Show me a lifter that can lift its own power supply.
The JLN site says they can lift their own weight plus a payload, which is not true- "their own weight" includes the stationary
part sitting on the table, which probably weighs hundreds of times what the delicate foil-and-balsa flying part weighs.
I don't think a self-contained version is even in the realm of plausibility. So I honestly can't see why people care about these things.
They are a terribly inefficient use of energy compared to, say, an electric helicopter.
They also are not "antigravity" of any sort, so they aren't even that interesting from a pure science POV.
They are kind of cool toys if you are bored and have access to a high voltage power supply. But that's the extent of it.
Maxwell you devil....... ;D
QuoteShow me a lifter that can lift its own power supply.
uhh OK. Do I get a prize? hee hee. lol
http://jnaudin.free.fr/
There you go, a lifter lifting itself and it's power supply.
which i believe uses high powered batteries. Has pics and videos.
But yeah,
lifters are useless, and would obviously just be made for fun.
Unless you had a ka-trillion ka-zillion volts maybe you could even fly on it without electrocuting yourself to bad. lol
and yeah, lifters are Not anti-gravity... as I have seen on a tv show. which had borrowed an expensive gravity measuring machine, which didn't messure nothing at all when the lifter was right on it.
and lifters lift by Air Thrust, not anti-gravity.. as also on that tv show, they placed a lifter inside an air tight container, and without Air, it failed the lift-off. etc: it did not move at all..nothing..
So anti-gravity = No. The End.
Lifters don't work in a vacuum, so they are not anti-gravity, they clearly need the "air" to work which makes them similar to ion engines.
D.
Do you have a link to some evidence that they won't work in a vacuum?
:)
What value is the particular line of reasoning that completely eliminates the value of something because it does not demonstrate to be useful or practical at this time?
Have you considered that the Lifters being a confirmed proof of concept, could possibly be useful to something later on in time. Have you considered the possibility that it might develop into something practical in some variation, or combination of other discoveries that may end up being also just proof of concepts on their own which did not get linked up to this, because the experimenter said it was impractical to use, and used their reason to dump it in the bin, and thus that particular reason killed what may have otherwise had a chance to become a practical use in form?
Of course there may be things that may not ever work, but if everyone were to give a reason for not doing, we would not have had any progress, inventions, or much change at all.
I do not know if it is true or how accurate is the reference by many people to Thomas Edison having tested 10,000 materials and knew of 10,000 materials that were not a good a good material material to make a light bulb light up.
He could have given himself a reason to not continue. " its a waste of time, this 9,999th material does not light up, and i can not use it or any other material. These experiments are useless.".
Thankfully though, he had an attitude with each experiment was one part of the end result. I do not think the accuracy or truth of that reference is that important, because it illustrates some value in that we have reasoned to be worthless or no point in the immediate time. If he focused on this material and that material as being worthless, or there is no point, would you even be reading what you are reading right now?
Maybe Maxwellsdemon is wrong?
Maybe asymetrical capacitors (lifters) do work in a vacuum?:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/index.htm
QuoteThe force applied on an asymmetrical capacitor is composed of two parts :
- An eletrokinetics part produced by the ions kinetic momentum transfert and the attraction of the main armature by the ionic cloud generated by the wire. This effect occurs only at atmospherical pressure.
- An electrogravitics part, this is the most interesting part, which can be observed only in High Vacuum conditions. This phenomenon, called the Biefeld-Brown effect, shows that it is possible to move an asymmetrical capacitor when it is energized with High Voltage. Although this force is weaker than the electrokinetics thrust in atmospherical pressure and although this thrust is not able to lift a standard Lifter placed in the earth gravity field, this experiment confirms a major phenomenon in the field of advanced propulsion because we have here a direct conversion of electricity into thrust...
It's interesting to think that in space, the dielectric (close to vacuum) will have negligible leakage thus to mantain the plate potential would require negligible current.
I saw the same show (MythBusters).
Their foil lifter took off on the bench rather quickly when power was applied (think it was only 30,000 volts rather than the 45,000 volts in the NASA video of the one that works), failed to do so when put under a vacuum.
even if he take the power supply to the lifter
HE NEED an CONTERPOINT for the Powersupply to the EARTH.
on wire to earth is need to allow an static field between the both items
Pese
Quote from: Elvis Oswald on April 03, 2007, 03:05:26 PM
Do you have a link to some evidence that they won't work in a vacuum?
:)
Yes. NASA tested the technology in high vacuum:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/index.htm
Paul.
Quote from: pese on August 18, 2008, 05:56:27 AM
even if he take the power supply to the lifter
HE NEED an CONTERPOINT for the Powersupply to the EARTH.
on wire to earth is need to allow an static field between the both items
No connection to Earth is needed. All that's needed is a potential difference/voltage between the foil and the wire.
-Steve
http://rimstar.org
i dont belive this, because this 2 potentionals are not moving the device.
it must connected at 2 different devices , so that can push or attrac ...
