[NewCandle] Schlicher 'drive'

[Kyle R. Mcallister]

Keith Nagel wrote:

> AS Kyle mentioned, NASA made an attempt to reproduce the claims,
> with no success. You can read about that here.
> 
> http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/citations/all/tm-2001-211207.html
> 
> If you follow the link, there is a PDF document at the end of the
> page that gives details about the replication attempt. Perhaps
> Kyle can comment on the picture on page 5; does it look like Johns
> antenna? What is the prism conductor that you mention? Does that
> mean the conductor cross section has edges?

That's the paper I have, by Fralick and Niedra. The design isn't the 
same as the one presented in the patent, or in Schlicher's AIAA paper. 
Nor is it much like the one I have. The one John gave me is FAR more 
intricate; only the basic shape is the same. Also, blowing up the image 
from the NASA paper shows that there aren't (or don't appear to be) any 
prism conductors inside the 'petals' of the antenna.

The prisms are basically inverted bent copper pieces mounted on the 
interior surface of each 'petal', with a hollow air space in between 
them and the petals that is sort of diamond shaped. I'll take close 
pictures of those when I snap the photos of the antenna, which BTW, I 
got down out of the attic a few minutes ago. I'm lookin' at it right 
now. I'll post the link to the pictures. I'll also include a measuring 
tool to give a sense of scale of the thing.

> I'll probably regret this (grin), but Rex has a listed number.
> Here it is.
> 
> (505) 839-9397
> 
> It might be worth a call to Rex if one or more of us tries
> to replicate this work, or perhaps before a replication to
> get some idea about his current thinking on the subject.

John Schnurer talked to Rex several years back, and Rex gave him some 
details that helped him build the working antenna. Rex basically gave 
him his blessing to go ahead and test it. John said Rex seemed somewhat 
down and out that the idea was trampled on theoretical grounds, and 
never properly tested by others.

The exception is what John and his bunch did at Wright-Patterson. John 
never explained why they didn't pursue it further after getting positive 
results. He made mention of them testing it in a room that was shielded 
from the Earth's magnetic field, putting magnets around it to look for 
forces, etc. Nothing apparently affected the thrust. It also does not 
work in reverse with reversed polarity. Only in one direction, and only 
with the pulses sent of the right polarity.

> 
> I seem to remember getting a copy of this patent some time ago in
> conjunction with my employment. It reminded me of a claim made
> to me a very long time ago ( would be in the mid 80's ) by a
> young physicist/inventor. He was promoting the idea that you
> could achieve EM thrust with a phased antenna array. Basically,
> he was looking at the amperian force between two conductors
> when the stimulus was _very_ hf AC. With the proper phasing,
> there was a unidirectional force. In practice, the required
> antenna structure and drive frequency/currents were almost
> unachievable for a substantial thrust. So no real experimental
> attempts happened. But this work did remind me of that idea.

I read about that online somewhere. I don't know if it was written by 
the same person you met, or if it was just symmetry of ideas.

> I think the first hurdle to overcome with this device
> is the potential for stray inductances and eddy currents to
> permit a reaction force. The fact that you can't practically
> suspend the whole apparatus, power supply and all, makes this
> a challenging project. My other concern would be ionic propulsion.
> When you are dealing with fast risetime pulses at these
> magnitudes the dynamic voltage gradients can become quite intense.
> Enough to cause ionic emission, and if pointy cross sectioned
> conductors are necessary you can sort of see how it would be
> of concern. I have struggled with this problem in my own work
> with pulsed current driving inductors, so I would be expecting
> similar problems here.

The reason I backed away from testing things with high voltages 
(anything above about 10kV), was due to the sheer annoyance of trying to 
isolate all possible areas of false-positives. It was frustrating to no end.

> I think both concerns could be addressed by the use of a dummy
> antenna that shows null results. Given that the prior replicators
> got null results with their antenna, that one would be a good
> null standard.

True. The NASA antenna would seem to be a way to go. One of Schlicher's 
antennas DID look like theirs, however. I don't know if the prisms were 
inside it or not. There may have been some differences.

> All that said, Kyle, how did you smoke the car battery? I'm guessing you
> didn't provide enough of a resistive load in the primary, or perhaps
> you didn't handle the huge back EMF when your relays opened the
> transformer primary with all that current...

The battery wasn't driving a transformer. This was 12V from a 850 
cranking ampere battery shunted DIRECTLY into the antenna. The switching 
circuit was two tungsten welding rods (NOT thoriated!), a pair of jumper 
cables, and my hands. Made loud sparks, bright flashes, bad smells, and 
no thrust. Then very bad smells when the battery started belching. As I 
said, this was a bad idea on my part, but it was a time of desperation.

> I would _not_ give up on the car battery idea. A low voltage high power FET
> would
> be able to do the switching and with enough of a ballasting load
> you could do it safely. In fact, the driver John described to you
> sounds like the best overall approach; with a few tweaks we could
> probably get you going on that.

Well, if you think the transfomer and/or car battery idea is worth 
pursuing, I'll go along with it. Let me get some pictures and we'll see 
what we can collectively cook up.

--Kyle