Hate to agree with Michel for once, but unless you are quite high that is exactly what will happen.
Indeed a negative sphere can attract another negative sphere as long as one is at a higher potential according to experiments others have preformed, and I think the math would agree. On 2/16/07, Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Fred the applet works fine I guess, but to use it you need to know how the charges are distributed on the Earth's surface, which you don't, and that's what will prevent your device flying to the moon I am afraid (people will call me a skeptic again :). As several of us pointed out, same sign earth charge will crawl away from your charged device, and opposite sign charge -image charge- will remain on the ground below your device, forming an earth-device capacitor attracting your device downwards. To simulate what would really happen you must look for an applet in which you would define conductors and total charge and which would work out charge distribution for you, this may exist. Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frederick Sparber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Fred's Van de Graaff Antics > If you have the patience, this CalTech Electric Field Applet can > be used to set up a simulation of the charged apparatus, the ion charges and > the putative excess negative charge of the earth and the positive > ionosphere. > > http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~phys1/java/phys1/EField/EField.html > > My rough calculations before embarking on "flying" the 1.5 kg VDG plus > a 2 kg 12 volt battery pack plus a 0.5 kg inverter and 0.5 kg heavy gauge > aluminum > foil atop a well isolated 10 kg capacity digital scale, indicates that a > lift of 3 kg can be attained > with a potential of 1.5 million volts on a device with the negative charge > pumped > from the inner sphere to the surrounding outer sphere by the VDG. But don't > bet on it. :-) > > Fred > >> [Original Message] >> From: Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Date: 2/15/2007 3:34:23 AM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Fred's Van de Graaff Antics >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "John Berry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:59 AM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Fred's Van de Graaff Antics >> >> >> >> >> You can calculate i*d/2E-4 (i current in A, d gap in m) for yourself > can't >> >> you? Well that's the ion wind's contribution to the thrust in N. > Measure >> >> more thrust than that in a device, and then you'll have found evidence > of >> >> something else contributing, until then you're an idiot ion wind > skeptic :) >> > >> > >> > I haven't really done any lifter experiments (not one light enough to > take >> > off anyway) and math isn't my strong suit, >> >> It doesn't have to take off, you can measure the decrease in apparent > weight. As for the maths, it boils down to: >> >> Ion wind contributed thrust in grams = 0.5*i*d with i in mA and d in mm >> >> Is this simple enough for you? >> >> > I'm basing the statement on >> > something I read about a NASA (Nasa Ain't a Space Agency, or Not A Space >> > Agency) mathematician, I believe it was saying that ion wind was not >> > sufficient to account for the thrust, and honestly when you look at the >> > different things that have been done to reduce or apparently rule out > ion >> > wind, well they paint a far more convincing picture, especially since > as I >> > said ion wind doesn't account for other embodiments of Brown's work > hardly >> > at all. >> >> Hearsay, beliefs, you'd better see for yourself. Whatever the device, >> >> > Why when there is more evidence for a real effect do you choose to > brush it >> > aside in preference of a less likely mundane explanation, just consider > the >> > implications of such technology if it can be made effective. >> > In fact if you think there is even a chance that there might be > something in >> > it you should realize it is too valuable to dismiss. >> > Unless of course you are in reality a skeptic >> >> No, I speak of experience, I have done experiments and measurements at > all kinds of voltages and currents. As I said, you're the ion wind skeptic: >> >> skep·tic also scep·tic >> n. >> 1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees > with assertions or generally accepted conclusions >> >> > in which case what are you doing here? >> >> Wasting my time on someone who doesn't have a clue. >> >> > ... >> >> >> Beware though that high voltages (25kV for a typical computer screen >> >> power >> >> >> supply) at any sizeable current (more than a few mA) can be lethal, > and >> >> hurt >> >> >> a lot in the very least (feels a bit like having your arm caught in > a >> >> meat >> >> >> chopper I was told). >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Actually the only thing you feel is a pin point burn and the smell of >> >> > burning skin, plus a buzzing. >> >> > If it wasn't for the burn it's not painful though possibly > irritating. >> >> >> >> The friend who made that description of the pain plays with high > voltages >> >> at the kW level, do you? :) >> > >> > >> > No, not kW levels, in fact you can get what I described from a 12w > flyback >> > that powers a plasma globe. >> >> How cute, is this what you tried to fly your lifter with? :) You can get > what my friend Xavier (fka Saviour) from Blazelabs described from the 1kW > multi-flyback shown on his site (a supply I know quite well :). >> >> > Honestly you seem to know very little about electricity in theory or >> > practice. >> >> lol :) >> >> Michel > > >
