[extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust

[Dirk Bruere]

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>I guess most people here don't read as much crank physics as I do.
>>>>The so-called BB Effect has been a staple of amateur
>>>>        
>>>>
>>experimentation
>>    
>>
>>>>for  decades.
>>>>Also, last I heard was that a lifter *was* tested in vacuum and no
>>>>lift  detected.
>>>>
>>>>I don't hold out much hope for this being any kind of
>>>>        
>>>>
>>'breakthrough'.
>>    
>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>"Last I heard"? Is that some sort of statement of scientific
>>>      
>>>
>>accuracy?
>>    
>>
>>>I just posted replicatable papers showing the opposite.
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>I've spend quite a bit of time over the years tracking down these 
>>claims, even talking to Naudin before he hit the headlines.
>>I do not intend to run over the same old ground yet again for a new 
>>bunch of fans.
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld-Brown_effect
>>Like I said, this is all far from new.
>>    
>>
>
>The paper I cited clearly demonstrated that the electrohydrodynamic
>effects, the ion-wind, were quite significantly less than the actual
>observed thrust. I built a lifter myself in 1990 when I was in the
>USAF. I used to fly it around my barracks dorm room (leading to rumors
>in the unit that I'd stolen top secret Area 51 UFO technology). The
>amount of wind generated by the device was clearly far less than would
>have been needed to lift the entire mass of the lifter. Naudin has
>clearly shown, by putting, alternatively, each electrode in separate
>containers, yet still shown lift, so no hydrodynamic effects are
>possible, no ion-wind is possible to have generated such lift.
>
>  
>
Therefore no current flow.
Sounds like perpetual motion - thrust without energy expenditure.

>I would not doubt that in a perfect vacuum, the lack of gaseous
>dielectric material to help maintain the field effect would cause
>little or no thrust to be generated. Outer space, however, is not a
>perfect vacuum. It has a very significant plasma content. What has been
>shown is that thrust does not perfectly track with atmospheric
>pressure.
>  
>
I would not expect it to.
Nevertheless, I do think there are any new, or useful, physics involved.

>Nor, btw, do I consider Wikipedia to be any sort of authority. In my
>experience, wikipedia is a tool for promulgating consensus delusion and
>propaganda rather than actual truth.
>
>The ongoing discussion about truth on this list should demonstrate that
>wikipedia is not capable of determining the actual truth.
>
>
>  
>
You asked for references on the failure to lift in vaccum and they are 
listed in Wikipedia

-- 
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 11/03/2005