Pese
I see not one that have work with the static field that was working with
+ and - potentential at the saucer
Quote from: pese on August 19, 2008, 03:38:57 AM
i dont belive this, because this 2 potentionals are not moving the device.
it must connected at 2 different devices , so that can push or attrac ...
I see not one that have work with the static field that was working with
+ and - potentential at the saucer
Are we talking about the same thing? The one on the following webpage has two connections, + and -. I know because I made it. The polarity can be connected either way and it still flys.
http://rimstar.org/sdprop/lifter/lifter1b/lifter1b.htm
-Steve
http://rimstar.org
If you use pinking shears to serrate the bottom edge of the foil it will fly even better. (But it will draw a bit more current too--big surprise.)
At least mine did.
Like this:
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
And mine did seem to fly better on one polarity, but I can't remember whether it was wire-positive and foil-negative, or the other way around.
And I don't believe that a Biefeld-Brown effect has been reliably demonstrated in vacuum. I know of experiments that went as high as 160 kV that should have detected a B_B effect had it been there. They didn't, so the conclusion is that the supposed B-B effect is actually due to ion wind.
Quote from: Steven Dufresne on August 19, 2008, 09:27:15 AM
Are we talking about the same thing? The one on the following webpage has two connections, + and -. I know because I made it. The polarity can be connected either way and it still flys.
http://rimstar.org/sdprop/lifter/lifter1b/lifter1b.htm
-Steve
http://rimstar.org
Jes the same thing
only ONE wire is connected to lifter
the "conter-point" ist the surround ground (earth)
Pese
I think asymetrical capacitors (lifters) may work just as welll in space as on the earth.
Naudins tests in NASA vacuum chamber (1.72 x 10^-6 Torr) showed thrust was generated, albeit much less thrust for a given potential accros the capacitor:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/index.htm
QuoteConclusions : This experiment is very interesting and shows definitely that a force is produced on asymmetrical capacitors when a High Voltage of +45KV is applied between their armatures in a High Vacuum ( 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ).
One must remember that it's impossible to get an absolute vacuum anywhere in practice, even in deep space there is still atmosphere, just VERY rarified. A perfect vaccum is a theoretical asymptote, something that can never be achieved.
So to operate a lifter in deep space you need to raise the potential accross plates to much higher levels, but because the dialectric does not leak as much the power consumed will stay similar to a lower voltage lifter in a thicker atmosphere. Of course if you drop down into an atmosphere then you would have to reduce the potential to avoid arcover.
Note: the title of this thread "Lifters are worthless" puzzles me? Even if they didn't work in space would that make them worthless? A 747 doesn't work in space, is it worthless? Much can be learned by constructing a lifter, it is a great fun and fascinating entry point for enquiring minds into HV experimentation. So I postulate:
LIFTERS ARE INTERESTING! ;D
Lifters may be worthless.
But they make great science projects for students.
But lets also think Coral Castle and what happened there?
Quote from: pese on August 20, 2008, 03:41:02 AM
Jes the same thing
only ONE wire is connected to lifter
the "conter-point" ist the surround ground (earth)
Pese
No, Pese. TWO wires are connected to lifter. I've done it that way and so has everyone else who has built one. Here's a drawing of a lifter:
http://rimstar.org/sdprop/lifter/lifter/lifter_advice.jpg
One wire + or -, is connected to the grey wire that's at the top of the brown posts. The other wire, - or +, is connected to the grey foil (the rectangular parts near the bottom of the post.) As TinselKoala said, one polarity arrangement works better than the other. That's likely due to difference in ionic mobility of positive versous negative ions in air as Jean-Louis Naudin points out here:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/pcnpend/html/pcespend.htm
-Steve
http://rimstar.org
What few people have considered is that earth has a potential gradient of 100 volts per meter, that is the potential rises at a rate of 100v/meter as you move upward through the atmosphere, it is also known that these potential gradients exist between planetary bodies. Therefore a capacitor with oppositely charged plates of a given potential and rate of change may want to balance itself within these potential gradients and could be considered in the same light as a "boyancy" effect. In this case the pressure imbalance between two points leading to motion would be an electrical pressure, what has not been mentioned is another aspect called "coulomb" forces---
"themagnitude of the electrostatic force between two point electric charges is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of each charge and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the charges."
but in this case the the force is not produced between the capacitor plates themselves---- but between the capacitor plates and the potential gradient the capacitor plates are immersed in---the potential gradient. The capacitor must rise for the same reason a balloon under water must rise---a pressure differential---boyancy.
Quote from: allcanadian on August 20, 2008, 10:20:45 AM
What few people have considered is that earth has a potential gradient of 100 volts per meter, that is the potential rises at a rate of 100v/meter as you move upward through the atmosphere, it is also known that these potential gradients exist between planetary bodies. Therefore a capacitor with oppositely charged plates of a given potential and rate of change may want to balance itself within these potential gradients and could be considered in the same light as a "boyancy" effect. In this case the pressure imbalance between two points leading to motion would be an electrical pressure, what has not been mentioned is another aspect called "coulomb" forces---
"themagnitude of the electrostatic force between two point electric charges is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of each charge and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the charges."
but in this case the the force is not produced between the capacitor plates themselves---- but between the capacitor plates and the potential gradient the capacitor plates are immersed in---the potential gradient. The capacitor must rise for the same reason a balloon under water must rise---a pressure differential---boyancy.
