On Jul/22/2022 at 02:00, pnn calmagorod wrote:
> Wake up dying of fankazzism :-)
>
> a propos on the basis of the principle of "pecunia non olet" a percentage (for now unknown) of
> useful $$$ pnn to those who offer
> solar panel details on push PNN modules so that they give:
> 1) a ddp of 24 - 48 volts for this / s http://www.asps.it/lipobat.jpg http://www.asps.it/lipo.jpg
> 2) area of the panels according to the charging times (starting from 1/4 square meter) and their weight
> 3) wiring diagram of all with watts pumped from the panel to the lipo in recharge
> 4) avoid Chinese retailers if possible
> 5) I would add a time chart of the reload times and avoid vagueness and uncertainty in the experimental details
>
> being the elite and / or voyeurs fankazzisti I presume it is easier to win the lottery :-)
> www.asps.it
>
> E. Laureti
>
> PS: we are at 12 grams of "increasing" PNN thrust http://www.asps.it/a1sub.jpg
> according to the graphs of the type indicated in www.asps.it/pnnsubitam.htm ..... I presume that the thrust will unfortunately be pulsed .... towards Mars :-)
>
> qff
>

I looked at your "SUB321 PNN Thrust (15 March 2021)" graph. It really
looks like a thermal effect to me, because the thrust goes up with time
(possibly as heat builds up) even though the power seems to be constant
at 250W for the first 220 seconds. Then with the power off, you keep on
having thrust but now the thrust goes down with time (possibly as heat
dissipates).

What happens if you let the power on for long periods of time, lets say
for 24 hours? Assuming your thrust scale is about 1 : 0.01 N (thrust
should be in Newtons, not grams), if you can keep on having thrust
increase approximately linearly at that rate for 24 hours, you would get
nearly 9 Newtons of thrust after 24 hours. A thrust of 9 Newtons would
be convincing because to get such a thrust by thermal effect, you would
obviously see that one side is glowing hot but not the other side. Of
course, that isn't likely to happen. If your thrust is by thermal
effect, you would more likely see the thrust plateau after a while or
the thruster breakdown. If your thrust is not caused by a thermal
effect, then I don't see why you couldn't run your thruster for 24 hours
and get that 9 Newtons of thrust. But I don't have enough knowledge
about your thruster to know that. If you can't run your thruster for 24
hours, do you have an explanation as to why you can't?

Alain Fournier

On Sun, 24 Jul 2022 08:17:30 -0400, Alain Fournier
<alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:

>On Jul/22/2022 at 02:00, pnn calmagorod wrote:
>> Wake up dying of fankazzism :-)
>>
>> a propos on the basis of the principle of "pecunia non olet" a percentage (for now unknown) of
>> useful $$$ pnn to those who offer
>> solar panel details on push PNN modules so that they give:
>> 1) a ddp of 24 - 48 volts for this / s http://www.asps.it/lipobat.jpg http://www.asps.it/lipo.jpg
>> 2) area of the panels according to the charging times (starting from 1/4 square meter) and their weight
>> 3) wiring diagram of all with watts pumped from the panel to the lipo in recharge
>> 4) avoid Chinese retailers if possible
>> 5) I would add a time chart of the reload times and avoid vagueness and uncertainty in the experimental details
>>
>> being the elite and / or voyeurs fankazzisti I presume it is easier to win the lottery :-)
>> www.asps.it
>>
>> E. Laureti
>>
>> PS: we are at 12 grams of "increasing" PNN thrust http://www.asps.it/a1sub.jpg
>> according to the graphs of the type indicated in www.asps.it/pnnsubitam.htm ..... I presume that the thrust will unfortunately be pulsed .... towards Mars :-)
>>
>> qff
>>
>
>I looked at your "SUB321 PNN Thrust (15 March 2021)" graph. It really
>looks like a thermal effect to me, because the thrust goes up with time
>(possibly as heat builds up) even though the power seems to be constant
>at 250W for the first 220 seconds. Then with the power off, you keep on
>having thrust but now the thrust goes down with time (possibly as heat
>dissipates).
>
>What happens if you let the power on for long periods of time, lets say
>for 24 hours? Assuming your thrust scale is about 1 : 0.01 N (thrust
>should be in Newtons, not grams), if you can keep on having thrust
>increase approximately linearly at that rate for 24 hours, you would get
>nearly 9 Newtons of thrust after 24 hours. A thrust of 9 Newtons would
>be convincing because to get such a thrust by thermal effect, you would
>obviously see that one side is glowing hot but not the other side. Of
>course, that isn't likely to happen. If your thrust is by thermal
>effect, you would more likely see the thrust plateau after a while or
>the thruster breakdown. If your thrust is not caused by a thermal
>effect, then I don't see why you couldn't run your thruster for 24 hours
>and get that 9 Newtons of thrust. But I don't have enough knowledge
>about your thruster to know that. If you can't run your thruster for 24
>hours, do you have an explanation as to why you can't?
>
>

