The Parallel Universe

I just wanted to let everyone know that I will be testing our Field Propulsion devices in hard vacuum again starting this weekend. This time I have a lot more control over the situation and I can take my time solving any problems that might arise while testing. The chamber is over 4 feet tall and about 7 feet in depth. I will be testing our current designs which are all encapsulated. I don't expect performance to change in any way between air and vacuum testing of the same device.

I'll give you an update as things progress.


Sincerely,

Hector

Hector,


I know you're a long time member of this board but you haven't posted much.
Since I haven't "met" you before, welcome to the forum.

I read the posts on the fusor website about your research on Thomas Townsend Brown's (TTB's) disks.
Were you ever able to post the data you collected from 4 years ago?

We would be most interested in any data you wish to share with us on this post.
We have some engineers and some really good in math.
We also have a talented bunch that can dig out information from the nether world...

We have a few folks that are trying to recreate TTB's work, myself included trying to build TTB's electrokinetic generator (Project : EKGen). Project Pegasus will examine TTB's disks.

Hector, we hope to hear more from you and how you got involved in TTB's work.

MagicBill

The simple fact about the experiments in 2003 at the LEEIF facility is that they were preliminary and given the contraversial nature of this area of research simply not strong enough to file a report on. However, we did succeed in proving that the force would persist even in hard vacuum, which told us that we were on the right track. At 1*10^-6 Torr or better no educated scientist could suggest that the motion could have been the product of ion propulsion or ion wind.

Question, on your flame jet, you are aware this is a Magnetohydrodynamic generator?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHD_generator

Your biggest problem will be the carbon build up over time, which has been the biggest problem with these kinds of generators since they were invented.


Hector

Hector wrote:<SNIP>
Question, on your flame jet, you are aware this is a Magnetohydrodynamic generator?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHD_generator

Your biggest problem will be the carbon build up over time, which has been the biggest problem with these kinds of generators since they were invented.

Hector

Hector,

I do not see where the magnets come in. There are no magnets described in Dr. Brown's patent. There might be a magnetic field generated by the ion flow but other than that I do not see where the magneto portion applies.

The flame jet generator operates best when the flame is orange-red, indicating incomplete combustion. Yes, carbon build up may be a problem but that is what the experiments will determine. I do not believe it will be any worse that the soot from a diesel engine. Any carbon that builds up on the disk elements is likely to be burned off, adding more ions into the stream. Stay tuned for more development.

MagicBill

Hector,
A little thought from hobbit land.
When you create a vacuum, you remove atmosphere, you do not remove stuff, and stuff will operate best with no resistance, exactly what you create with a vacuum.
Stuff is not constant, position and timing enter into the equation, so dependant upon position and time, will give differnt results.
Stuff permeates all. stuff is at different levals, going in opposite direction, unless you recognise stuff, then you may be fighting it, operate as it desires, and it is boundless.

kevin

Kevin,

What "stuff" are you refering too?

I don't know about Middle earth, but here, on Earth, in the time of Man, all I'm trying to show is that the performance of the device I will be testing does not change when operating in atmospheric pressure or at vacuum level better than 1*10^-5 Torr.

This will show conclusively that the force is not the product of ion wind or ionization.

htmagic,

Reading Browns patent description, it seems like what he had in mind was to use the flow of the hot gasses to move units of charge introduced into the fluid via a high voltage source away from the source and into a higher potential state. This simply will not work. A flame is a low energy plasma and as a lot researchers in plasma physics will tell you, the flame is partially conductive and therefore will eventually act as a good conductor back to ground. Second the velocity of the stream is no match for the electrostic coulomb force between charges, breakdown is going to happend. However, you don't have to believe me, just build it and tell me what happens.

By the way, do you know if Brown ever made one of these or was it just an idea he patented as I suspect?
Pictures of his version would be helpful in replicating his results.

Hector

Hector wrote: The chamber is over 4 feet tall and about 7 feet in depth. I will be testing our current designs which are all encapsulated.

Curious here Hector, are you talking a cylinder that is 4 feet in diameter and 7 feet long? If so, who constructed, what are the thickness of the walls and what type or manner of bracing. I am familiar with the chamber at GE at Valley Forge which I believe was ovoid and I am wondering what design you have.

Mikado

Hector wrote:Kevin,

What "stuff" are you refering too?