A good way of looking at the subject as a whole, and I agree an asymetric capacitor WILL rise/move between planets and also between systems and even galaxies.
@allcanadian,
Good ideas here but keep in mind that lifters also work when mounted to move sideways on a rotor:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/wfrtlift.htm
It would also be a rough ride, especially near the ground where the gradient is very irregular and differs depending on the humidity. Maybe that's why some UFO videos show them bobbing around so much.
@pese,
While looking for the above rotor page I was also reminded of Saviour's completely ungrounded lifter test:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/savrclft.htm
-Steve
http://rimstar.org
you may be onto something there with the buoyancy thing.
I used to experiment with Lifters years ago quite a bit (still pull it out for the occasional dinner party conversation starter :D ).
I tried some experiments I saw on JLN's site, and they where very impressive (even if forces were small). They consisted of running the HV+ to a foil-covered shape (styrofoam) on a beam balance. Note: NO return or ground wire was used, and loss was minimal as the shapes were very rounded with no sharp/lossy edges... so we can say that no current was registered.
I tried a perfect sphere, applied ~28KV, and no matter the orientation, the balance did not move. I tried an EGG shape however, and the egg would "lose weight". Actually, it would want to move in the direction of the "top" of the egg. The effect is small, so the balance was necessary to see any effect.
If the egg was turned over, then the balance would move down. Upright egg, balance moves up. lay it on it's side, and nothing happens (although if I had something rotational, then it would have moved to the side!). I tried different attachment points for the HV lead to account for any leakage that could produce an Ion wind effect. Results were always the same.
It seemed to me that with ZERO ion wind, and possibly no current, just HV static charge, it behaved like a bubble. A perfect sphere of charge was balanced, while an egged shape was like "pulling" the "bubble" and it would move in the direction of the "pinch". The best that I can explain it at the moment.
Either way, it's something that I've always wanted to re-visit someday with better equipment, as it seems the "shape" of a HV charged surface has some interesting characteristics worth looking into. My thoughts led to the idea that perhaps there is a natural shape to the lifter cross section that is created that leads to a similar effect, but is held in tension through the dielectric (air).
thought: is it no wonder that a lifter doesn't work well in a vacuum when you've pumped out the dielectric!?
here is a link to the experiments I replicated. They worked perfectly :)
http://jnaudin.free.fr/lfpt/html/espv1.htm
Quoteyou may be onto something there with the buoyancy thing.
I agree! In this relation I can only recommend the teachings of Walter Russell.
About you tests: It is really a pity, that you didn't put your egg in a airtight container, so that one could be absolutely sure, that no corona discharge (ion wind) is the cause for the imbalance.
Quotethought: is it no wonder that a lifter doesn't work well in a vacuum when you've pumped out the dielectric!?
??? Well vacuum is also a dieletric, actually all the dielectric constants are indicated relative to the dielectric value of the vacuum.
But sure I think, the lift one does see in all the lifters is surely almost only due to ion wind. As the expected lift due to the natural potential differences would be very small.
Quote from: Shanti on August 20, 2008, 01:39:36 PMAbout you tests: It is really a pity, that you didn't put your egg in a airtight container, so that one could be absolutely sure, that no corona discharge (ion wind) is the cause for the imbalance.
Not a difficult thing to test. Just bought my first house, so I do plan on furthering the explorations now with a dedicated project room. The reason I attached the wire to different spots was to try to detect exactly that. Also, since leakage/discharge occurs at "points", then is it safe to assume that the egg should have moved AWAY from the "point" of the egg instead? I think so... but it didn't! I used an egg and not the same setup like JLN because I didn't like the bottom edges of his "egg on cylinder". Thought they were too sharp ;D
Quote from: Yucca on August 20, 2008, 08:17:19 AM
I think asymetrical capacitors (lifters) may work just as welll in space as on the earth.
May work well? ;)
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=uLtb8ph2WQQ
@eserf,
There's also the possibility of the effect being due to dielectrophoresis, a smaller force than the ion wind types so it's usually hidden. But once you reduce or get rid of the ionization, then it takes effect, sometimes in the opposite direction. Dielectrophoresis uses a nonuniform electric field to more even neutral molecules. Your egg-shape would have had a nonuniform field whereas your sphere wouldn't have.
http://oriharu.net/ufophysics/nonunielecfields.htm
-Steve
http://rimstar.org
Steven,
hmmm... now just to intensify the effect in the macro level to further amounts. One of my "next steps" I planned on doing was to first find the "best" shape... perhaps a bell, then build it as a layered capacitor so I could store VAST amount of charge... then unplug the thing and see if we could have nominal "weight loss" (quotes, since it's a directional manifestation) that would hold as long as the charge doesn't bleed off.
