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

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

Original poster: "Wall Richard Wayne by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <rwall-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com>

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<}
 
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:
 
============================================================================
=============================
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.  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.
 
--- Richard Wayne Wall
--- <mailto:rwall-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com>rwall-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com