12 grams of thrust a thermal effect ?

On Sun, 24 Jul 2022 16:22:23 +0200, Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Jul 2022 08:17:30 -0400, Alain Fournier
><alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Jul/22/2022 at 02:00, pnn calmagorod wrote:
>>> Wake up dying of fankazzism :-)
>>>
>>> a propos on the basis of the principle of "pecunia non olet" a percentage (for now unknown) of
>>> useful $$$ pnn to those who offer
>>> solar panel details on push PNN modules so that they give:
>>> 1) a ddp of 24 - 48 volts for this / s http://www.asps.it/lipobat.jpg http://www.asps.it/lipo.jpg
>>> 2) area of the panels according to the charging times (starting from 1/4 square meter) and their weight
>>> 3) wiring diagram of all with watts pumped from the panel to the lipo in recharge
>>> 4) avoid Chinese retailers if possible
>>> 5) I would add a time chart of the reload times and avoid vagueness and uncertainty in the experimental details
>>>
>>> being the elite and / or voyeurs fankazzisti I presume it is easier to win the lottery :-)
>>> www.asps.it
>>>
>>> E. Laureti
>>>
>>> PS: we are at 12 grams of "increasing" PNN thrust http://www.asps.it/a1sub.jpg
>>> according to the graphs of the type indicated in www.asps.it/pnnsubitam.htm ..... I presume that the thrust will unfortunately be pulsed .... towards Mars :-)
>>>
>>> qff
>>>
>>
>>I looked at your "SUB321 PNN Thrust (15 March 2021)" graph. It really
>>looks like a thermal effect to me, because the thrust goes up with time
>>(possibly as heat builds up) even though the power seems to be constant
>>at 250W for the first 220 seconds. Then with the power off, you keep on
>>having thrust but now the thrust goes down with time (possibly as heat
>>dissipates).
>>
>>What happens if you let the power on for long periods of time, lets say
>>for 24 hours? Assuming your thrust scale is about 1 : 0.01 N (thrust
>>should be in Newtons, not grams), if you can keep on having thrust
>>increase approximately linearly at that rate for 24 hours, you would get
>>nearly 9 Newtons of thrust after 24 hours. A thrust of 9 Newtons would
>>be convincing because to get such a thrust by thermal effect, you would
>>obviously see that one side is glowing hot but not the other side. Of
>>course, that isn't likely to happen. If your thrust is by thermal
>>effect, you would more likely see the thrust plateau after a while or
>>the thruster breakdown. If your thrust is not caused by a thermal
>>effect, then I don't see why you couldn't run your thruster for 24 hours
>>and get that 9 Newtons of thrust. But I don't have enough knowledge
>>about your thruster to know that. If you can't run your thruster for 24
>>hours, do you have an explanation as to why you can't?
>>
>>
>
>12 grams of thrust a thermal effect ?