If nothing else, make a great physics toy where you could have a block, you flip a switch, and it "weighs" more or less depending on how it's oriented on a scale. :)
boy, THAT would flip the guys out at the local Universities! ;D
Quote from: eserf on August 20, 2008, 02:27:08 PM
If nothing else, make a great physics toy where you could have a block, you flip a switch, and it "weighs" more or less depending on how it's oriented on a scale. :)
1. But... but... that'd be perpetual motion. Though I don't see why it wouldn't work. It can't work! I don't see why not. Go to 1. :-)
The field does curve back on itself in the back but that can be taken care of by having a nonconductive cone on the back that prevents the fluid/air following the field back. New oncoming fluid/air would give an additional push. Dunno. Musn't be dielectrophoresis then. Let us know how it works out.
-Steve
http://rimstar.org
I think it is more important to consider the properties inherent in the space surrounding your lifter in order to understand what qualities the lifter must possess ;). The earth has a potential gradient the same as the space between a pair of charged capacitor plates :o, it also has a magnetic field transverse to this potential gradient. In this sense we can say the earth has polarized fields present in the space surrounding it, one transverse to the other. As well the potential field gradient is in compression, that is radiations(light,infrared, microwave etc....) from outerspace have there frequency of oscillation (wave period) compressed in a changing electric field. Another aspect is the lifter potential field as it relates to the surrounding space, a large high potential field could be considered like a bubble in water whereby the bottom of the bubble is in a higher pressure zone than the top of the bubble--- the larger the bubble the greater the difference in pressure between the water at the top and the water at the bottom of the bubble. So it is easy to see that a large polarized field such as a lifters electric field would displace a larger portion of a potential gradient(potential difference from top to bottom of displaced field)than a small field, in this case we are speaking of the magnitude of the field thus the highest potential attainable should be utilized. We could consider the lifter as a capacitor within the capacitive field present around our planet.
Quote from: Steven Dufresne on August 20, 2008, 09:33:10 AM
No, Pese. TWO wires are connected to lifter. I've done it that way and so has everyone else who has built one. Here's a drawing of a lifter:
http://rimstar.org/sdprop/lifter/lifter/lifter_advice.jpg
One wire + or -, is connected to the grey wire that's at the top of the brown posts. The other wire, - or +, is connected to the grey foil (the rectangular parts near the bottom of the post.) As TinselKoala said, one polarity arrangement works better than the other. That's likely due to difference in ionic mobility of positive versous negative ions in air as Jean-Louis Naudin points out here:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/pcnpend/html/pcespend.htm
-Steve
http://rimstar.org
OK,
if so. than its possible to lift the device himself.
(also to isolating the 2 wires against Kilovolts
will make problems. So generate the Voltages on
the lifter.
If not so mutch Amperages (= Power) need, think
to use "electrostatic or piezo" Generators -
GP
@eserf:
I think Steve is right. I personally would just call it electrostatic induction. We all know this effect. If you have strong electric fields, you get charge separation in neutral atoms nearby, so that they get attracted. And due to the geometry of the egg, it is obvious, that the "top" of the egg will certainly have a higher potential than the bottom, and therefore would attract more air molecules and so would be sucked in this direction. This is why it moves in the opposite direction than due to ion wind.
I personally think strong, that this is the reason for the imbalance. So I really would recommend as the first test, when you again have the time to encapsulate it airtight. Only then you will know...
But i think you could also make a nice little FE-device with this effect. As it should produce a little wind. To make it purely passively, just take some electrets. I made a similar device, which just works the other way round, as FE demonstration object. But as my experiments have shown, the energy you can get of of these is so small, it really only serves for demonstration purposes and is not of any practical value.
QuoteIf not so mutch Amperages (= Power) need, think
to use "electrostatic or piezo" Generators -
The problem is, amperage is needed! You need to ionize the air molecules, and for this you need current...
The principle which would be based on using the pure potential difference of the earth should not have this problem, but the force to expect is probably extremely weak.
Quote from: Steven Dufresne on August 20, 2008, 02:59:39 PM
1. But... but... that'd be perpetual motion. Though I don't see why it wouldn't work. It can't work! I don't see why not. Go to 1. :-)
The field does curve back on itself in the back but that can be taken care of by having a nonconductive cone on the back that prevents the fluid/air following the field back. New oncoming fluid/air would give an additional push.
Ah... after thinking how to build it I realized what the problem would be. It's the same thing that kills the electret-as-FE device. The positively charged end will attract negatively charged ions and free electrons from the surrounding air. They will turn the surface of the positive end to negative. This negative coaring will then attract positive ions and will become neutralized. Similarly for the negatively charged end. In a short time the whole thing will be neutralized. That's why energy needs to be expended in the form of a power supply/charge pump to maintain the respective polarities. Note that it also doesn't matter if the whole thing is well insulated.
Reality is sometimes malicious.
-Steve
http://rimstar.org
???
