Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan at gmx.de> wrote in message news:<1k9cta.h7o.ln at miriam.mikron.de>...
> jmdrake wrote:
> >> When there's time, I'll write one. No serious research is going on here,
> >> because it's not worth the time, nor can you get glory from debunking
> >> crazy ideas. You just get to argue with crackpots, which is depressing.
> > In other words you pulled it out your arse. And somehow you think this
> > is more scientific then simply describing it as an electronic phenomenom
> > that you don't yet understand?
>> Electrostatic. And I fully understand electrostatic, it's not difficult at
> all. I just didn't do the calculations.
Don't let a little math stand in your way. ;-)
> Oh man, you are hooked up here. "nearby" is "in the same order of magnitude
> as the size of the lifter", and does have nothing to do with foot, yards,
> inches and such.
Except that the size of the lifters in question are already known. If
feet and yards are a problem feel free to convert to meters. ;-)
> The lifter itself can be made small or large, for sure. If
> the size of the lifter is one foot, "nearby" is in the order of a few
> feets. The electrostatic effect depends on distance, so it will be smaller
> with larger distance (ultimately, all curves approximate to 1/r², just
> nearby they can differ).
A "few feet" is literally "3 feet". I've seen video of lifters mounted
on horizontal rotors that were about 6 inches accross that looked to
be more than 3 feet from the wall. In fact one was about an inch in
diameter and 3 inches long. But of course exact distance is
impossible to tell from a video clip. I'll have to post your theory
on one of the lifter forums and see what the response it. Heck you
may be right, I don't know.
John M. Drake