I don't know about Middle earth, but here, on Earth, in the time of Man, all I'm trying to show is that the performance of the device I will be testing does not change when operating in atmospheric pressure or at vacuum level better than 1*10^-5 Torr.

This will show conclusively that the force is not the product of ion wind or ionization.

I applaud you for the work you are performing, Hector. Performing any kind of research when coming out of your own pocket is taxing. However, Kevin's "stuff" has been talked about quite extensively and you might have missed it on your sojourns from the forum.

I wish you the best and hope your experiments prove out your hypothesis.

Mikado

Hector,

How has your testing been going ?

Were you able to achieve definitive results either way ?

Hector: Welcome and good on you for doing concrete replication work. I respect that.

That said, curiosity is piqued here. I have to echo Mikado's earlier question--without divulging anything you might not want to share, I'm curious about the build of the vacuum chamber. Any details on construction would be greatly appreciated.

R.

Just trying very hard to catch up here, Trying to keep up with this forum during Pauls sad time away has been like buying an E ticket.

But this is good solid ground here. Hello Hector. All due respect for the good work you are doing.

You have said quite a few things that were interesting to me.

" I don't expect performance to change in any way between air and vacuum testing of the same device." Now, of course, there are many ways to read that. Do you mean that you have something now which is in fact " performing" and you don't expect the vacuum to make a difference in that performance? Or do you mean that it " doesn't perform now in air, therefore you have no expectations in a vacuum?" . Then I catch myself up and realize that is an "either/or stance and maybe I should add ... " or is something else going on here?"

Then there is this comment "By the way, do you know if Brown ever made one of these or was it just an idea he patented as I suspect?
Pictures of his version would be helpful in replicating his results."

Thats sort of an interesting aside, don't you think? I love those ..." Oh, by the way" type statements, Sort of like something the police detective in the rumpled raincoat would say on his way out the door ... when he knows far more than he is letting on, and just wants to see what kind of reaction he will get.

I am sort of old school and not a patent lawyer obviously but I was always under the impression ( perhaps flawed) that to patent an idea you had to demonstrate somehow that it would work. Seems to me that if not then we would have patents floating around for alot of things that would be fluff and mist. So ..... what you are asking here is that he just patented an "idea" without the hardware proof to back it up? Or is it that, for your purpose the patent descriptions are not ... complete?

Your post makes mention " AGAIN" which means that you are reprising the work that Dr. Brown accomplished and I am assuming that you all are talking about the " Paris tests" because I haven't heard of any others here in the United States during that time period. So what happened during those tests? Surely there are records that would help you. Your post seems to suggest that success would have been impossible .... yet " rumor has it" that there was some thread of success there in a vacuum. So what does that mean?

Coming at it again fifty years later has to be some advantage, I would think. Looking forward to hearing whatever you feel comfortable sharing with us. Martin

Martin,

Let me bring you up to speed.

My point of the flame jet was that all I've ever seen is the patent, I've never seen any working examples of the patent.

Second, back in the 50's and today, if the patent examiner thought that your machine stood a chance of working, they could approave the patent without a working example of the invention. This is common practice still today.

Patent something, it's an eye opening experience.

Lets recap, in summer 2003 at NSSTC/NASA at the LEEIF facility in Huntville Alabama, I tested a device modeled after Dr. R.L Talleys rotary torsion pendulum experiment, were force would be measured as the product of deflection through the horizontal plan. A restoring force being provided by the tension of the suspention/power input cable.

The test were preliminary in nature and were ment to demonstrate that a force other than ion wind or ion propulsion would still be present when the device was energized at vacuum levels better than 1*10^-6 Torr. That's the test I refer to when I say "AGAIN".

You want to see what I'm talking about fallow the link.

http://www.youtube.com/hec031

Just want to bring everyone up to date on what's happening.

As usual with vacuum systems, we had a problem with the high voltage feedthough. This will set the experiment back two weeks. In that time I'm making a more vacuum friendly test device and a new high voltage feed through for the chamber. While I have an old high voltage feedthough from the experiments at LEEIF, the chamber was not designed with this kind of port in mind. High voltage high Vacuum experiments are never easy they require a lot of planning and preparation.

Still I'm moving forward and I'll let you guys know what happens, good or bad.


Hector

Hector,

What type of device are you going to be testing? An asymmetrical capacitor? If so, does it have a solid dielectric?

Thanks

GV