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 »

chrismb wrote:Oh, I see. Yes, you can do that test, and convention says you would expect to find no movement.

A wire cage with a fixed element inside, one side of which you charge up the other you don't, as per your set up. Suspend the whole cage in your chamber and there should be no displacement of the cage orthogonal to the direction of the incoming wires.

If that's the case, then I would then agree something else must be going on.
I've already done this test with another device, however I will make arrangement to repeat it with this particular form of the device.

Also in your opinion would an energized spherical ball with no ground produce the same kind of displacement per your theory of what is happening? I could set this test up in a matter of minutes, so if you think that would work I'm willing and able to do it.

Hector

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

Hec031 wrote:
chrismb wrote:Oh, I see. Yes, you can do that test, and convention says you would expect to find no movement.

A wire cage with a fixed element inside, one side of which you charge up the other you don't, as per your set up. Suspend the whole cage in your chamber and there should be no displacement of the cage orthogonal to the direction of the incoming wires.

If that's the case, then I would then agree something else must be going on.
I've already done this test with another device, however I will make arrangement to repeat it with this particular form of the device.

Also in your opinion would an energized spherical ball with no ground produce the same kind of displacement per your theory of what is happening? I could set this test up in a matter of minutes, so if you think that would work I'm willing and able to do it.

Hector
I would generally expect it to self-centre itself with respect to the distribution of electric fields around it.

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

Post by Diogenes »

Hec031 wrote:
chrismb wrote:Sorry, I think I am missing something?

Why is this unusual?

What is the energy gained by the displacement of the pendulum (viz. what is its length and mass of the bob)? Then, let's see what the energy in the 'capacitance' is, and/or what the e-field strength is.
It's unusual because many have tried to make this happen with an asymmetric capacitor device and have failed, except for my effort.
The data you are asking for will come with the next test device which will be tested tonight or tomorrow.

The point of the video was to demonstrate that if done correctly an Asymmetric capacitor will produce a visible force under high vacuum conditions that cannot support the assertion by the general scientific community that 100% of the force produced by these devices is solely the product of an Ion wind effect.

Feel free to research the subject matter and you will find what I'm saying to be the case.
I watched your video. I would be happy to see evidence of an effect, but I don't have a great deal of faith in your experimental setup. I would suggest that you are getting a repulsion or attraction effect between the high voltage conductors on your device, and something else, possibly the walls of your container. (And yes, I am familiar with the Faraday Cage, but the window (or other) might create a sort of asymmetry in the effect. )

Another possibility is that the attraction between the lead in wires is creating a strain which warps them (therefore creating a displacement) when the high voltage is applied.

I think a self contained unit could do a lot to alleviate these possibilities. Alternatively perhaps producing a dual element unit that works like Hero's steam engine would also better eliminate unwanted effects. I'm pretty sure I recall having seen examples of such experiments before. I think I saw them at THIS WEBSITE.


Image

I am not trying to dissuade you, just to offer constructive criticism. By eliminating the possibilities of extraneous effects, it will make your proof all that much better.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

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

Post by Hec031 »

chrismb wrote:
Hec031 wrote:
chrismb wrote:Oh, I see. Yes, you can do that test, and convention says you would expect to find no movement.

A wire cage with a fixed element inside, one side of which you charge up the other you don't, as per your set up. Suspend the whole cage in your chamber and there should be no displacement of the cage orthogonal to the direction of the incoming wires.

If that's the case, then I would then agree something else must be going on.
I've already done this test with another device, however I will make arrangement to repeat it with this particular form of the device.

Also in your opinion would an energized spherical ball with no ground produce the same kind of displacement per your theory of what is happening? I could set this test up in a matter of minutes, so if you think that would work I'm willing and able to do it.

Hector
I would generally expect it to self-centre itself with respect to the distribution of electric fields around it.
So if I place the sphere off-Center of the chamber the sphere should displace towards the center? Would that be correct? If that is the case than I would expect the rate of change and force associated with displacement to be affected by the degree of field asymmetry. Would that also be correct?

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

Hec031 wrote:So if I place the sphere off-Center of the chamber the sphere should displace towards the center? Would that be correct? If that is the case than I would expect the rate of change and force associated with displacement to be affected by the degree of field asymmetry. Would that also be correct?
In general I would have thought so, but I think it is risky to generalise and equate a 'geometric' minimum with an 'electrostatic' minimum. Indeed, even if the geometry were perfectly symmetrical, the electrostatic potential is probably a minimum at the edge and is meta stable at the centre. I can't say I've really thought about it much before.

Ultimately, if 'EE' is the total electrical potential of the fields within a given setup, and you wish to measure the electrostatic force, Ef, on a charged body whose displacement in a given direction, x, will cause EE to change, then Ef = -d(EE)/dx. I'd prefer not to pre-guess which way that might take a specific charged object within a specific electrical field, though.