I doesn't really get your point, what you tried to explain here. Why should an electret get neutralized?
You can place an electret in the air, and it will keep it's properties for a very long time...
Surely you mustn't put some metal on the surface if you take an electret!
I go with you together, that if you take air as a static fluid, this principle will not work. But I'm quite confident that it will work, due to the same reason, why also my little corona discharge device works.
The problem if you take the air as static, as soon as an air molecule becomes attracted to the most highest potential point on the egg (due to geometry the top has the highest potential), it will remain there and remain sticked there, so that other air molecules wouldn't have a chance anymore.
But here comes the FE principle, which also makes my device work: Temperature Movement!
The 2nd law of thermodynamics tells you, that if in a room all the air has the same temperature, it will never happen, that suddenly one corner gets hotter and the other colder, for then you could do work! But what do we know from molecular movement? Namely, that exactly this happens on a molecular level. If you would have a lot of molecules all at the same speed flying through the room, they will constantly bang and bash into oneanother, so the speed of the individual molecules will quite soon start to differ. Temperature indicates only the mean kinetic energy of the molecules. Single molecules can and will have a much higher energy.
And this is where FE sets in. If you let these high energy molecules do work for you, you can get energy out of it!
BTW: This is also exactly the same principle, how the WaterWheel (advertised on this site) works. The single water molecules will bang and bash into oneanother until suddenly one molecule at the surface gets enough kinetic energy to fly away (evaporate).
This will surely cool the medium, but as the environmental air will immediately balance this temperature drop, this is not really a problem.
BTW: You could also construct this WaterWheel so, that you don't had to refill it every now and then, if you would condense back the evaporated water, but surely then, efficiency would be lower, as the mean humidity would be higher and therefore the evaporation quotient smaller.
Back to the egg. Now the sticked air molecule at the highest potential point, would surely be hit after some time by an air molecule which is fast enough to do the work of transporting the molecule away from the highest potential point. To take away an air molecule out of the field, would surely need work, and this work is done by the kinetic energy of the air molecules. So the air will cool due to this.
But as I said before. You can't get much energy out of this. Namely also, because air doesn't have so much energy in it's kinetic movement.
Quote from: Shanti on August 24, 2008, 02:28:50 AM
I doesn't really get your point, what you tried to explain here. Why should an electret get neutralized?
You can place an electret in the air, and it will keep it's properties for a very long time...
Surely you mustn't put some metal on the surface if you take an electret!
Yes, it will keep it's properties internally. But externally, one side of the electret is positive
and the other side is negative. Each side will attract oppositely charged molecules from
the air to the surface of the electret. As the first batch of negatively charged molecules
arrive at the positively charged side, the next batch will see a mix of positive and negative
and eventually, to the local air molecules, the electret's surfaces will look neutral. This
means you have no more external asymmetric electric field to make your egg work as
it's supposed to. Note that the surface material of the egg is irrelevant.
Quote from: Shanti on August 24, 2008, 02:28:50 AM
I go with you together, that if you take air as a static fluid, this principle will not work. But I'm quite confident that it will work, due to the same reason, why also my little corona discharge device works.
The problem if you take the air as static, as soon as an air molecule becomes attracted to the most highest potential point on the egg (due to geometry the top has the highest potential), it will remain there and remain sticked there, so that other air molecules wouldn't have a chance anymore.
It's not so much that they won't have a chance. It's that there will be no more net-positive
or net-negative electric field to attract them. But that's just the source of the problem. If we're
still talking about dielectrophoresus, it's the neutral air molecules that we want to
propel. But they need an asymmetric electric field. As described above, the positively
and negatively charged molecules will shortly destroy the asymmetric electric field
so we'll have nothing left to propel the neutral air molecules.
-Steve
http://rimstar.org
Be careful in saying lifters are worthless.The rocket was a toy for 2000 years before a madman called Hitler showed the world it's value.Hopefully the lifter will advance to a point where it can draw zeropoint energy.I had a friend who made one(a lifter). I didnot get to see it fly at the time of my visit.But I got to see the thrust it could generate.Later he got one to fly and took pictures and he sent me one(a picture).
Later he was depressed because he said it could not carry its own power supply.But I told him there
are lightweight hv power supplies and I found one in a pocket air ionizer from "sharper image" and sent the whole thing to him to show him there's hope.He gave it back to me on my next visit.But it shot out air too just like a lifter .The whole thing with batteries weighed about a pound.So there is hope!Triffid
No the personal ionizer did not fly but it might have pushed a toy boat across a small pond.Triffid
Lifter builders might be interested in looking at the DC-DC converters from EMCO High Voltage. I have an E101 that puts out 8-10 kV at 0.2 mA, from a 9v battery input. (actually the output is linear from 0-10kV based on input from 0.7-15 VDC). It weighs about 3 ounces.
http://www.emcohighvoltage.com/
You might even be able to use solar cells with something that small(3oz.).triffid
Don't forget that pocket tasers are now pushing 75,000 to a hundred thuosand volts from a 9 volt battery?Triffid
OkOk,100,000 volts!Sorry I mispelled thousand in the post above.Triffid
Quote from: CTG Labs on March 20, 2007, 05:09:46 AM
Lifters don't work in a vacuum, so they are not anti-gravity, they clearly need the "air" to work which makes them similar to ion engines.