0.11772 Newtons

On Sun, 24 Jul 2022 08:17:30 -0400, Alain Fournier
<alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:

>On Jul/22/2022 at 02:00, pnn calmagorod wrote:
>> Wake up dying of fankazzism :-)
>>
>> a propos on the basis of the principle of "pecunia non olet" a percentage (for now unknown) of
>> useful $$$ pnn to those who offer
>> solar panel details on push PNN modules so that they give:
>> 1) a ddp of 24 - 48 volts for this / s http://www.asps.it/lipobat.jpg http://www.asps.it/lipo.jpg
>> 2) area of the panels according to the charging times (starting from 1/4 square meter) and their weight
>> 3) wiring diagram of all with watts pumped from the panel to the lipo in recharge
>> 4) avoid Chinese retailers if possible
>> 5) I would add a time chart of the reload times and avoid vagueness and uncertainty in the experimental details
>>
>> being the elite and / or voyeurs fankazzisti I presume it is easier to win the lottery :-)
>> www.asps.it
>>
>> E. Laureti
>>
>> PS: we are at 12 grams of "increasing" PNN thrust http://www.asps.it/a1sub.jpg
>> according to the graphs of the type indicated in www.asps.it/pnnsubitam.htm ..... I presume that the thrust will unfortunately be pulsed .... towards Mars :-)
>>
>> qff
>>
>
>I looked at your "SUB321 PNN Thrust (15 March 2021)" graph. It really
>looks like a thermal effect to me, because the thrust goes up with time
>(possibly as heat builds up) even though the power seems to be constant
>at 250W for the first 220 seconds. Then with the power off, you keep on
>having thrust but now the thrust goes down with time (possibly as heat
>dissipates).
>
>What happens if you let the power on for long periods of time, lets say
>for 24 hours? Assuming your thrust scale is about 1 : 0.01 N (thrust
>should be in Newtons, not grams), if you can keep on having thrust
>increase approximately linearly at that rate for 24 hours, you would get
>nearly 9 Newtons of thrust after 24 hours. A thrust of 9 Newtons would
>be convincing because to get such a thrust by thermal effect, you would
>obviously see that one side is glowing hot but not the other side. Of
>course, that isn't likely to happen. If your thrust is by thermal
>effect, you would more likely see the thrust plateau after a while or
>the thruster breakdown. If your thrust is not caused by a thermal
>effect, then I don't see why you couldn't run your thruster for 24 hours
>and get that 9 Newtons of thrust. But I don't have enough knowledge
>about your thruster to know that. If you can't run your thruster for 24
>hours, do you have an explanation as to why you can't?
>
>
>Alain Fournier

continue to study.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2022 08:17:30 -0400, Alain Fournier
<alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:

>On Jul/22/2022 at 02:00, pnn calmagorod wrote:
>> Wake up dying of fankazzism :-)
>>
>> a propos on the basis of the principle of "pecunia non olet" a percentage (for now unknown) of
>> useful $$$ pnn to those who offer
>> solar panel details on push PNN modules so that they give:
>> 1) a ddp of 24 - 48 volts for this / s http://www.asps.it/lipobat.jpg http://www.asps.it/lipo.jpg
>> 2) area of the panels according to the charging times (starting from 1/4 square meter) and their weight
>> 3) wiring diagram of all with watts pumped from the panel to the lipo in recharge
>> 4) avoid Chinese retailers if possible
>> 5) I would add a time chart of the reload times and avoid vagueness and uncertainty in the experimental details
>>
>> being the elite and / or voyeurs fankazzisti I presume it is easier to win the lottery :-)
>> www.asps.it
>>
>> E. Laureti
>>
>> PS: we are at 12 grams of "increasing" PNN thrust http://www.asps.it/a1sub.jpg
>> according to the graphs of the type indicated in www.asps.it/pnnsubitam.htm ..... I presume that the thrust will unfortunately be pulsed .... towards Mars :-)
>>
>> qff
>>
>
>I looked at your "SUB321 PNN Thrust (15 March 2021)" graph. It really
>looks like a thermal effect to me, because the thrust goes up with time
>(possibly as heat builds up) even though the power seems to be constant
>at 250W for the first 220 seconds. Then with the power off, you keep on
>having thrust but now the thrust goes down with time (possibly as heat
>dissipates).
>
>What happens if you let the power on for long periods of time, lets say
>for 24 hours? Assuming your thrust scale is about 1 : 0.01 N (thrust
>should be in Newtons, not grams), if you can keep on having thrust
>increase approximately linearly at that rate for 24 hours, you would get
>nearly 9 Newtons of thrust after 24 hours. A thrust of 9 Newtons would
>be convincing because to get such a thrust by thermal effect, you would
>obviously see that one side is glowing hot but not the other side. Of
>course, that isn't likely to happen. If your thrust is by thermal
>effect, you would more likely see the thrust plateau after a while or
>the thruster breakdown. If your thrust is not caused by a thermal
>effect, then I don't see why you couldn't run your thruster for 24 hours
>and get that 9 Newtons of thrust. But I don't have enough knowledge
>about your thruster to know that. If you can't run your thruster for 24
>hours, do you have an explanation as to why you can't?
>
>
>Alain Fournier

