Do you have any data in non-youtube format? Like a paper?

From this test we have minimal data, but from my most recent work I have tons of data, which I guess I can post some of it without running the risk of being rejected by the Journal I'm trying to publish with.

But to give you an idea we use on average 40kv DC from a Spellman SL30PN40 DC High voltage power supply. The maximum amperage is .775 milliamps. In steady state DC experiments we've seen 28 milliNewtons at 41.5Kv @ .002 ma or .083 watts. In more recent experiments using new devices and configurations, we've done as good as operating with less than >.0009 microamps at 30Kv with about 10 MilliNewotn's. We've been concentrating on eliminating ion wind, which are considered a loss mechanism in our work. As a result every time we reduced ionization we observed an increase in force and reduction in power input, which in my opinion is not consistent with ion wind or coronal wind phenomenology, since it's a current dependant phenomenon.

Let me see what I can post for everyone to read and get a better feel for what we are seeing. I've got some extensive Oscilloscope measurements that I can add if that will help.

OK - let's just pretend that I don't know anything about what you're talking about and see if you can explain it to me. What exactly are you trying to accomplish? What is this force? Where does it come from? How is it created and how are you measuring it? What are it's applications?

Well in this forum I'm trying to get opinions, ideas or suggestions that may improve my experiments.
As to what is the force, well that's a big question mark at the moment because no standard force phenomena seems to fit exactly what is happening.
We only know we put in energy in the proper voltage, amperage ratio and a percentage of the input power over time is converted to a change in the kinetic energy of the device being tested.
The force is the produced by applying high voltage at low current into a device suspended in a simple pendulum configuration using a total of two suspension points, the first a non conducting string, the other a small diameter insulated high voltage wire.
The force is measured as the product of the change in angle of the device from its horizontal rest position. While the second suspension point has a significant mass, we calculate as if it did not, making the force measurement conservative in nature.
Application fields at current force and power levels would be satellite maneuvering and station keeping at higher levels vehicle propulsion in marine, terrestrial and aerospace applications.

Do you have any explanation as to how a current manages to flow at all? Is it a DC current, or only evidenced during charge/discharge (turning the voltage on/off)? What is the approximate capacitance of the system (i.e. between anode & cathode)?

I don't know much about your experiments so perhaps these aren't relevant questions but you got my curiosity.

How did you cancel out the ion wind forces, it would seem to me that would be the hardest part to account for.

In terms of the force that you saw from this, is it much more or much less than you would get from the ion wind forces alone?

To get this effect you need a high voltage which is also what you need for ion wind effect. Not to discount what you are researching as if you find something it would be very important, but for propulsion applications, would this be more effective than just using ion wind for propulsion and why?

Last question, as I understand it this is in a vacuum chamber, is this a metal vacuum chamber? if so with high voltages, I would imagine you would get all sorts of forces between the chamber an what you are testing, how do you deal with that?

Ionization without a doubt was the most likely source of the force, however in the vacuum tests of 2003 we used the vacuum level of better than 1*10^-6 Torr to eliminate the probability of ion wind effects. In fact in all test the vacuum pumps were isolated from the chamber via their gate valves to prevent damage and in none of the experiments we observed any rise in vacuum levels, suggesting that ion wind ablation or any other ejection mechanisms was not involved.

As for the chamber itself the we can eliminate any stray forces effect by the fact that the device measured 6 inches in diamter and the nearest chamber wall was ~ 2 ft way. In addtion the devices rotation would have moved it into a position were the nearest chamber wall would have been over 5 ft way since it is shaped like a cyclinder orientated horizontally through its axis. Finally we replicated the same effect in air with very similar results in a much larger area. By themselves they don't prove much but collectively they make a strong argument for something other than standard EM forces being involved. Still it's a very good question and we're alwasy looking to improve so I'll take a second look at this issue. The chamber was made from Steel not sure what exact grade.

In the more recent forms of the experiments we used fully insolated high voltage cables to connect to a fully encapsulated device. In more than one test we've added a Faraday cage to the devices outer layer without any reduction of the thrust with or without the cage. In addition we've tested the devices in and out of a faraday cage.

