Regardless of whether or not his is actually a galvanic reaction (which it most likely is), your figures are way off.
But heck... they have already done a circut generating 2 volts. Single Tap generating
around.8 volts run to 3 capacitors in parrallel which are switched to series when
discharged generating 2.1 volts. They did not give an amp number on it. But if 12
volts at 1 amp is a reasonable refinement then they would have to be seeing roughly
6 amps from a 2 volt system... and they would need to be seeing roughly 15 amps from
a single.8 volt connection.
They are getting at any one time.8 volts from a given tap. they use this to charge 3 capacitors, and then discharge them to get 2 volts. This is NOT a constant power supply, but a switched power supply, a rough estimate is that your duty cycle is 33%, judging by the tripling of the voltage. So 3 taps with capacitors discharging in phased progression would get a constant 2 volt power supply, which would require some additional circuitry to clean up the signal.
Hydrogen DOES undergo fusion, just not as easily as deuterium, because it has a smaller reaction cross-section. Yes, it would have been nice to do a control run with plain acetone instead of the deuterium-enriched acetone used in the experiment. However, TFA does not say whether or not he did a control run, so its kinda hard to make definitive judgements.
The only way to make a bulletproof case for any effect which is commonly belived to be impossible (and please don't rag about belief having no place in science, believe me, its there) is to design an experiment which is completely procedurally transparent (to prevent accusations of fraud), easy to understand, and above all produces a large and obvious result consistently. Until they can get a better idea of what exactly is going on in the bubbles and improve the reproducibility, they don't have a chance of convincing most skeptics.
The whole ID angle has been thoroughly slammed by now, (which won't keep people from continuing to bash at the article fot it, but enough already)
I want to know what these researchers figured out that was different from what we knew before. I expect, I dunno, SCIENCE from a scientific article. OK, from TFA we get that the scientists took a (honeybee) and used high-speed photography to capture it's movements. We know that they varied the atmospheric density to make the bee work harder, and captured that information. TFA says they built a robotic wing which could mimic a bee and measured force against it. OK, we have an experiment described, but did they try other types of bees? Where are the results? Conclusions? I want answers!/end rant/
No, the engine is based on a physical theory that was written in GERMAN. Getting science out of Germany in the 50's was a little difficult, and Heim never got the wilder parts of his theory printed, so nobody ever heard about it.
However He did get a paper printed with some of his theory, which predicts accurately the masses of elementary particles based on physical characteristics. This is why his theory has a shot, because so far it is the ONLY theory which can do this.
Again, the main reason no one ever heard of this is that the theory is in German, written by a man who did not want his theory to get beyond his country or control, and who has never been able to get the money together to test the theory.
And I'll say it again.
RTFA!
and then RTFWS! http://www.ohio-airships.com/Old/Default.htm
Over half the lift comes from the wings.
Yes, they look awfully small for the body, that's because the body is filled with helium and as such weighs very little (but is not actually lighter than air).
The advantage over LTA transport is that it does not require a groundcrew or sophisticated mechanisms to land. It also has no problem with lift changes due to fuel use over long flights. It is more stable in high winds. Also it can fly faster for a geiven fuel usage because it has less drag.
The advantage over conventional airplanes is mainly fuel economy.
I imagine that a fleet of these could compete with a fleet of semis based on economy and speed.
My 2 bits
Merlyn
Slashdot Mirror
Regardless of whether or not his is actually a galvanic reaction (which it most likely is), your figures are way off.
.8 volts run to 3 capacitors in parrallel which are switched to series when .8 volt connection.
.8 volts from a given tap. they use this to charge 3 capacitors, and then discharge them to get 2 volts. This is NOT a constant power supply, but a switched power supply, a rough estimate is that your duty cycle is 33%, judging by the tripling of the voltage. So 3 taps with capacitors discharging in phased progression would get a constant 2 volt power supply, which would require some additional circuitry to clean up the signal.
But heck... they have already done a circut generating 2 volts. Single Tap generating
around
discharged generating 2.1 volts. They did not give an amp number on it. But if 12
volts at 1 amp is a reasonable refinement then they would have to be seeing roughly
6 amps from a 2 volt system... and they would need to be seeing roughly 15 amps from
a single
They are getting at any one time
Whatever...
Hydrogen DOES undergo fusion, just not as easily as deuterium, because it has a smaller reaction cross-section. Yes, it would have been nice to do a control run with plain acetone instead of the deuterium-enriched acetone used in the experiment. However, TFA does not say whether or not he did a control run, so its kinda hard to make definitive judgements.
The only way to make a bulletproof case for any effect which is commonly belived to be impossible (and please don't rag about belief having no place in science, believe me, its there) is to design an experiment which is completely procedurally transparent (to prevent accusations of fraud), easy to understand, and above all produces a large and obvious result consistently. Until they can get a better idea of what exactly is going on in the bubbles and improve the reproducibility, they don't have a chance of convincing most skeptics.
The whole ID angle has been thoroughly slammed by now, (which won't keep people from continuing to bash at the article fot it, but enough already)
/end rant/
I want to know what these researchers figured out that was different from what we knew before. I expect, I dunno, SCIENCE from a scientific article. OK, from TFA we get that the scientists took a (honeybee) and used high-speed photography to capture it's movements. We know that they varied the atmospheric density to make the bee work harder, and captured that information. TFA says they built a robotic wing which could mimic a bee and measured force against it. OK, we have an experiment described, but did they try other types of bees? Where are the results? Conclusions? I want answers!
No, the engine is based on a physical theory that was written in GERMAN.
Getting science out of Germany in the 50's was a little difficult, and Heim never got the wilder parts of his theory printed, so nobody ever heard about it.
However He did get a paper printed with some of his theory, which predicts accurately the masses of elementary particles based on physical characteristics. This is why his theory has a shot, because so far it is the ONLY theory which can do this.
Again, the main reason no one ever heard of this is that the theory is in German, written by a man who did not want his theory to get beyond his country or control, and who has never been able to get the money together to test the theory.
Nah, they'll just write smaller...
I can see the viscious spiral now, before too long you will need a scanning-tunneling microscope to read the pico-print in your EULA.
And I'll say it again. RTFA! and then RTFWS! http://www.ohio-airships.com/Old/Default.htm Over half the lift comes from the wings. Yes, they look awfully small for the body, that's because the body is filled with helium and as such weighs very little (but is not actually lighter than air). The advantage over LTA transport is that it does not require a groundcrew or sophisticated mechanisms to land. It also has no problem with lift changes due to fuel use over long flights. It is more stable in high winds. Also it can fly faster for a geiven fuel usage because it has less drag. The advantage over conventional airplanes is mainly fuel economy. I imagine that a fleet of these could compete with a fleet of semis based on economy and speed. My 2 bits Merlyn