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

Post by Hec031 »

chrismb wrote:
Hec031 wrote:So if I place the sphere off-Center of the chamber the sphere should displace towards the center? Would that be correct? If that is the case than I would expect the rate of change and force associated with displacement to be affected by the degree of field asymmetry. Would that also be correct?
In general I would have thought so, but I think it is risky to generalise and equate a 'geometric' minimum with an 'electrostatic' minimum. Indeed, even if the geometry were perfectly symmetrical, the electrostatic potential is probably a minimum at the edge and is meta stable at the centre. I can't say I've really thought about it much before.

Ultimately, if 'EE' is the total electrical potential of the fields within a given setup, and you wish to measure the electrostatic force, Ef, on a charged body whose displacement in a given direction, x, will cause EE to change, then Ef = -d(EE)/dx. I'd prefer not to pre-guess which way that might take a specific charged object within a specific electrical field, though.
I understand. I think the experiment is worth doing just to see if any displacement occurs. Looking at my supplies I lack a proper sphere. All the spheres I have are just to heavy. I just ordered an aluminum sphere which should be perfect for this. I'm also still planning to place a Faraday cage around the device.

I'll keep you informed of the results.

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

Post by Hec031 »

Diogenes wrote:
Hec031 wrote:
chrismb wrote:Sorry, I think I am missing something?

Why is this unusual?

What is the energy gained by the displacement of the pendulum (viz. what is its length and mass of the bob)? Then, let's see what the energy in the 'capacitance' is, and/or what the e-field strength is.
It's unusual because many have tried to make this happen with an asymmetric capacitor device and have failed, except for my effort.
The data you are asking for will come with the next test device which will be tested tonight or tomorrow.

The point of the video was to demonstrate that if done correctly an Asymmetric capacitor will produce a visible force under high vacuum conditions that cannot support the assertion by the general scientific community that 100% of the force produced by these devices is solely the product of an Ion wind effect.

Feel free to research the subject matter and you will find what I'm saying to be the case.
I watched your video. I would be happy to see evidence of an effect, but I don't have a great deal of faith in your experimental setup. I would suggest that you are getting a repulsion or attraction effect between the high voltage conductors on your device, and something else, possibly the walls of your container. (And yes, I am familiar with the Faraday Cage, but the window (or other) might create a sort of asymmetry in the effect. )

Another possibility is that the attraction between the lead in wires is creating a strain which warps them (therefore creating a displacement) when the high voltage is applied.

I think a self contained unit could do a lot to alleviate these possibilities. Alternatively perhaps producing a dual element unit that works like Hero's steam engine would also better eliminate unwanted effects. I'm pretty sure I recall having seen examples of such experiments before. I think I saw them at THIS WEBSITE.


Image

I am not trying to dissuade you, just to offer constructive criticism. By eliminating the possibilities of extraneous effects, it will make your proof all that much better.
A rotary example like Hero's engine but rotating in the horizontal plane has already been accomplished a few months ago and was done in two distinct configurations. I have a new rotary device in the works that will fit in this chamber. The independently powered device is in still in the works.

paulmarch
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:06 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX USA

Post by paulmarch »

Hec031 wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Hec031 wrote: It's unusual because many have tried to make this happen with an asymmetric capacitor device and have failed, except for my effort.
The data you are asking for will come with the next test device which will be tested tonight or tomorrow.

The point of the video was to demonstrate that if done correctly an Asymmetric capacitor will produce a visible force under high vacuum conditions that cannot support the assertion by the general scientific community that 100% of the force produced by these devices is solely the product of an Ion wind effect.

Feel free to research the subject matter and you will find what I'm saying to be the case.
Hector:

I've got a few more questions for you that I posted over at NASASpaceflight.com / Advanced Concept / Asymmetrical Cap web page. I've also posted the latest two slides from Dr. Woodward's ARC-Lite Torque Pendulum results from last week for your reference as well.

Best,

Paul M.
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

hanelyp
Posts: 2255
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Post by hanelyp »

Hec031 wrote:So if I place the sphere off-Center of the chamber the sphere should displace towards the center? Would that be correct? If that is the case than I would expect the rate of change and force associated with displacement to be affected by the degree of field asymmetry. Would that also be correct?
A charged object off center inside a Faraday cage would attract opposite charge towards it, canceling the electric field seen outside. The charged object would then be pulled towards the charge it collected, away from the center.

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

Anyone heard updates since?

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

Update

Post by Hec031 »

Sorry that I've been quiet but I've been hard at work on advancing the research. My most recent experiments have been focusing on the continued development of an internally powered Rotary device. Basically you place Hermetically sealed thrusters at the ends of a board/plank and power them using 12v battery power.

It sounds simple, but it's not. I'm at version three or V3 as we call it and today I'm building a new thruster module for the V3 device that will address some nagging issues.

The next version of this device will be tested from Atmosphere to Low vacuum and then from Atmosphere to High Vacuum.

