hoola

I have re - introduced the scale and adjusted the main generator up to 2mhz, and have achieved similar forces of 10 milligrams or so. I do this to see what is the highest drive frequency that is effective for generation of thrust and it seems that the 2mhz setting is near or at the top of the useful frequency band. The advantage to using this higher frequency is that the entire apparatus in now silent, and the hum of the HV power transformer loading down by tube conduction is the most obvious way to determine stack stimulation. Next will be to determine the lowest generator setting to give thrust readings.

I set the HV to 2.5KV , removed the scale and balanced the arm to where it was barely offset to the right side and noticed that the gap between the bottom of the right stack and the wedge I inserted under it was slightly affected when activating the stacks, seeming to raise it up just to the level of barely perceiving a change in the gap, perhaps 1/32" I then turned the main generator on and off, syncing up with the gap appearing to separate from the wedge, and upon doing so, it became obvious that the gap was increasing with each pulse of signal from the generator of about one second in duration, to the point of raising the gap bounce to nearly 1/8", and clearly visible. This is hopefully is from actual impulse thrust, and not acoustic thrust from interactions with ambient air. A further test with a reduced air pressure, helium, or true vacuum may be needed. Hopefully further improvements will make the lift thrust so obvious that those tests may not be needed.

after further fine adjustment of position of the actuator arm, I placed a 2.6 gram weight on the left stack end and read 5.2 grams on the read scale, giving a doubling of actual scale readings, hence the 50% reduction in all measures. I placed a 3/8" thick piece of felt between the actuator arm and the scale and with 1KV tube supply got 9-10 milligrams increase, and upon increasing to 2KV got 20-21 milligrams increase, a near linear doubling. If the reading indicates a predominate proportion of thrust, the felt being an effective block to vibration, the true thrust is 10 milligrams at 2KV. This is approaching the level of removing the scale, and potentially seeing arm movement. The stack seems more sensitive to high voltages today, hearing some sizzling and frying at 2.5 KV as the humidity is up this morning. The interface module that takes the output from the edge contact assy. has individual adjustments for each output. They are all set at midpoint so as not to overdrive the tube grids, and they can each be switched on or off by the main chassis, but I have not yet tried a reduction of inputs with these controls, varying the relative ratios of them, offering a more fine tuned approach to the control of the impulse peaks and valleys within the stacks.

today I came by some vintage surplus interior 5 conductor phone wire that has tinsel wire and is extremely thin, soft and pliable. I have subbed them for the normal wire leads between the tube output connectors and the double stack assy. input terminals. The scale settles down quickly and the "creep" up and down as the original wires relaxed is almost gone. With this mod I recorded a 114 milligram weight increase using 1 KV as tube supply. This I have cut down by 50% to 57 milligrams, as the actuator arm that rests on the scale is extended from the central pivot point, and sticks out half the distance of the arm ends where the stacks are positioned, so there is some force gain by lever action. I chose the central point to mount the actuator arm as the vibrations coming down the arms hopefully will cancel out in the center. Since some vibrations must still be coming through, or even enhanced by this setup, I put in a 1/8" felt pad between the arm and the scale and read a more reasonable 6 milligram weight gain.

I have seen that the highest useable voltage is 3KV, when I heard the arc snap within the stack. I backed up the voltage to just below that and did more scale tests, the results were not much, if any higher than with 1.5KV. This is disappointing as a member of the woodward team was indicating that Kaluza Kline infers an interaction that increases at the 4th power of the voltage. I have yet to hook up the end piezos on the two stacks on the arm, only am relying on the readout from the primary stack, which does certainly give access to how to proceed, but I need the two matrixed end piezos of both stacks driving another dual trace scope. I will switch between scope inputs for now, so as to do another torque test on both arm stacks and try to equalize their individual responses.

I am very happy to report that due to a simple loose connection in the HV supply, the chattering noise has been removed. This seems to mean that the neon sign noise is once again the result of the tubes, or largely so and I don't have to rewire the supply. The transformer has a nice smooth hum now, so I increased the voltage output to 2.5KV for a brief period and got a stable 11 milligrams of weight increase. I can turn off the weight gain by several means. I can simply shut down the generator, alter the delay timing, drive frequency or shut down the HV supply. The question remains for now if the readings indicate a real weight change from thrust or from simple scale vibrations. Only when I do a balanced arm test that shows actual movement can that be settled. I seems likely that scale indications are partly due to simple vibrations, but if there is a real thrust appearing, it is imbedded within it, and of a certain percentage of a given reading. Part of my problem is that the scale shuts down after a few minutes automatically, and i have remove the lever arm from the scale and start over, and the scale takes about a full minute to stabilize to the tare weight of the slightly overbalanced arm, which is about 6 milligrams. This gives me a limited time to do a particular test in most cases, but sometimes the scale "forgets" to shut down, but I don't think there is a way to make it do so. I do have the scale with the wired remote on/off button mod that allows me to activate it without touching the scale itself, which is quite a help, as pressing the button on the scale is itself a major source of arm jitter.

