 20kV++ to an
> *>aluminium foil antennae and get no ionised air...
>
> By putting ion detectors around the device in a vacuumed chamber. If you
> get too few ions to explain the thrust you have a problem.
>
> Remember that vacuum is a dielectric. With air you can 'explain' what
> happens by saying that the ions get accelerated (more exactly the
> dielectric of different density which is charged air) yada yada. With
> vacuum there is nothing to be accelerated. Yet, vacuum is a very valid
> dielectric, it has its dielectric constant Epsilon0 and works fine in any
> capacitor. The problem with the explanation is, what is 'compressed' and
> 'accelerated' by the device in a vacuum, once the ion gauges prove that it
> is not ions. I am not a physicist but for me the fact that vacuum has a
> dielectric constant at all is a strangeness by itself. As you know any
> capacitor stores a part of the charge in the dielectric, using well-known
> polarisation mechanisms. Now, try to picture this for vacuum. Oops. And
> don't say no energy is stored there. Epsilon0 says otherwise.


My apologies Peter, I was actually referring to
the test in air. The test in vacuum should show
few ions as it is quite hard to ionise nothing... ;o)

Even if this device was suspended in a vacuum
chamber 2m in diameter it would still be 1m from
a wall, and able to exert electrostatic forces
on the "wall". Vacuum chambers are generally glass
or metal, both having respective electrostatic
properties.
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\11\30@095019 by Roman Black

flavicon
face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
>
> > Face West when firing
> > and the earth spins slightly faster :-)
>
> Until the bullet lands back on the ground.


Actually in basic ballistics the energy of the
bullet is largely spent when it reaches the
trajectory azimuth (air losses). After this
point the trajectory is mainly downward. ;o)
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\11\30@095032 by Roman Black

flavicon
face
Russell McMahon wrote:

> > > Face West when firing
> > > and the earth spins slightly faster :-)
> >
> > Until the bullet lands back on the ground.

> You are of course right - the size of the planet and the magnitude of the
> relative forces involved mean in the given example the planet happens to
> recapture the bullet and "close" the system. Maybe I should have placed the
> gunman (solidly anchored) on the Canadian manipulator arm on a Space Shuttle
> :-). Or on Deimos.

You both *are of course* wrong, as the bullet fired
DOES affect earth's rotation, but bullet energy is
almost totally dissipated as heating the air...
;o)
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\11\30@100054 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
> Actually in basic ballistics the energy of the
> bullet is largely spent when it reaches the
> trajectory azimuth (air losses). After this
> point the trajectory is mainly downward. ;o)

True.  I was trying to make a point that you can't speed up or slow down
the earth by throwing things around that don't leave the system.  In this
case, the rotation force gets back to the earth from the air friction of
the incremental air motion caused by the bullet.  The bullets momemtum
that didn't go into causing forward air motion get returned to the earth
when it is stopped by hitting the ground.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\11\30@100301 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
> You both *are of course* wrong, as the bullet fired
> DOES affect earth's rotation, but bullet energy is
> almost totally dissipated as heating the air...
> ;o)

Yes, the *energy* is dissipated by heating air, but effecting the earth's
rotation is an angular *momentum* issue.  Momentum is independently
conserved from energy.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.



'[EE]: Propellantless thrust using leaky dielectric'
2002\12\21@053602 by Scott Stephens
picon face
FYI...

Subject: [EE]: Propellantless thrust using leaky dielectric assymetric
capacitors.


> Electrodynamic thrusters using asymmetric leaky dielectric capacitors.
> Stunning.

Checkout: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0211001 "

Force on an Asymmetric Capacitor
Authors: Thomas B. Bahder, Chris Fazi
Comments: 25 pages
Subj-class: History of Physics; General Physics

When a high voltage (~30 kV) is applied to a capacitor whose electrodes have
different physical dimensions, the capacitor experiences a net force toward
the smaller electrode (Biefeld-Brown effect). We have verified this effect
by building four capacitors of different shapes. The effect may have
applications to vehicle propulsion and dielectric pumps. We review the
history of this effect briefly through the history of patents by Thomas
Townsend Brown. At present, the physical basis for the Biefeld-Brown effect
is not understood. The order of magnitude of the net force on the asymmetric
capacitor is estimated assuming two different mechanisms of charge
conduction between its electrodes: ballistic ionic wind and ionic drift. The
calculations indicate that ionic wind is at least three orders of magnitude
too small to explain the magnitude of the observed force on the capacitor.
The ionic drift transport assumption leads to the correct order of magnitude
for the force, however, it is difficult to see how ionic drift enters into
the theory. Finally, we present a detailed thermodynamic treatment of the
net force on an asymmetric capacitor. In the future, to understand this
effect, a detailed theoretical model must be constructed that takes into
account plasma effects: ionization of gas (or air) in the high electric
field region, charge transport, and resulting dynamic forces on the
electrodes. The next series of experiments should determine whether the
effect occurs in vacuum, and a careful study should be carried out to
determine the dependence of the observed force on gas pressure, gas species
and applied voltage. "

Scott

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email TakeThisOuTlistservEraseMEspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2002 , 2003 only
- Today
- New search...