[extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 06:05 AM 3/11/2005 -0800, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > > What's the NASA patent about? It must be very frustrating that
> they
> > > patented it if you were the one who thought of it.
> >
> >I have shown in the past how all devices described essentially work
> to
> >relativistically cheat Mach's Principle. Despite this, I have gotten
> >nothing but scorn from this list, such that eight years later, NASA
> is
> >finally starting to do what I could have been developing as a
> private
> >space enterprise back then. But I let the voices here, who all
> >professed to be much more educated and wise than I, tell me I was a
> >fool.
> 
> As I recall you were circulating a document under strict provisions
> of confidence that described this proposal. If you had it documented
> prior to NASA's patent, maybe that allows you to claim priority and
> a slice of the action? [not a patent lawyer]

Nope. However, if NASA tries to keep others from using the technology,
they have a very serious prior art problem wrt the patented work of
Townsend Brown.

> > 
> As far as I can see, this nice little machine makes things go around
> and 
> around, not leap into the air and up into the sky. Conservation of
> this & that, you know. [not a physicist]

Nope. The video was to illustrate that it (each cone-shaped device)
produced thrust. Conservation would have occured if the devices had
produced a counter-rotational current of air, and would have indicated
an ion-wind effect, rather than a Lorentz force field effect.

> 
> However. the Purdue university paper at 
> http://www.geocities.com/ekpworld/doc/EKP_satellite_maneuvering.doc
> seems 
> to be saying that it *will* generate a thrust as well as a rotation:
> 
> <the amount of thrust generated by this effect depends on the amount
> of  voltage applied across the capacitor, the surface area of the
> electrodes, distance between electrodes, material between
> electrodes, and the geometry of the electrodes. All of these
> factors, except the applied voltage, create a non-linear electric
> field gradient, which is believed to be an underlying principle that
> describes this effect. It is also believed that what is being
> observed might be a coupling between electricity and gravity,
> similar to that between electricity and magnetism. >
> 
> However however, frustratingly,
> 
> <it was deemed unnecessary to try to take readings within a vacuum
> since the observed and experimental currents are off by orders of
> magnitude and not enough to produce any meaningful effect during
> Electrokinetic Propulsion experiments. >

I don't know why you'd be frustrated. They found no need to do vacuum
experiments because it was so very clear that the amount of ion wind
produced was totally insufficient (by orders of magnitude) to account
for the thrust observed.

The 'rotation' was simply two thrusters set up to produce angular
motion. JL Naudin has done a very impressive number of experiments he
has documented on video on his site with a large variety of device designs.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Make Yahoo! your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs