Asymmetric capacitor in High Vacuum

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Hec031
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 1:08 pm

Post by Hec031 »

EmField57,

What I've been trying to explain to people is that a "Lifter" does operate by Ion wind principals when operated in air, but when you remove the air and the Ion wind goes away, there is still a force left behind that appears to be unconventional in origin and may be useful in all the ways you described.


Hector

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Post by williatw »

This might be of interest here: http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/03/advanc ... ssing.html
This is the sort of thing a gov agency like NASA or DARPA should be doing. The kind of things government is actually good at, funding R&D on cutting edge stuff. From the link:
How does a Q-thruster work? A Q-thruster uses the same principles and equations of motion that a conventional plasma thruster would use, namely Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), to predict propellant behavior. The virtual plasma is exposed to a crossed E and B-field which induces a plasma drift of the entire plasma in the ExB direction which is orthogonal to the applied fields. The difference arises in the fact that a Q-thruster uses quantum vacuum fluctuations as the fuel source eliminating the need to carry propellant. This suggests much higher specific impulses are available for QVPT systems limited only by their power supply’s energy storage densities. Historical test results have yielded thrust levels of between 1000-4000 micro-Newtons, specific force performance of 0.1N/kW, and an equivalent specific impulse of ~1x10^12 seconds. Figure 4 shows a test article and the thrust trace from a 500g load cell.

The near term focus of the laboratory work is focused on gathering performance data to support development of a Q-thruster engineering prototype targeting Reaction Control System (RCS) applications with force range of 0.1-1 N with corresponding input power range of 0.3-3 kW. Up first will be testing of a refurbished test article to duplicate historical performance on the high fidelity torsion pendulum (1-4 mN at 10 to 40 W). The team is maintaining a dialogue with the ISS national labs office for an on orbit DTO.

How would Q-thrusters revolutionize human exploration of the outer planets? Making minimal extrapolation of performance, assessments show that delivery of a 50 mT payload to Jovian orbit can be accomplished in 35 days with a 2 MW power source [specific force of thruster (N/kW) is based on potential measured thrust performance in lab, propulsion mass (Q-thrusters) would be additional 20 mT (10 kg/kW), and associate power system would be 20 mT (10 kg/kW)]. Q-thruster performance allows the use of nuclear reactor technology that would not require MHD conversion or other more complicated schemes to accomplish single digit specific mass performance usually required for standard electric propulsion systems to the outer solar system. In 70 days, the same system could reach the orbit of Saturn. Figure 5 illustrates the performance capabilities of this advanced propulsion concept for transforming outer solar system exploration

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

Hec031 wrote:What I've been trying to explain to people is that a "Lifter" does operate by Ion wind principals when operated in air, but when you remove the air and the Ion wind goes away, there is still a force left behind that appears to be unconventional in origin and may be useful in all the ways you described.
Yes but what you're not explaining is they all think you're just stripping plastic off your electrodes at such high voltage. There are still conventional explanations for what you're seeing, and your theoretical explanation makes no sense. If it were more in line with Sonny's QVF model I'm sure you'd get funding but it's not.

William, the "Q-Thruster" is just Paul March's MLT work from years ago, repackaged to sell as Sonny's QVF thruster. Sonny is a brilliant guy and I hope he's right about QVF, I just can't believe it myself. There are too many places where that model falls on its face. ZPF can't even explain the mass of the proton. It's just all rehashed gibberish, IMHO. At the core, all QVF is a bunch of hopeful thinking about what one can do with virtual particles, that in effect violates what is meant by "virtual". Makes no sense to me to continue to press on this issue when it is so self-refuting. Anyone can look on Wiki what virtual particles are and see that by definition, they can't be used for propellant.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

EmField57
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:36 pm

Post by EmField57 »

Hec031 wrote:EmField57,

What I've been trying to explain to people is that a "Lifter" does operate by Ion wind principals when operated in air, but when you remove the air and the Ion wind goes away, there is still a force left behind that appears to be unconventional in origin and may be useful in all the ways you described.


Hector
Absolutely. It's possible that ion wind can explain its operation in an atmosphere and another effect at work in a vacuum.

To find out though we would need wider experimentation to elucidate exactly how it operates.

Have you considered trying the other design posted earlier using a solid dielectric?

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

EmField57 wrote:
Hec031 wrote:EmField57,

What I've been trying to explain to people is that a "Lifter" does operate by Ion wind principals when operated in air, but when you remove the air and the Ion wind goes away, there is still a force left behind that appears to be unconventional in origin and may be useful in all the ways you described.


Hector
Absolutely. It's possible that ion wind can explain its operation in an atmosphere and another effect at work in a vacuum.

To find out though we would need wider experimentation to elucidate exactly how it operates.

Have you considered trying the other design posted earlier using a solid dielectric?


I am not convinced that the idea even works in a vacuum. I have seen experiments which claim that it does, but I have some experience working with high voltage, and static attraction and repulsion effects are very difficult to eliminate as a likely source of an apparent force.

