Re: A NASA displacement current motor!- was Re: TC Secondary Currents - was ( Experimental Help - Terry?)

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Terry Fritz" <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>

Hi Richard,

At 10:41 PM 3/5/2002 -0500, you wrote: 
>Hi Terry and list,
> 
>First of all Terry, thank you for introducing the NASA patent and Poynting 
>vector force into discussion.  I appreciate the opportunity to respond to 
>the issues you raise.  I know the Maxwellian diehards are chagrinned by your 
>reference to JLN's web site.  Believe it or not, there is a lot that can be 
>practically applied to actual Tesla Coils.  Since you're a good friend of 
>the moderator, tell him thanks. 8<}

Sometimes in our quest for knowledge, it is necessary to search even in the
bowels of hell for information :o))  However, they did do some refreshing
work using "real science" and they are there doing the "real hands-on
experiments" and reporting them fully and in plain sight.  They can't go
too wrong for very long that way.

> 
>The JLN diagram and displacement theory of the lifters is only one man's 
>opinion, that of John Kooiman.  He is not of NASA and furthermore NASA does 
>not claim their patent functions by displacement current.  So, no genuine 
>NASA rocket scientist to contradiction here.  I originally responded to his 
>"DC" theory on JLN and re post it herein:

I noted when reading the NASA patent that they 'danced' around "how" the
force was created with a patent attorney's skill.  The more I studied this
today, the more holes I found.  They "may" be right, but the judge is still
out.  I note much work has only been done in the last few months so this
subject is still young and begging for exploration.  I am sure they will
figure it all out in due time.  I "thought" I had found the "holy grail"
that would solve everything...  but it probably just raises more questions
without providing our "answer".

I made a "lifter" tonight.  It would not lift but I did not build it quite
right.  As Paul mentioned, it sure looks like a corona motor rather than a
fancy displacement current motor.  My gut feeling is that Paul is right and
displacement current has zero to do with its operation.  It's just another
corona pinwheel... >:(

> 
>============================================================================
>=============================
> 
>List, (JLN)
>
>I personally question the latest proposal that attempts to explain 
>how the lifter and NASA ASC function. In the newest proposal there 
>are extra added and experimentally unproven claims and explanations 
>put forward to explain the lifter phenomena. I usually find it best 
>to follow the rule of "Occam's Razor". Most of the time the simplest 
>explanation is the best. 
>
>The basis of the current proposal is a "displacement current" is 
>produced in the conductor and is largely responsible for the thrust 
>effect on the lower capacitor plate. John K. is certainly correct in 
>that the fiction of displacement current was invented by Maxwell. In 
>fact, Maxwell realized his equations were not valid and would not 
>work unless he contrived this special fix which he 
>named "displacement current". He never experimentally validated 
>them. In fact, no one has ever experimentally found the existence of 
>a displ! acement currents. And, they have been searched for 
>extensively. The most definitive search involves SQUID detectors 
>which detect on a quantum level and are the most exquisitely 
>sensitive detectors known to man. Unfortunately the myth 
>of "displacement current", even though not experimentally known to 
>exist, has become ingrained into modern electrodynamic theory and 
>continues to be taught as such. Why? Because it makes Mawell's 
>equations come out right. Any proposal based on "displacement 
>current" is flawed and subject to close scrutiny.
>
>Second concern is the new invention of an "indirect ES field" 
>component? What is this? Who invented it? Is it experimentally 
>proven?
>
>Lastly, and I'll be brief, the orientation in JLN's diagram of 
>the "indirect ES field" connecting E field vector to the side of the 
>lower plate in reference to, the somehow induced, circular magnetic 
>field in the plate is in error. In order to prod! uce the Poynting 
>thrust vector the magnetic field has to be! perpendicular to and 
>encircling the E field vector. 
>
>There are several other questionable claims in the proposal, but will 
>conclude now.
>
>With due respect for all opinions,
>
>RWW
> 
>=========================================================================
> 
>Also not mentioned is the fact that Kooiman imagines that his so called 
>"displacement current" flows in the metal conductor capacitor plate rather 
>than the dielectric of the NASA asymmetric capacitor.  See for yourself in 
>the diagram on the JLN site.  So there are many errors in his theory as to 
>how a "displacement current" creates thrust.  He does not say how in his 
>"DC" theory.

So you were way ahead of me all the time :-)))

> 
>Not mentioned is when polarity is reversed ("displacement current" should 
>reverse, right Matt and Paul?) thrust still remains in the same direction.  
>Humm! not only mythical, but magical  -- this "displacement current".
> 
>A couple of points.  The NASA ASC and all lifters derive their thrust from 
>the Poynting Vector Thrust  You Maxwellian true believers may call it 
>Lorentz force and that's OK if  you want to, but beware it's only on variant 
>of Poynting Vector thrust.  I'm really trying to help you guys out, you 
>know. %<}  These machines have nothing to do with gravity modification.  
>They work just as well when  thrusting lateral and perpendicular to gravity. 
> There is some experimental work indicating they may modify inertia.  They 
>work very well in vacuum and also with electrodes totally encased in a 
>dielectric and isolated from air.  There is a small ion wind with bare 
>electrodes, but it aids or repels the major thrust with reversal of 
>polarity.  Ion wind is only a very small part of the total thrust or reverse 
>thrust depending on polarity.  These things work under oil.

Me thinks ion motors do all that too.  Make a pinwheel and charge it to
50kV, it is hard to make it "not" work.

> 
>These things work really well and are amazing to play with.  How do I know?  
>I replicated and built the NASA rotary asymmetric capacitor thruster.  

Aw shucks!!!  You were WAY ahead of me :-))

>It's 
>really cool.  I demonstrated my thruster to my brother-in-law, a died in the 
>wool Maxwellian true believer EE.  He has designed and built motors for the 
>military all his professional life.  There are no coils of wire, magnets or 
>heavy iron to account for the thrust.  With his entrenched and strict 
>Maxwellian code he could not comprehend what produces the trust.

So I guess we have not answered the big question.  "Do 'displacement
currents' produce a magnetic field that we can somehow measure?"  We took a
good shot, but missed with the NASA motor...  If this stuff was easy,....

Cheers,

	Terry

> 
>--- Richard Wayne Wall
>--- rwall-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com
> 
> 
>