The goal of this research is to transition the work from laboratory into field testing. My supporters feel that the device working in the real world is the ultimate proof.

We are getting closer to that field test, everyday.



Hector

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

Post by GIThruster »

Good to see you posting again Hector. It's been some time but we traded notes some years ago. You might remember me from NSF or my by real name, Ron Stahl as part of the Woodward group.

I'm curious what were the details of your latest stint at NASA. I think you said you were going to get time in the vacuum chamber at Marshall, and now you're saying NASA passed this off as spurious. Can you explain just what NASA's position is? For instance, are you getting seeming thrust until the vacuum empties and then it's gone?

Just as an aside, I still don't think your theory makes good sense. I think negative mass with negative inertia acts differently than you seem to, and that there's still no reason to posit virtual particles as acting "real" in any significant sense. I don't think you can do more than appeal to the current fad with that explanation. I think too that Sonny White and Paul March have already shown that this sort of QVF explanation has been falsified several times now. I do think though, that if indeed you're generating thrust, it may be because you have an M-E thruster. IIRC, the ripple in your DC is high enough that a thruster would take it as an AC signal with a large parametric amplification. Have you compared results while varying the ripple? Is it possible NASA got negative results because they used an amp with lower ripple?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

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

NASA and others

Post by Hec031 »

Hi Ron,

First I want everyone to know that no government institution supports my research or has endorsed it. They are all on the fence at the moment.

Okay lets talk about NASA. The guys at Marshall as well as other NASA centers at the moment have a wait and see attitude towards my research. I can understand that since as Sonny and others have pointed out the reason for their skepticism stems from the fact that no theoretical path to date predicts that this kind of force effect should exist from a High Voltage phenomenon.

However the positive results keep coming and I know Sonny has at least thought about one possible theoretical path that could offer an explanation should this effect prove itself to be "Real". You might want to ask him about it. I rather not speak for the man.

I met Sonny briefly when he was in Orlando last year at the 100 year star ship conference. As I said on the opening sentence neither he nor NASA endorse, support or even believe in my research. Not yet.

It's not so much that prior experiments like NASA's did not see the SFE effect, the issue is that they failed to recognize it for what it was. For a non optimized system like those designed around Ion wind propulsion effects the SFE effect is usually very small and usually has competing vectors which reduce it's visibility even further.

SFE stands for the Serrano Force Effect. I did not name it, the term was coined by Dr. John Brandenburg.

A lot of people know about SFE we just don't talk about it publicly, because a lot of people would get the wrong idea as to their involvement.

As for Ripple, I doubt that, this is a contributing factor since we see the same amount of thrust and power consumption using a lot of different power supplies. I used two different Spellman HV power supplies for the vacuum testing and now I'm using both a commercial and an in house constructed compact HV power supply, all with the same results.


Sincerely,

Hector

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

Post by GIThruster »

Hector:

"Okay lets talk about NASA. The guys at Marshall as well as other NASA centers at the moment have a wait and see attitude towards my research. I can understand that since as Sonny and others have pointed out the reason for their skepticism stems from the fact that no theoretical path to date predicts that this kind of force effect should exist from a High Voltage phenomenon. "

That's not true. You're proposing something in complete accord with Sonny White's QVF model and you know it. It's because your nonsense is in accord with Sonny's crazy QVF model that you had a second go through NASA.

Sorry we can't expect you to be honest about this nonsense, Hector. I don't think we have much left to discuss, except I'd really like to know. . .

Years ago, supposed "scientists" at NASA, and they were not really that, they were engineers and technicians; these listened to all you had to say while stroking you with the possibility of funding, then turned around and filed for patent on your invention, despite neither they, nor you, have any idea whatsoever why your invention ought to produce thrust. NASA ass-raped you. They recently did the exact same thing to Widom and Larsen, and if WLT ever proves out (extremely unlikely) there's going to be a years long struggle between USG and the rightful owners of that technology, because NASA is corrupt, fraudulent and incompetent. They raped you, and they raped Widom and Larsen. They would have raped Jim Woodward if they'd had the chance, but they don't have anyone smart enough to pretend they understand Jim's physics.

What I want to know is, after having been so taken advantage all those years ago, why did you go back for another ass raping? Did you bring gel this time?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

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

Post by Hec031 »

Unfortunately when your work falls into the aerospace category, dealing with some faction at NASA is almost unavoidable. My direct dealings with them is limited. Hopefully history won't repeat itself and we will be able to work together when the time comes.

In fact our focus is in the private sector which has shown far more interest in SFE than any government agency. If it was not for their involvement I doubt any NASA personnel would be interested in our work.

The reason why history has not repeated itself with us and NASA is because at the moment non of them think this is real. Once the concept proves itself viable in vacuum and field tests, I'm sure that will all change.

Like I said private sector has a far larger commitment to my research than any government agency and I hope to keep it that way.


Sincerely,

Hector

Post Reply