Has anyone considered that lifters may work in a vacuum but actually need air in the gap between the wire and foil?
Has a test with this setup been tried at all?
I think a valid lifter design could include a propellar as long as it could lift it's own power supply too.My friend thought including a propellar would be "cheating",But I think not since it could be all electric.And not have to carry any liquid fuel.Triffid
As far as I can see, the thrust of assymetrical capacitors is clearly not solely due to ion wind or pressure differentials caused by their shape. Naudins poynting flow thruster eliminates both these explanations, and provides 2770 RPM at 99 microamps.
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/pftm2.htm
I made the same thing using 2 cans of kronenburg, the plastic container from a kinder surprise with a piece of foil glued inside. Even at 10 KV, the motor spins vigourously, and there sure aint any wind pushing it round! It has really been bothering me for months now WHAT force could be responsible for this, and as far as I can see, Naudins explanation seems the most promising.
Does anyone have any other explanations for the force thats driving this motor????
id be very very interested to hear what others thought about this, especially those who have built the motor themselves.
So...
i dont reckon lifters are worthless, and i also think they'd work in space ;)
Yes, I’ve tried. It’s really amazing effect (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JXBpf7Yi7g); but as to make a flying device it seem not very effective (less effective than lifter), or we need a different, unusual setup.
Its nice to hear others have tried. And so what do you think is the explanation of the force in Naudins E-motor? Do you agree its some sort of Poynting energy flow?
Did you also try a design where all 3 electrodes are free to rotate, and not just the centre? I tried it, and the others did start moving, but it was hard to tell whether this was just cos they brushed against the centre electrode.
Thanks!
Hard to say for sure, but some other tests showing like it’s reactionless motion. However in this particular case stator can rotate too; it means it still reactive interaction.
And besides, there’s no contacts, no brushes, just electrostatic induction.
Hope we’ll find the way to make it fly :)…
Thanks
Making it fly would be great :))))
But I'd love just to understand it first, so that the force could be used more efficiently perhaps. Has anyone tried any other variations of the motor and come to different conclusions as to the nature of this force?? Has anyone tested its strength using a different dielectric than air? Has anyone tried permanent magnets to increase the magnetic field near the dielectric (something I did try in a half-assed way, but to seemingly no effect)....
Also, why was the force reduced when Naudin altered the shape of his capacitor plates
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/pftm2ind.htm
Doesnt seem to be an EM induction effect. So...whats the received wisdom on overunity.com? Always a pleasure to hear other theories :D
I think JLN's conclusion is wrong, or at least not supported by his data from the modified motor. The high current and the shape of the plates, with their sharp edges, indicate that much power is being lost to leakage and not being delivered to the rotor, for whatever thrust mechanism to use.
I don't think that electrostatic induction ( a somewhat different phenomenon than EM induction, flathunter ) has yet been ruled out. Poynting vector thrust has been postulated to occur in other situations also, but may not have been confirmed.
If it is possible, then reactionless drives, and hence free energy machines, may indeed be possible too.
Oddly,
I have seen them talk about IONIC space travel... Learn me why NASA is developing this very technology for ionic space flight?
So if this is IONIC it should in theory work in space as well as I have seen claims that the space flight would work!
Secondly it is not stupid to develop this tech. How foolish to even say such a thing.
It is technology like this that may be used once the golden goose of energy generation is figured out OU is possible everyone knows it!
And yes someone will make good on this claim.
Let us not think with our primitive minds.
-infringer-
Sorry about the EM/electrostatic muddle...my bad :)
but if this were electrostatic induction, we would expect it to work better with the capacitor plates curved round the shape of the rotor, as J L Naudin tested in the above link. Instead, he got much less power. I got the same result when i tried curving my plates inward (using bog roll and foil). Surely this makes it unlikely that charge redistribution is the culprit behind this strange force.
This kind of induction work better with sharp (pointed) ends, not curved; or at least with a flat parallel surfaces.
As for magnets, yes it may make sense, but it’s too heavy to notice any difference in set-up.
To get a Poyting vector we need electrostatic and magnetic fields crossed, so instead of magnet it may be used a coil (solenoid).
But the thrust here is still too low to make it fly, much less then lifter’s; only one hope - it might be reactionless…
Needa more tests…
Cheers
Yes, ionic electric drives are indeed being developed for spacecraft propulsion in vacuum, and have the potential (pun intended!) to work very well indeed. They all incorporate a source of ions, though, like water or xenon, that is ionized and accelerated by the E field and ejected at very high velocity as reaction mass. These drives have high "specific impulse" even though the relative thrust magnitude is low.
The Poynting vector flow drive, if such exists, and the alleged Biefeld-Brown effect, supposedly function without the need for the ejection of reaction mass (ions, ion wind) and so are called "reactionless", and would seem to violate conservation of momentum, at least.