it suffice a thrust of 1.1g to take off.

Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:

> it suffice a thrust of 1.1g to take off.

I hope you're not confusing grams and g0 (Earth standard gravity) —
"das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_gravity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
--
/* * * Otto J. Makela <om@iki.fi> * * * * * * * * * */
/* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
/* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * */

On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 14:26:40 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:

>Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:
>
>> it suffice a thrust of 1.1g to take off.
>
>I hope you're not confusing grams and g0 (Earth standard gravity) —
>"das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_gravity
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

g is the standard Eatrh gravity: that is 9.81 x 1.1 !!!!!

continue to study

Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 14:26:40 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>>Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:
>>> it suffice a thrust of 1.1g to take off.
>>I hope you're not confusing grams and g0 (Earth standard gravity) —
>>"das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
>
> g is the standard Eatrh gravity: that is 9.81 x 1.1 !!!!!
>
> continue to study

The text that preceded your message and your website erroneously talk
about "grams of thrust" (a gram is an unit of mass) so as usual,
there is much of room for confusion.

If your test device weight were 1 kg, to accelerate it at 1.1 times
earth gravity it would need to produce a thrust of a bit under 11 N.

Your devices of course are currently nowhere near that, the peak value
given in http://www.asps.it/trustgra.jpg is about 23 mN — so you'd need
to scale the thrust up by around 500-fold to lift 1 kg.

The question posed earlier by Alain is quite relevant: what happens if
you leave the power on for longer periods of time?

--
/* * * Otto J. Makela <om@iki.fi> * * * * * * * * * */
/* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
/* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * */

On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 11:37:59 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:

>Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 14:26:40 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>>>Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:
>>>> it suffice a thrust of 1.1g to take off.
>>>I hope you're not confusing grams and g0 (Earth standard gravity) —
>>>"das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
>>
>> g is the standard Eatrh gravity: that is 9.81 x 1.1 !!!!!
>>
>> continue to study
>
>The text that preceded your message and your website erroneously talk
>about "grams of thrust" (a gram is an unit of mass) so as usual,
>there is much of room for confusion.
>
>If your test device weight were 1 kg, to accelerate it at 1.1 times
>earth gravity it would need to produce a thrust of a bit under 11 N.
>
>Your devices of course are currently nowhere near that, the peak value
>given in http://www.asps.it/trustgra.jpg is about 23 mN — so you'd need
>to scale the thrust up by around 500-fold to lift 1 kg.

the thrust of our devices only depends on the battery and amplifier
power.