While the current is very low we still tested for magnetic fields, but found that such emission were negligible and could not be distinguished from the magnetic field or earth. We used an F.W. Bell 7030 Gauss Tesla meter for these tests.

In addition we did static and dynamic testing of the devices while under high voltage using smoke and a green fanning laser in all axis looking for air jets, with negative results. The only time we had a positive ion wind was when we created it on purpose as a point of reference.

The ionization effect of the ion wind can contribute to the effect, but this induces a large power penalty, which will drop the efficiency of the effect significantly. However the ratio between the two appears variable so it can be varied if desired. We've done no specific testing in this direction yet. Our focus has been towards the elimination of the ion wind and standard EM effects so that we can measure the pure non-conversional force effect.

As for efficiency it's staggeringly higher than conventional propulsion systems like XIPS and even ion wind devices like the ionocraft and lifters. Xenon Ion Propulsion System (XIPS) operates at ~3.6^-5 N/W (Newton/Watts), Ionocraft reported ~6.1^-3 N/W, Lifters ~3.4^-3 N/W, while our devices average greater than < .3 N/W.

The only real limiting factor that we are facing at the moment is that, to date I have not been able to find an off the shelve power supply that can provide power in the correct waveform to make the best use of the effect.

I find it very difficult to get any idea of what's going on, here, from some video of a wobbly cross and some obscure 3D sketches of a rotor device.

Any chance of some decent diagrammatic representations of the setup?

I hope this helps, if not let me know.

1. Monel aluminum ancher point.

2. Glass tube, with copper power line.

3. Copper power line cathode electrode.

4. Aluminum sheet anode electrode.

5. Not Shown

6. Anode grounding cable.

7.Alumina Ceranic insulating body structure. Unfired.

8. Grounding stud like shown on 1.

This is the device shown on the YouTube videos. It's the last of three devices taken to NASA in 2003. All components were bonded using a Lesker vacuum approaved epoxy.

"I hope this helps, if not let me know."

Nope. Please tell us in a short paragraph what you think is happening, and why you think it is happening.

How will that change the facts?

What facts?

Let me digress on my answer, because it's based on the assumption that you're asking for a hypothesis and that's not fair to you.

So my question is, are you asking for a functional explanation, or are you asking me for a hypothetic/theoretical explanation of the underlying cause?

Please also clarify the nature of the voltage you are applying - is it sinusoidal, on/off or what? Also, (assuming that the suspending wire provides a restoring torque) what is the natural frequency of oscillation of your system? Can you observe displacement with switched, but otherwise fixed DC levels?

Very good questions. The Spellman power supplies are high voltage DC (only) power supplies. The voltage is applied as close to a square wave as possible. In fact you are correct about the suspension cable providing a restoring force. While a steady state force does exist at all times when operating purely in a DC mode, the movement back and forth is caused by the cyclical application of power (Pulses) from the power supply via the inhibit circuit. Prior to that via simply turning the power supply on and off. Using the inhibit results in a larger power input over a shorter period of time and a subsequent increase in force over the same period time.

Are you switching the voltage at the resonant frequency of the system?

Is displacement observed when the voltage is applied (once)? You state that "a steady state force exists" - can you support that assertion?

Yes I can support the claim of a steady state force under pure constant DC. I have plentty of video that shows that. The application of pulse power is simply because it increases the total force output.

Again,

(me) "what is the natural frequency of oscillation of your system?"

and

(me) "Are you switching the voltage at the resonant frequency of the system?"

If not, at what frequency are you switching?

(you) "The application of pulse power is simply because it increases the total force output"

Is it an impulsive force (only in effect when the voltage is switched)? You've really lost me on this one.

greater than 1hz.

yes, to increase the visibility when desired.

A pulse can apply more power over shorter period of time than operating in a steady state mode.

Capacitance is less than a microfarad, in most devices it can be considered parasitic. In the devices we try to maximize the conversion of input energy into force not storage over time.