tonight I hooked up the entire tube driven assembly and had some encouraging results. I got a reliable weight increase of 3-5 milligrams with occasional readings of +7-8. This is nothing new, as I got similar results with the SS unit with it's 600V supply over a year ago, however the shortcomings of the neon transformer are becoming apparent, as if I increase the supply volts to the tube plates much over 600V, the noise level and chattering that comes from the transformer becomes excessive. Even the piezos mimic the sound and do so even with the drive signal to them turned off. Apparently the current control circuit within the transformer is the cause, and makes that neon sign noise that I had always attributed to the neon tubes themselves. I will rewire the power supply to remove the noise on the high voltage line and hopefully will smooth out the supply and can continue on with the high voltage tests. Sorry about the underlining, but can't get that function to shut off. 't v, the transformer get noisy and that noise is reflected into the tandem piezo units even with no inputs, causing me to remember the noise an old school neon sign made, having been around them in store windows and the like years ago. I had surmised that the noise was from the neon tubes themselves, and it seems that the transformer current regulator circuit is the cause. The transformer and piezos chatter away sounding just like a standard neon sign. A conversion of the power supply is in order to eliminate the buzz in the DC supply, and increase the current capability, note...disregard the second paragraph, it turned blue and disappeared after writing it, so I had to re write it and the underlining got stuck on, then the lost paragraph reappearerd when submitting the reply, but doesn't show up in the edit function, so I can't remove it.

I guess the followup will be that the charge likely precipitates from the removal of heat, as the pencil could only heat up the element slowly, and due to the mass of the ring the temp quickly drops into the ring body and the copper tab material which is a good heat sink. I found out that the neon transformer I am using has a current limiter within the sealed chassis box. I had noticed that when heavily conducting the tubes, a voltage droop would occur, more than I had anticipated. The current limiter is in the central tap, so the supply can be single ended and not use the center tap, and adjust the variac to compensate. I measured the resistance of the current limited center tap, and it showed open circuit, so there is something more complex inside other than a simple limiting resistor

the shocks from the new stack while soldering leads to the tabs has happened again today. This time the charges were minor, but enough to feel it and I was anticipating it. I suppose this phenomena is well understood, and I won't mention it again unless some aspect of it requires a followup, but I am using a 15watt pencil and the heat input has to be negligible, and is surprising to me that the process appears to be so efficient.

I have begun mapping out areas of interest and have found several that show the desired gradient within the stack, a new one at 2.1mhz among others already listed. I have begun building the third stack, which will hang in tandem on opposite sides of a balance beam along with the second stack,(since removed from the polycarbonate containment), both being parallel driven by the tubes, which in turn are driven by the edge contact assy. attached to the primary stack. I have abandoned the poly housing for the moment and will use ear plugs for the noise. I have ordered a ten turn 250K precision pot to adjust the delay feature, as it is very critical to adjust now, even with a fine tuning pot hooked up in series with it. The hitachi dual trace scope should allow me to determine the delay interval by sampling the 4017's pin 10, signifying the end of scan, and the lower trace to it's pin 1, signifying the start of scan. The common scan rate to both traces should allow a determination of the delay duration by the separation distance between the two blips, and so get a reading at certain delay control positions. Several positions should allow enough measurements to encode a counter chip to deliver a numerical readout of the delay duration without having to refer to control position markings. The higher scan frequencies naturally need a shorter delay to assemble useful traces, so the readout will have to be rather broadly engineered, as I guesstimate the delay for useful traces will range from 1 millisecond and down to 10 microseconds, depending on scan drive frequency.

I have removed the washer/rubber damping element and replaced it with the conventional piezo and still have a mimimum on all piezos at the 175KHZ area, but not as pronounced with the damper in place. I have received a dual trace Hitachi V212 scope with another on order, and the LBO 514 dual trace I bought for parts has vertical output transistor bias issues, but otherwise seems ok and I am in search for a schematic of it online. I am returning to the warehouse to do further tests to have the concrete slab floor for stability for milligram scale tests. I will add a low level output on the main drive chassis so that I may temporarily disconnect the original stack's edge output to drive the tubes, and drive the tubes directly from the main drive chassis. The interface assy was intended to run the tubes from the edge contacts so has gain adjustments that should have enough range to amp up the direct output, as it will be on a lower drive level, on the order of 10 volts as that is the supply voltage for the 4017 IC.