>
>The question posed earlier by Alain is quite relevant: what happens if
>you leave the power on for longer periods of time?

the thrust grows by a nearly-linear schema.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 11:37:59 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:

>Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 14:26:40 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>>>Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:
>>>> it suffice a thrust of 1.1g to take off.
>>>I hope you're not confusing grams and g0 (Earth standard gravity) —
>>>"das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
>>
>> g is the standard Eatrh gravity: that is 9.81 x 1.1 !!!!!
>>
>> continue to study
>
>The text that preceded your message and your website erroneously talk
>about "grams of thrust" (a gram is an unit of mass) so as usual,
>there is much of room for confusion.
>
>If your test device weight were 1 kg, to accelerate it at 1.1 times
>earth gravity it would need to produce a thrust of a bit under 11 N.
>
>Your devices of course are currently nowhere near that, the peak value
>given in http://www.asps.it/trustgra.jpg is about 23 mN — so you'd need
>to scale the thrust up by around 500-fold to lift 1 kg.
>
>The question posed earlier by Alain is quite relevant: what happens if
>you leave the power on for longer periods of time?

http://www.asps.it/trustgra1.jpg

On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 12:18:50 +0200, Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 11:37:59 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>
>>Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 14:26:40 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>>>>Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:
>>>>> it suffice a thrust of 1.1g to take off.
>>>>I hope you're not confusing grams and g0 (Earth standard gravity) —
>>>>"das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
>>>
>>> g is the standard Eatrh gravity: that is 9.81 x 1.1 !!!!!
>>>
>>> continue to study
>>
>>The text that preceded your message and your website erroneously talk
>>about "grams of thrust" (a gram is an unit of mass) so as usual,
>>there is much of room for confusion.
>>
>>If your test device weight were 1 kg, to accelerate it at 1.1 times
>>earth gravity it would need to produce a thrust of a bit under 11 N.
>>
>>Your devices of course are currently nowhere near that, the peak value
>>given in http://www.asps.it/trustgra.jpg is about 23 mN — so you'd need
>>to scale the thrust up by around 500-fold to lift 1 kg.
>>
>>The question posed earlier by Alain is quite relevant: what happens if
>>you leave the power on for longer periods of time?
>
>http://www.asps.it/trustgra1.jpg

this test is on a milligrams scale, that's why it is given in grams.

Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 11:37:59 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>> If your test device weight were 1 kg, to accelerate it at 1.1 times
>> earth gravity it would need to produce a thrust of a bit under 11 N.
>>
>> Your devices of course are currently nowhere near that, the peak
>> value given in http://www.asps.it/trustgra.jpg is about 23 mN — so
>> you'd need to scale the thrust up by around 500-fold to lift 1 kg.
>
> the thrust of our devices only depends on the battery and amplifier
> power.

This remains to be shown, as your published experiments have for now
lasted only for hundreds of seconds and used hundreds of watts.

>> The question posed earlier by Alain is quite relevant: what happens
>> if you leave the power on for longer periods of time?
>
> the thrust grows by a nearly-linear schema.

Unfortunately, your published experiments are too short to show this.

As Alain said, why not run it for eg. hours at a time? For this purpose,
the battery could easily be replaced with an external power feed.

--
/* * * Otto J. Makela <om@iki.fi> * * * * * * * * * */
/* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
/* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * */

On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:49:05 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:

>Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 11:37:59 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>>> If your test device weight were 1 kg, to accelerate it at 1.1 times
>>> earth gravity it would need to produce a thrust of a bit under 11 N.
>>>
>>> Your devices of course are currently nowhere near that, the peak
>>> value given in http://www.asps.it/trustgra.jpg is about 23 mN — so
>>> you'd need to scale the thrust up by around 500-fold to lift 1 kg.
>>
>> the thrust of our devices only depends on the battery and amplifier
>> power.
>
>This remains to be shown, as your published experiments have for now
>lasted only for hundreds of seconds and used hundreds of watts.
>
>>> The question posed earlier by Alain is quite relevant: what happens
>>> if you leave the power on for longer periods of time?
>>
>> the thrust grows by a nearly-linear schema.
>
>Unfortunately, your published experiments are too short to show this.
>
>As Alain said, why not run it for eg. hours at a time? For this purpose,
>the battery could easily be replaced with an external power feed.

the problem is the heat, both the amplifier and dipole are subject to
heat up, which needs active cooling. Right now we are working on this
issue.

Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:49:05 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>>As Alain said, why not run it for eg. hours at a time? For this purpose,
>>the battery could easily be replaced with an external power feed.
>
> the problem is the heat, both the amplifier and dipole are subject to
> heat up, which needs active cooling. Right now we are working on this
> issue.

And if the "thrust" produced is in reality a thermal artifact,
active cooling should also resolve this.
--
/* * * Otto J. Makela <om@iki.fi> * * * * * * * * * */
/* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
/* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * */

On Jul/28/2022 at 09:36, Doctor Who wrote :
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:49:05 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>
>> Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 11:37:59 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>>>> If your test device weight were 1 kg, to accelerate it at 1.1 times
>>>> earth gravity it would need to produce a thrust of a bit under 11 N.
>>>>
>>>> Your devices of course are currently nowhere near that, the peak
>>>> value given in http://www.asps.it/trustgra.jpg is about 23 mN — so
>>>> you'd need to scale the thrust up by around 500-fold to lift 1 kg.
>>>
>>> the thrust of our devices only depends on the battery and amplifier
>>> power.
>>
>> This remains to be shown, as your published experiments have for now
>> lasted only for hundreds of seconds and used hundreds of watts.
>>
>>>> The question posed earlier by Alain is quite relevant: what happens
>>>> if you leave the power on for longer periods of time?
>>>
>>> the thrust grows by a nearly-linear schema.
>>
>> Unfortunately, your published experiments are too short to show this.
>>
>> As Alain said, why not run it for eg. hours at a time? For this purpose,
>> the battery could easily be replaced with an external power feed.
>
> the problem is the heat, both the amplifier and dipole are subject to
> heat up, which needs active cooling. Right now we are working on this
> issue.

If the heat is not uniform and one side heats up more than the other,
then air molecules on the hot side will bounce off the surface with more
force than on the cooler side. That would provide some thrust. That's
what we are talking about when talk about thermal effect.

Alain Fournier

On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 19:33:10 -0400, Alain Fournier
<alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:

>On Jul/28/2022 at 09:36, Doctor Who wrote :
>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:49:05 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>>
>>> Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 11:37:59 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>>>>> If your test device weight were 1 kg, to accelerate it at 1.1 times
>>>>> earth gravity it would need to produce a thrust of a bit under 11 N.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your devices of course are currently nowhere near that, the peak
>>>>> value given in http://www.asps.it/trustgra.jpg is about 23 mN — so
>>>>> you'd need to scale the thrust up by around 500-fold to lift 1 kg.
>>>>
>>>> the thrust of our devices only depends on the battery and amplifier
>>>> power.
>>>
>>> This remains to be shown, as your published experiments have for now
>>> lasted only for hundreds of seconds and used hundreds of watts.
>>>
>>>>> The question posed earlier by Alain is quite relevant: what happens
>>>>> if you leave the power on for longer periods of time?
>>>>
>>>> the thrust grows by a nearly-linear schema.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, your published experiments are too short to show this.
>>>
>>> As Alain said, why not run it for eg. hours at a time? For this purpose,
>>> the battery could easily be replaced with an external power feed.
>>
>> the problem is the heat, both the amplifier and dipole are subject to
>> heat up, which needs active cooling. Right now we are working on this
>> issue.
>
>If the heat is not uniform and one side heats up more than the other,
>then air molecules on the hot side will bounce off the surface with more
>force than on the cooler side. That would provide some thrust. That's
>what we are talking about when talk about thermal effect.
>
>
>Alain Fournier

nonsense, and current tests are on a milligram scale, with thrust up,
and with thrust down. That resolves your issue.
Future tests planned in a vacuum.

Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:

> Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
>> If the heat is not uniform and one side heats up more than the other,
>> then air molecules on the hot side will bounce off the surface with
>> more force than on the cooler side. That would provide some thrust.
>> That's what we are talking about when talk about thermal effect.
>
> nonsense,

You will need to expand on why you think that concern is nonsense,
thermal effects have been the downfall of several similar devices.

