Reactionless Propulsion: Charrier Experiment 2B: Gated Stimulation at 1046 Hz

Please review my previous videos on this topic, and also see Charrier’s video explaining his 2012 paper in Applied Physics Letters 101 and showing his apparatus here:

I revised the suspension to conform to Charrier’s model, once I was able to see the photos in his video. I used two strands of #33 enamelled copper wire to suspend and feed the coil, with the axis (center of mass) of the coil 8.5 cm below the suspension point. The suspension wires are 25 mm apart and are attached to the coil spool ends just as in Charrier’s experiment.

In this video I don’t use the H-bridge or the mosfet relay, I’m just driving with the DP101 pulse generator or the F43 function generator directly, in order to see the resulting voltage and current waveforms and peak currents. Charrier’s Hameg arbitrary waveform generator’s output stage should be a comparable or perhaps less powerful current source than the systems I’m using in this video. Nevertheless I’m still not seeing a good correspondence between my drive current measurements and what Charrier reports in his experiment.

It appears that artifactual motions still dominate in my apparatus. Certainly, the revised suspension doesn’t suppress the torsional pendulum mode. The coil’s field is interacting with nearby masses of metal and also with the Earth’s field. Without getting rid of these motions I will never be able to deploy techniques for detecting tiny displacements or thrusts.

How did Charrier deal with these inevitable artefactual motions? His photos show even more large metal masses nearby than I have here in my laboratory. How am I to reconcile my measurements of current and waveforms with his reports? The only hypothesis I have at the present time is that he somehow was not supplying very much current at all to his test article, perhaps due to the characteristics of his Hameg AWG. But then where did his measured displacements come from?

You may also like...