I have found that the stack puts out almost no signal to the scope on any interrogated piezo at 175 khz. This happens regardless of what piezo is activated or not, or the scan direction. The noise also almost disappears to barely audible. The resonant frequency of the piezos are 44khz, and the fourth multiple is 176khz. This happens at a fairly rapid delay rate only, of which I can only guess at, as I don't yet have a way of measuring this. Can anyone advise on what brand and model of an interval measuring device they have used and had good results? I see online of various manufacturers that make them, but don't see anything used on ebay. I would prefer a stand alone device, as I see they are usually coupled with measuring other criteria also. Any help would be appreciated. thanks

today I hooked up a rotary switch onto the five edge piezo sensors to easily and quickly scope the behavior of the drive elements and confirm a definite advantage of using the middle three elements only. A parameter I listed on the previous post of scan order means scan direction. The stack is mounted vertically, so reverse scan means bottom to top.The reverse advantage may be due to removal of the top stack sensor piezo and replacing it with the washer/rubber passive element. With the current settings the prior drive freq. of 125 khz once again seems a sweet spot. By turning off the end elements, it seems that they offer an extended turnaround delays on both stack ends, somehow offering these positive results. The first reliable and extended observance of repeated thrust indications above 2-3 milligrams was with using only the middle three elements, which was about a year ago.

as suspected, the piezos in the middle do seem to cancel out any possible thrust differentials in the overall stack. This was using the conventional settings of delay, drive frequencies, scan order and what elements are active, so upon scanning through the parameters I found there are certain settings that offer a top to bottom gradient of energy levels in the order of an overall doubling. One helpful setting was activating the middle three elements only. For this test I was scoping from the five edge contact sensors. I have removed the top sensor piezo from the original stack and replaced it with two heavy steel washers with a thin rubber sheet between them to act as the required turnaround, and add damping. The bottom sensor piezo is still there, but not used on this test.

under the topic of quantum gravity, she indicates that gravity is responsible for entanglement....and therefore indicates a strong quantum coorelation with it, but does gravity act as the mediator in entanglement? Is this generally accepted? Since gravity is limited in speed to c and entanglement issues seem to surpass that, how could it mediate entanglements?

it has occurred to me that just because I may be getting good info on the relative levels of energy of the top and bottom of the stack using the end sensors, this does not indicate the energy levels within the three middle active piezos. The top sensor might sense that the top piezo is at a maximum, but it is unknown if the next one down has reached a minimum, cancelling the top piezo's phononic energy as it transpires it on the way to the bottom. The same thing can be said about the bottom one, as the next to bottom may have a relatively high energy level, again cancelling the minimum end piezo's energy level at stack bottom, and tending to average out the entire stack energy to a negligible level. It seems I need to have 5 scopes to independently monitor with the edge-contact outputs, which could give me more information on how the waves are developing within the stack and their relationships. It also seems that the end sensor piezos are causing a distortion of the overall mix of waves, being used as 'turnarounds" as there needs to be a "buffer" from each end cap for the first and fifth stimulation to have a slight delay before the waves turn around at the cap boundary, as early tests without the buffers delivered a large chaotic trace accompanied by a similar shrill sound and no interesting traces. It seems end sensor replacements with a similar sized, but not of piezo material might be tried to do the turnaround function, and rely on the edge-contact system for monitoring energy levels. Perhaps aluminum dummy piezos could be tried first. Early tests showed that the edge contact system does affect somewhat the overall energy levels in the stack, but since they are not in the direct flow of pulses, it seems they would have much less effect of the five individual traces, making analysis easier.