I would think it would require a very large vacuum chamber (so as to keep the walls as far away from the experiment as possible) to reduce the likelihood of static repulsion or attraction to some unbalanced charge somewhere. Either that, or launch one into space and see how it behaves in good vacuum at zero g.

For what it's worth, i've built lifters, and they are amusing toys, but I am completely confident that they are propelled by the force of the ion wind they generate. You can feel the force of the breeze by putting your hand underneath them.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Post by williatw »

GIThruster wrote:
Hec031 wrote:What I've been trying to explain to people is that a "Lifter" does operate by Ion wind principals when operated in air, but when you remove the air and the Ion wind goes away, there is still a force left behind that appears to be unconventional in origin and may be useful in all the ways you described.
Yes but what you're not explaining is they all think you're just stripping plastic off your electrodes at such high voltage. There are still conventional explanations for what you're seeing, and your theoretical explanation makes no sense. If it were more in line with Sonny's QVF model I'm sure you'd get funding but it's not.

William, the "Q-Thruster" is just Paul March's MLT work from years ago, repackaged to sell as Sonny's QVF thruster. Sonny is a brilliant guy and I hope he's right about QVF, I just can't believe it myself. There are too many places where that model falls on its face. ZPF can't even explain the mass of the proton. It's just all rehashed gibberish, IMHO. At the core, all QVF is a bunch of hopeful thinking about what one can do with virtual particles, that in effect violates what is meant by "virtual". Makes no sense to me to continue to press on this issue when it is so self-refuting. Anyone can look on Wiki what virtual particles are and see that by definition, they can't be used for propellant.
The key is that unlike say String Theory something like a "Q-Thruster" or EHT can be proved or disproved experimentaly. We should know in a few years which of these unlikely approaches if any will work. I mean the so called "standard model" only explains about 4% of the Universe. The remainder about 70% "dark energy" & the balance "dark matter". Terms used to mask our ignorance, we have no clear idea what either one of those things actually are accept that they permeate so called empty space. Would not be surprised in the least to learn we can maninipulate the vacuum in some way to move our craft without propellant.

Hec031
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 1:08 pm

Post by Hec031 »

Diogenes,

You are correct and that is where our experiments are at the moment. Neither Ion wind or Ion propulsion are being considered as a possible source of thrust in our case, because unlike the device shown on the video that has lead to this conversation, the devices we are testing are encapsulated, insulated and Faraday caged when needed.

So the focus shifted from Ion wind and Ion propulsion to a possible electrostatic interaction. We've done several experiments to eliminate this as a possibility and now we are at the point where our device is required to rotate in order to demonstrate that it is not Electrostatics that is causing the observed force. If the demo shows rotation and acceleration under Atmospheric conditions than we plan on moving to rough vacuum testing in a large diameter chamber. If it still demonstrates force at that level than we will move to a very formal large diameter high vacuum test.
If it passes that test than we will begin planning for an orbital test.

SFE has demonstrated forces as high as 16mN of thrust. It tends to operate in the 24mN/W, which is why there is some interest in our up coming tests and results.

I agree that there is a lot more testing needed. In fact I rather do a lot more basic testing before trying to develop a demo device like the one I'm working on, but I have to make my customers happy and run the risk of running into a problem I can't solve.

Fortunately this has not happen yet.


Hector

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

GIThruster wrote:
Hec031 wrote:What I've been trying to explain to people is that a "Lifter" does operate by Ion wind principals when operated in air, but when you remove the air and the Ion wind goes away, there is still a force left behind that appears to be unconventional in origin and may be useful in all the ways you described.
Yes but what you're not explaining is they all think you're just stripping plastic off your electrodes at such high voltage. There are still conventional explanations for what you're seeing, and your theoretical explanation makes no sense. If it were more in line with Sonny's QVF model I'm sure you'd get funding but it's not.

William, the "Q-Thruster" is just Paul March's MLT work from years ago, repackaged to sell as Sonny's QVF thruster. Sonny is a brilliant guy and I hope he's right about QVF, I just can't believe it myself. There are too many places where that model falls on its face. ZPF can't even explain the mass of the proton. It's just all rehashed gibberish, IMHO. At the core, all QVF is a bunch of hopeful thinking about what one can do with virtual particles, that in effect violates what is meant by "virtual". Makes no sense to me to continue to press on this issue when it is so self-refuting. Anyone can look on Wiki what virtual particles are and see that by definition, they can't be used for propellant.
Woodward's work is based on "transient mass fluctuations" if memory serves. Those provide a pathway to "negative mass," yes? Thus could Woodward's work be used for White's "Boost Field" FTL concept, in contrast to Woodward's preferred "wormhole" route? If Dr. White's papers are to be believed, the technical requirements for a "sloppy & thick 'boost' field" are far simpler than for a typical Alcubierre field.
Vae Victis

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

I'm not familiar with Sonny's Boost Field so I can't give a fair answer except to say that I remain completely unimpressed with all ZPF, ZPE, QVF theory. There has never been any evidence for it and there is a great deal of theoretical objection against that the ZPFers have never bothered to answer. Until they can explain why their theory gives the wrong mass for protons or how massless particles can impart momentum, I think they're full of high hopes and hot air.