Hi Grav01,

It appears that the pulses are set to the resonant frequency to maximize the swing. The springiness of the support cable returns the unit to the static position. The only question is what causes the force. Somebody suggested the sharp corners. Since you seem to have no theory, what prompted the design? Have you tried using rounded plates? If they don't work as well, then the sharp corners are the key. How are you measuring the force, by the way?

S

In both the torsion and simply pendulum the force is measured as the product of the change in angle. This has been used by many other researchers for similar force measurements reliably.

You're correct I have a guiding hypothesis. It's heresy against the current laws of physics so I rather not get into it and just stick to the empirical facts.

The force is also the measured at the time of the initial impulse not when the device is swinging from multiple pulses. When running on steady state from the maximum deflection angle.

Hi grav01,

The way you are measuring force seems a little ad-hoc. Why not put bearings on it and just let it rotate? That would make a better demonstration anyway. Then you could put a pulley on it and actually measure the work being done.

S

Sounds good. I think I'll do that. Thanks for the advice.

All relative movements are related to friction either sliding or rolling When so small forces (mN) are involved even very low frictions can pollute the results.

The torsion spring (wire) which is presented in one of the documents has the advantage of a quasi null friction and can be used also as torque transducer if it is well calibrated. But I do not know how it can be used in the new concept.

Yeah that's why I've used it so often. Dr. Woodwards also uses Torsion spring measurement. He also shows his calibration technique in detail, which you might want to take a look at.

http://www.cphonx.net/weffect/tommahood1.pdf

http://www.cphonx.net/weffect/alt.php

I've done rotary devices in the past using both metal bearings and later plastic/glass ball bearings and yes it would take multiple devices running in parallel to drive the wheel, because the breakaway force is significantly greater to get the rotation going than the force needed to keep the device rotating. In addition there is a significant amount of mass that must be put into motion when we're talking about fully insulated device using a self-supporting rigid mechanical structure. Tolerances are very tight in all respects, including mass/weight distribution. It's possible, but more complicated given the relatively small forces. Nonetheless I think it's worth doing again.

Grav01,

What company are you with?

Was the work at NASA done on an SBIR, some other basis with NASA, or did you simply pay for time in a vacuum chamber?

Did NASA personnel participate in any way in the research?

Was the USAF, USDoD, or DTIC involved in any way?

What are the foundatonal studies on which your efforts are based?

This will help me better understand.

Thanks.

This is a long and complicated issue, but I'll try to explain. The research was conducted at NASA by us Gravitec Inc, in cooperation with NASA personnel mainly Dr. Richard Grugal. He as a NASA agent paid for the use of the LEEIF facility as well as our travel and other related expenses.

As I said in a prior posting this was supposed to be the first of a series of experiments, however the small thrust disappointed Dr. Grugal and he refused to participate after the second day of testing, at which time we continued tested for ourselves and ended our relationship with them.

There is no SBIR or any other normal contractual mechanism. Like all of NASA they were curious to try it but not to put there name officially behind it when the time came.

Forgot the last question. The work is based on TT Browns asymmetrical capacitor force. We've since evolved the concept far from the asymmetric capacitor concept. In fact the new device are not capacitor at all. Actually it's hard to categorize them, you'll see why when we show them, they are unique.

The experiment at NASA were based on R.L. Talley's work in the late 80's and early 90's.

Reminds me of an experiment I saw on a TV science programme many years go. A piece of metal was suspended from a long thin wire in a vacuum tube, and a light shone on it, it responded by moving, the discussion that followed was, did it move due to photons striking it or did it react to the heat created by photons. I see from your demonstration that the object is brightly lit.

Might therefore suggest that the above may be involved and its reacting to light? Only a suggestion?

Regards JD.

Good point. This exact same possibility was raised by the Dr. David Infante from the Aerospace Corporation at the NRO. That was back when I was working with Dr. John Rusek at Purdue. This issue has since been addressed by subsequent experiments. However, it has been some time since anyone has thought of that. Thank you.

Also thank you for using Lit and Lighted. LOL.