The secondary stack does not show the assymetry that is occurring in the original one despite changes in driven frequency or delay time to the original, or bias adjustments to the tubes. Both stacks now have separate end sensor/turnaround lines having eliminated the matrixes. The main issue is not that the two stacks are dissimilar in trace outputs, but that the driven stack shows no assymetry in opposing end traces in any situation so far, and that differential in opposite ends of the stack is what I am using at the moment to surmise a thrust is possible, not so much the details of the traces, but that they maximize on one end, with a corresponding minimum on the other, therefore causing a thrust in the direction of the minimum end. If I cannot get a desired assymetry in the the driven stack, I may add a low level output from the 4017 chip to run the tubes directly, bypassing the original stack/edge contact system. I have more piezos on order to construct another stack and test again the double stack idea, where two tube driven stacks are at opposite ends of a balance beam, hanging in opposite directions. The arrangement is nice as the stacks counterweight themselves, simplifying the physical apparatus, (and doubling any actual thrust developed) They will be out the containments for these tests. In the previous test of this manner, the stereo sound they produced was interesting also, and sometimes developed rather pleasant tones imbedded in the audio mix rather like a sleep machine.

today I finished the edge contact - tube interface module and which now provides a high P-P tube plate signal, using a DC plate supply of 500V. The waveforms are clean and relatively undistorted and show the signal in it's pure state, as the secondary stack is not hooked up yet, only 90K load resistors from the high voltage supply functioning as dummy load. The bias is still in need of some refinement, as the bias setting is altered somewhat when driven by an appropriate signal. The overall cathode current seems low at this point, showing an averaged current of 5ma per tube with this robust drive signal voltage. The next test will be with the secondary set of piezos hooked into the circut hooked directly off the plates. I have eliminated the coupling caps between them as they seem unecessary as the the piezos are good insulators, and seem to have unexpectedly high capacitive value, as shown by my twin arc surprise of last month.

The edge contact drive now delivers an accurate inverted output from the tubes plates after determining the correct grid bias setting, but at a low level that requires adding a gain stage for each tube input to deliver a useful output. Conventional transistors can be used for a 5 single channel amp board to be added onto the main driver chassis using it's existing power supply. This requirement was not unexpected as the tubes are low gain.

Today I removed the matrix from the two sensor/turnaround elements of the original stack and looked at their outputs separately and can see more clearly the coorelation between maximizing assymetries in one element vs. minimizing assymetries in the other that sometimes occurs. A typical display seems to divide itself in half across a horizontal line, offering a "virtual zero reference line" and the two halves can be made to meet and form interesting relationships with the other as they do so, but only as they approach closely, as if they do meet, they tend to collapse into random noise, indicating a negation of any thrust signal possibility. A few distinct drive frequencies markedly, 115khz, 125khz and 161khz have the property of enhancing either a positive or negative overall assymetry, indicating a potential directional trust in one sensor element, coupled with a symmetry in the other, indicating a negation of phononic energy, and so minimizing the unwanted counter thrust to any potential thrust.

today I hooked up 5 piezos in the edge contact method and got good signal output on all five. I placed one of the signals to the grid of output tube #1 using a supply voltage of 500V dropped through to a load resistor of 20K@25watts to the plate. The DC level of the plate measured +225V, so the AC signal at the plate is in the order of half that, or around 100V P-P. although this is an estimate, as the scope is rather dated and probably inaccurate, but a good outcome of this initial trial to drive the tubes in this fashion. The 20K resistor got hot, but not too hot to touch, so is in the ballpark of an appropriate load resistor, but is probably on the low side. The tube current is 10ma when not supplied with B+, representing the screen current. When the B+ was applied the total tube current increased to 20ma, well within the max ratings of the 6BG6 glass tubes. I have not hooked up this plate signal to the new stack yet, only have measured it's output, but will shortly have all five tubes in operation and driving the new stack. The tube I have tried first is an old RCA and probably 50-60 years old and checks rather weak on the B&K 707 tube tester, but not leaky or gassy. My intention is to replace these with NOS tubes when I have worked out all the details with the used ones.

the next test will be with the "edge contact" method used to drive the tubes, as they do offer high isolation from the initial pulse. A properly designed electronic selective gate system could have a near complete isolation if desired, with the added benefit of having a control of relative values of the two signal strengths.

Today I worked on the original stack, replacing the copper contact pads as the wire hookup tabs were beginning to fall off due to a year of constantly soldering and unsoldering them. I replaced the pads with the .006 copper as with the new stack, in a further attempt to equalized their responses when working in tandem. Tests done after completing today's repairs showed a closer correlation in the two displays when scan order is reversed.

When you switch scan directions there is little to no correlations to the scope display simply being inverted, as one would think, as they are laid out with symmetrical spacers, washers, etc., instead they are almost entirely unrelated in appearances with occasional rare exceptions. I have yet to see a clear reason why this should be he case. Asymmetries in the torque within the stack seems responsible for some of it. These tests are done with all piezos on.

Today's testing shows that the 1/4" polycarbonate is in itself very sound deadening, and may not need to be even partially evacuated during operation. The enclosure should preclude any false thrust due to acoustic pressure from the stack, as any should be neutralized, staying within the containment.