Standing objections in the peer review journals to ZPF theory go back about 20 years and if the adherents can't bother to answer them, I can't be bothered to take them seriously. That doesn't mean I don't hope the best for Sonny, but I don't have much expectation he'll find anything because I think his model is broken.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

GeeGee
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:00 pm

Post by GeeGee »

GIThruster wrote: or how massless particles can impart momentum
Massless particles can and do impart momentum. Solar sails, for example, take advantage of radiation pressure (which is due to the fact that photons carry a momentum p=E/c).

However, the proton mass inaccuracy is the biggest issue with ZPF theory, as well as the massive conflict between the vacuum energy density predicted by GR and QM.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

GIThruster wrote:I'm not familiar with Sonny's Boost Field so I can't give a fair answer except to say that I remain completely unimpressed with all ZPF, ZPE, QVF theory. There has never been any evidence for it and there is a great deal of theoretical objection against that the ZPFers have never bothered to answer. Until they can explain why their theory gives the wrong mass for protons or how massless particles can impart momentum, I think they're full of high hopes and hot air.
It appears in the "Warp Field Mechanics 101" paper linked at the bottom of the NBF article. Looks to be minimally related to the Q-Thruster, but instead a gedankenexperiment derived from the Warp Field Interferometer also mentioned at NBF. Appears to be a straightforward and effective modification of the Alcubierre metric, but with significantly reduced technical requirements and enhanced controllability. In terms of gross function, it appears near-identical to the "Heim hyperdrive" (i.e. "multiply your starting velocity by X"), but with very different math and mechanics. And Sonny White mentions a notional "boost" of 100 vs the notional 1000 to 4000 mentioned in the pre-2006 Heim AIAA papers. Still requires negative mass however, but IIRC, the Woodward approach is conceptually capable of generating that.
GIThruster wrote:Standing objections in the peer review journals to ZPF theory go back about 20 years and if the adherents can't bother to answer them, I can't be bothered to take them seriously. That doesn't mean I don't hope the best for Sonny, but I don't have much expectation he'll find anything because I think his model is broken.
I did find the Haisch-Rueda-Putoff ZPF justification for the origin of inertia and explanation of gravity as a vacuum polarization intriguing a decade or so back. That said, I've yet to see any results from it.
Vae Victis

GeeGee
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:00 pm

Post by GeeGee »

djolds1 wrote:. Still requires negative mass however, but IIRC, the Woodward approach is conceptually capable of generating that.
I think Sonny claimed in one of his papers that an alternative to negative mass-energy is negative pressure, which is more readily obtainable than exotic matter.

Regardless of what kind of energy you need to make the thing work, Sonny's approach still requires that the Chung-Freese metric (string theory) is correct, which is quite a hard pill to swallow.
I did find the Haisch-Rueda-Putoff ZPF justification for the origin of inertia and explanation of gravity as a vacuum polarization intriguing a decade or so back. That said, I've yet to see any results from it.
Yeah I haven't heard a thing from the EarthTech guys in a long time. I'm not even sure if they've done any experiments to test their hypothesis'. They are primarily a company that tests extraordinary claims of new sources of energy and advanced propulsion, if I remember correctly.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

GeeGee wrote:
djolds1 wrote:Still requires negative mass however, but IIRC, the Woodward approach is conceptually capable of generating that.
I think Sonny claimed in one of his papers that an alternative to negative mass-energy is negative pressure, which is more readily obtainable than exotic matter.

Regardless of what kind of energy you need to make the thing work, Sonny's approach still requires that the Chung-Freese metric (string theory) is correct, which is quite a hard pill to swallow.
I missed that. Yes, Strings/Branes/M does damage credibility. Thanks.
GeeGee wrote:
djolds1 wrote:]I did find the Haisch-Rueda-Putoff ZPF justification for the origin of inertia and explanation of gravity as a vacuum polarization intriguing a decade or so back. That said, I've yet to see any results from it.
Yeah I haven't heard a thing from the EarthTech guys in a long time. I'm not even sure if they've done any experiments to test their hypothesis'. They are primarily a company that tests extraordinary claims of new sources of energy and advanced propulsion, if I remember correctly.
Most recent publication is ~2 years old.
Vae Victis

hanelyp
Posts: 2257
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Post by hanelyp »

If you have a hyperdrive that "multiplies your starting velocity by X", in what reference frame is your starting velocity measured, and why is that frame special?

EmField57
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:36 pm

Post by EmField57 »

....
Last edited by EmField57 on Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:50 am, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply