If you are speaking 'frequency as in cycles per second of current(like the 60 hertz household supply) then you have no idea what you are talking about.
I meant frequency of discharge. One discharge per pulse.
Capacitors can store a charge on their plates. That's the equivalent of a battery. Capacitors simply cannot be a supply of alternating current.
Again, my thinking was one discharge per pulse. If you want multiple pulses, you need multiple discharges. If you want high power, you need frequent discharges, at a high frequency. That's pretty clear, isn't it?
If you mean recycling time
OK, if that's the correct term, fine.
There are problems also with a fast cycle/recyle rate in that the plates of the capacitor are going to move.
Engineers and scientists are paid to solve problems....
The recharge rate must be about an hour in order to use it twice on the towers.
You lost me here. Why an hour? Why not 10 minutes? Why not 10 seconds?
In fact, I just checked PM, and it says is takes 120 s to charge the capacitors in that experiment.
NO, you still need to increase the power o/p in order to do a floor by floor destruction and now you require the power to keep that o/p at the required level for 10 seconds. Didn't you say this is a single shot pulse? ten seconds is a helluva long pulse.
I wasn't suggesting a 10 second pulse, I was suggesting a rapid succession of pulses.
NO, 8,6000,000 square feet is not a strawman. (it seems that after all the schooling that Jay Utah gave you, you still don't know what a strawman arguement is)It is only the beginning. You have to calculate the cubic feet of concrete to be pulverised and then calculate the energy required to pulverise it and design a device that can deliver that energy over a ten second time span.
Whatever the details are of the volume of concrete, a weaponized system, capable of destroying numerous floors in a 10 second span, needn't do it all in one shot, and, in fact, given a high enough pulse frequency, needn't do it in only 111 shots. An electron gun "shoots up" thousands of pixels of a computer monitor in a fraction of a second. In one second, it could certainly do so more often than 111 times. In 10 seconds....
Well you have found one physicist here who says its not real.
Dave Rogers opinion seems solely based on his opinion of LaViolette. He gives no indication of even having read the Podkletnov Modanese paper, freely available on arxiv.
I still intend to ask other physicists. I hereby predict that none of them will have seriously looked into this, though I will happily find out that I'm wrong.
Why would the speed at which something is moved depend on its mass?
Gravity accellerates a dime at the same rate as silver dollar, a grain of sand at the same rate as both of those or a concrete block. If this is a focre applied to anything of mass then that force should be the same to anything it encounters.
Huh? I think you mean that if the force varies linearly with mass, then acceleration should be constant.
In PM, they state that the force is, indeed, proportional to mass (so they must mean a linear dependence.) Not sure about the "concrete smashing" domain.
In PM, they also state
If the radiation beam propagates in air, some energy should be depleted from it as it propagates. If air molecules are accelerated exactly like the pendulums, at standard temperature and pressure the energy lost to air from the beam should be on the order of 10^-3 J/m. The velocity shear between the air in the path of the impulse and surrounding atmosphere should, in principal, lead to noticeable air turbulence after the pulse. While extensive studies of the behavior of the air in the radiation beam have not been conducted, observations of the air in the beam path with smoke show that only brief forward and back movement of the particles occurs. There is no significant airflow, as the impulse is very short, and neither turbulence nor vortex phenomena are observed.
(emphasis mine)
Apparently, air turbulence is tiny in the PM regime, but the likeliest reason is simply the shortness of the pulse.
A super duper weaponized beam might well be noticeable, though I get the idea that hurricane level winds won't occur. Then again, maybe they would. Then again, if you parked one of these puppies in the basement....
While the speed at which this hypothetical beam travels is immaterial to its supposed effect it certainly is material to determining the veracity of all statements about this beam made by peoiple who propose that it acts 1000 times faster than electromagnetic radiation. If they are going to say that they have results that would contradict Einstein then they had better be able to back that up with extreme certainty and precision.
I would agree that
formal claims about superluminal velocity cannot be accepted without experimental proof, and that if such formal claims were made (such as in a published journal article), and then disproved, we'd certainly have our doubts about other claims. However, smashed concrete is a rather unambiguous claim, and even if Podkletnov, et. al., erred in velocity measurements, it doesn't necessarily follow that concrete smashing has to be discounted.
Not unless Uri Geller is part of the experimental team!!!
BTW, I didn't notice any speed of light claims in the PM paper. So, I don't know if PM have actually made this claim in the literature.
As for informal claims -e.g. hearsay relayed by LaViolette - there's less reason to take them seriously.
), is "How can I increase the power?" not "How can I increase the voltage?" 