Here are three videos that may be downloaded, of some of my relevant devices. A small electrostatic generator, capable of reaching about 65 kV, is shown powering a few devices. The generator, a Moore's Dirod that I built in 2000, has carbon fiber neutral and transfer brushes, aluminum inductors and brass charge carriers, with an adjustable spark gap and about 400 pF of added capacitance (the 9 white "doorknobs" beneath the sparkgap). The bouncing balls are ping-pong balls coated with conductive paint, as are the balls in the modified Franklin induction motor. The corona motor is a disk of dielectric plastic, and has reached over 30,000 rpm.
http://www.mediafire.com/?kg1diqlmdim
http://www.mediafire.com/?yhjub1ulm4m
http://www.mediafire.com/?zswzj4cnqtg
Nice job, TinselKoala
I have similar simple electrostatic pendulum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3tpq06Gq9Q
Works good even on one single charge.
Yes, ion-thruster is a good idea, but required a propellant mass to be spend and HV power source, so it’s still limited (in range of solar system if solar powered, and spendable ion-emitting material).
Poynting setup seem working (at least ions flow eliminated), but needa more tests:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVeQfZqVcAs
nice jobs to both of you :)
Hope you continue writing on this thread, as im always interested in others who are playing round with the same stuff.
@light
What do you mean when you say you have eliminated ion flow? Do you mean youve done experiments to prove ion flow isnt the (sole) factor behind the force, or that you have built the thruster in this video to eliminate ion flow, or do you mean both? Have patience with me...I'm new here :)
Coming back to electrostatic induction, I can see why the typical soda bottle electrostatic motor, and Tinsels ping pong device, are simple redistributions and repulsions of like charges, but I cant see how that could possibly be the case with Naudins motor.
The problem I have is this:
the centre electrode is negative or positive, in relation to the other 2 electrodes (1 earthed, and one to the other polarity). So where exactly does the induction take place?? Perhaps the insulating plastic of the rotor would become negative, but then it would remain at rest being attracted to the outer capacitor plates (or tins of krony :) ). No? Why would one side go up, and the other down? I cant understand the mechanism.
Please explain to me your thoughts on this guys, and perhaps give me a well needed lesson!
I don't know if my analysis is correct, but here's a first pass:
The setup is as follows, from left to right: Left Stationary electrode, grounded. Rotating cylinder, floating. Right Stationary electrode, powered by HV source.
So the induction occurs like this: the RightHand electrode produces an E-field. This E-field acts on the charges in the metal of the rotating cylinder, which is insulated by the outer plastic. The charges in the metal separate under the influence of the stationary electrode's field. Say the RH electrode is negative. Then positive charge will be drawn to the region of the center cylinder that is in proximity to the RH electrode. Negative charge will be repelled and will wind up in the region of the center cylinder that is in proximity to the other (grounded, LH) electrode.
This is electrostatic induction.
Now, you have the rotor's center cylinder, inside its dielectric shield, having charges separated into regions of positive and negative charge, and opposite charges on the plastic above the metal. Since the apparatus cannot be perfectly symmetrical there will be an asymmetric force between the charged electrodes (the RH one negative and the LH one grounded, so relatively positive) and the regions of charge on the cylinder's dielectric shield. This asymmetry produces a ponderomotive force on the plastic shield which rotates it, along with its metal inner cylinder. Since the charges on the metal are free to move, they always stay under (or adjacent to) the inductors (the stationary electrodes). So the charged regions on the plastic will be moved out from under, as if they are being "squirted" out between the charges on the electrodes and the metal cylinder inside the rotor.
This is mostly all conjecture, based on my imperfect understanding of the devices I have built myself and researched. I think I am going to have to build a replica of JLN's motor and play with it a while before I am certain of its behaviour.
Thanks for the reply Tinsel!
But I still dont get it....
You see, in the ''soda bottle motor'', the rotor is neutral, and the stationary electrodes opposite signs. And as far as I can see, its almost what youve just described....just that you said one electrode was grounded, and the other positive or negative. But the centre not electrically connected.
But in Naudins motor the rotor is not only floating, but also highly charged with more than 20 kv (positive or negative). Left stationary electrode grounded, Right positive (perhaps). How could charge redistribute in the central rotor if its under such high voltage? And how could one side possibly become more positve in relation to the ground, or to +20Kv.
I hope you do build it. I recommend the kinder surprise and beer can set up. ever so easy and quick to do, and very very fast!!!! Ill get some photos up of minbe tomorrow ;D
I did some exhaustive testing for any reactionless effect of one of Jean-Louis's Poynting Flow Thrusters back in 2004:
http://rimstar.org/sdprop/poynting/cdpoc1/cdpoc1.htm
They showed that the resulting force was a reaction one. They also showed just how much you have to do to eliminate the reaction forces. They crop up in surprising places and the usual sticking the device in a bag is often not enough.
-Steve
http://rimstar.org
Quote from: Pseudoscience on October 16, 2008, 09:31:16 AM
Has anyone considered that lifters may work in a vacuum but actually need air in the gap between the wire and foil?
Has a test with this setup been tried at all?
Has anyone got any idea on this?
To me it seems you need something between the electrodes which a vacuum doesn't provide, what i mean to say is that a lifter may work in a vacuum but you need a self contained air filled space between the electrodes.
Thanks for the link steve. Very detailed and informative, but I still couldnt find any pictures of the motor. Did you try his motor?
I find it hard to believe that an ionic wind could push my motor to such high speeds. And I dont really understand how the mechanism of ionic wind could explain the rotation of the rotor. In a lifter I see exactly why ionic wind is caused, and how it provides thrust. But for Naudins E-motor, I do not. Can anyone offer an explanation?
Quote from: flathunter on October 29, 2008, 01:27:54 PM
Thanks for the link steve. Very detailed and informative, but I still couldnt find any pictures of the motor. Did you try his motor?
After Jean-Louis did his poynting flow motor, he then tried a poynting flow thruster:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/pft12poc.htm
which is what I tested and documented on the page I pointed out. Since this started out as a Lifter topic I figured it was a logical thing to point out.
-Steve
http://rimstar.org
Tuesday morning I bought an ionic air fresherner for $14.95.You plug it into the cigerrette lighter of your car or truck.It creates ozone off of a 12 volt battery to eliminate odors.I say this is a lifter because it creates an ionic breeze not downward but outward.Pushing ions out into the surrounding air.So this device was bought at Road Ranger in the state of mo.(a big truck stop).If the ionic breeze were redesigned to push downward instead of outward this thing would be a lifter.Small enough already to fit in your pocket ready to be plugged into your car or truck.True it cant lift a car but if a lifter can be made small enough to put in my pocket then a power source cant be far behind.triffid
I realized today sometime that one could tape this ionic odor eliminator in such a way that ionic thrust could be obtained in one direction.Consider that the ionic breeze from this device is constant and uniform as it is pushed into the surrounding air.If one were to tape off half of the device.Then one might obtain ionic thrust in one direction.triffid
If someone here would build a 65 lb lifter with 160lbs of thrust this man could fly it.In sept of 2008 he flew a jet wing he had built himself across the english channel(22 miles). http://www.jet-man.com/?page_id=24
YVES ROSSY is his name. triffid
His wing weighed 65lb when empty of fuel and developed 160 lbs of thrust total. triffid
Some results on lifters. http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/maximus2/index.htm triffid
If the lifter cells are stacked they can lift more.So a 65lb lifter weighs 65lbx454gm/lb equal 29510 grams.So 160lbs of thrust is 160x454 equals 72,640 grams.So if a 190g 4 stack lifter can lift a 60g payload.then maybe a 65 lb lifter 29510/190 equals 155.3 would have 4x 155.3 stacks equals 621.3 stacks.So a 65 lb lifter would lift 20.5 lbs payload.Maybe a power source?It would not lift a man but it could lift its own power source?
So a 65lb lifter made with 622 stacked lifter cells could lift 20.5 lbs of payload????triffid
so the power needed would be 300 watts times 155.3 equals 46,590 watts.triffid
If the stacked cells could be made much smaller like the electronics of the last 50 years and then power beamed to the craft in the form of microwaves or lasers then lifters might become a reality. People might have a
another way to travel in the air or space.triffid
http://www.rmcybernetics.com/projects/DIY_Devices/homemade_voltage_multiplier.htm triffid
If lifters could be made right like smaller.We might be on our way to flying cars.?? triffid
Im making some crystal rock batteries.That can fit into a straw.Making we can combine that power source with the worlds smallest voltage multiplier to make these lifers light enough to fly on their own?triffid
7.2 volts to 500,000 volts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HM4oiJNGJs&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HM4oiJNGJs&feature=related) triffid
1.7 million volt taser. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnR1tlAfoCM&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnR1tlAfoCM&feature=related) triffid
Thanks for replying microcontroller,I have a friend who built one and demonstated it to me.I know that our airplanes we take for granted were once no more than bits of wood and glue( as models).It distressed me that onone else but me had been in this thread for so long.I bought myself an 8 million volt stun gun.Its on its way to me now.triffid
Its rechargable you plug it into the wall to recharge.triffid
So a 65lb lifter made with 622 stacked lifter cells could lift 20.5 lbs of payload?Something I said earlier.My stun gun does not weigh 20.5 lbs. Food for thought here.triffid
my stun gun came today and it weighs maybe 4.5 ounces?A fully self contained power source for a lifter.With a few modifications and some kind of controller.It says not to test the stun gun longer than a second or it could burn it out.I would modify the circuits to run for hours.triffid
The future of space travel is in private industry. http://www.ted.com/talks/burt_rutan_sees_the_future_of_space.html (http://www.ted.com/talks/burt_rutan_sees_the_future_of_space.html) triffid
Anyone out there still building lifters?triffid