> and current tests are on a milligram scale, with thrust up, and with
> thrust down. That resolves your issue. Future tests planned in a
> vacuum.

I'll have to ask, since I can't make sense of your website and
individual experiments are not described in sufficient detail:
is the direction of "thrust" changed by reversing the device?
If not, does the heat dissipation change side depending on direction?

--
/* * * Otto J. Makela <om@iki.fi> * * * * * * * * * */
/* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
/* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * */

On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 11:11:24 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:

>Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:
>
>> Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
>>> If the heat is not uniform and one side heats up more than the other,
>>> then air molecules on the hot side will bounce off the surface with
>>> more force than on the cooler side. That would provide some thrust.
>>> That's what we are talking about when talk about thermal effect.
>>
>> nonsense,
>
>You will need to expand on why you think that concern is nonsense,
>thermal effects have been the downfall of several similar devices.
>
>> and current tests are on a milligram scale, with thrust up, and with
>> thrust down. That resolves your issue. Future tests planned in a
>> vacuum.
>
>I'll have to ask, since I can't make sense of your website and
>individual experiments are not described in sufficient detail:
>is the direction of "thrust" changed by reversing the device?
>If not, does the heat dissipation change side depending on direction?

the thrust is directional on the V dipole, that should be clear
enough.
Yes, the thrust is reversed by reversing the device, it is a
unidirectional force.
As I said we make tests on a scale, with thrust up and thrust down by
reversing the device.

Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:

> om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>> I'll have to ask, since I can't make sense of your website and
>> individual experiments are not described in sufficient detail:
>> is the direction of "thrust" changed by reversing the device?
>
> the thrust is directional on the V dipole, that should be clear
> enough. Yes, the thrust is reversed by reversing the device, it
> is a unidirectional force. As I said we make tests on a scale,
> with thrust up and thrust down by reversing the device.

I assume the heat dissipation of the device is also fairly directional?
As far as I can tell (it's been a while since I did physics) this does
not unfortunately seem to eliminate possibility of thermal effects.

These could at least partially be elimininated by running the device
for longer periods at a time, perhaps with added heatsinks and/or
some kind of sideways-directed air flow to keep it from overheating.
If having a cooling fan running has no effect on the thrust produced,
it at least makes the thermal hypothesis a bit less likely.

Unfortunately fans produce vibration and turbulence, which may be
enough disturbance to mask the rather faint signals altogether.
A classic very cheap solution for creating laminar air flow is to
pack a bunch of plastic straws after a fan.

What is your schedule for tests under near-vacuum conditions?

--
/* * * Otto J. Makela <om@iki.fi> * * * * * * * * * */
/* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
/* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * */

On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 18:36:22 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:

>Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:
>
>> om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>>> I'll have to ask, since I can't make sense of your website and
>>> individual experiments are not described in sufficient detail:
>>> is the direction of "thrust" changed by reversing the device?
>>
>> the thrust is directional on the V dipole, that should be clear
>> enough. Yes, the thrust is reversed by reversing the device, it
>> is a unidirectional force. As I said we make tests on a scale,
>> with thrust up and thrust down by reversing the device.
>
>I assume the heat dissipation of the device is also fairly directional?
>As far as I can tell (it's been a while since I did physics) this does
>not unfortunately seem to eliminate possibility of thermal effects.
>
>These could at least partially be elimininated by running the device
>for longer periods at a time, perhaps with added heatsinks and/or
>some kind of sideways-directed air flow to keep it from overheating.
>If having a cooling fan running has no effect on the thrust produced,
>it at least makes the thermal hypothesis a bit less likely.
>
>Unfortunately fans produce vibration and turbulence, which may be
>enough disturbance to mask the rather faint signals altogether.
>A classic very cheap solution for creating laminar air flow is to
>pack a bunch of plastic straws after a fan.
>
>What is your schedule for tests under near-vacuum conditions?

I don't know at the moment, I have to ask pnn calmagorod.