We Know that asymmetric capacitors can produce thrust and from when i did work on this about 5 years ago the total amount of thrust was not accounted for in physics, most of the thrust was the result of ionic wind, when i carried out experiments i worked with a 0.1 gram weighting scales and was producing enclosed asym caps which lost weight when powered, this cancelled out the ionic wind movement, the effect is proportional to cathode mass, voltage across the dielectric and related to diameter of the anode(The smaller the diameter the greater the effect)
Anyway to my point, i am not sure if this makes sense but does anyone have any idea how to construct the equivalent asymmetric inductor or is it even possible to create an asym inductor.
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.09.19, 21:13:27
Anyway to my point, i am not sure if this makes sense but does anyone have any idea how to construct the equivalent asymmetric inductor or is it even possible to create an asym inductor.
Maybe these will help.
Left and right have ferrite magnet cores. The center one has a common button magnet on one end of a powdered iron core. I'm sure you've seen them before ;)
Here is a little reference material for the middle choke. http://www.google.com/patents/about/5179322_Linearity_correction_apparatus.html?id=KjQeAAAAEBAJ
I haven't needed to find documentation before so I haven't found anything on the other two.
The middle one is a bit unique but the outer ones work the same as if the core was not magnetic but a separate DC bias coil was included.
In other words.... The inductance (and therefore the impedance) is different depending upon the frequency or direction of current applied (and for some of these... the intensity of current).
I would call that an asymmetric inductor :)
Of course, since the static field of a magnet has absolutely no affect upon a coil - the folks designing these must have been quacks ^-^
QuoteMaybe these will help.
Left and right have ferrite magnet cores. The center one has a common button magnet on one end of a powdered iron core. I'm sure you've seen them before
Thanks for posting the images WW
The left and right coils, i have seen similar in TVs but never remember any with a bias wind, the convergence coils are so long ago for me now to remember working on them, i wish i could find some circuits of those early TVs.
The middle coil i have seen many over the years but never realized there was a magnet on top, they always looked like a ferrite top, it's times like this i wish a filled my loft space with old chassis, we would dump them by the Tons twice a year :'(
So you are saying that this makes an asymmetric inductor, now that is good news
I am a bity at a loss here, probably because I am not up at the level of you lot.
An asymmetric cap has a large plate, a bit of dielectric and a small plate. This means
that the pull of the large plate on the "gap" is more than the pull of the small
plaste on the dielectric gap, and a consequent resultant force.
If a cap can do something, then maybe an inductor can as well. Neat idea. But
how do we get forces out of coils in an inductor?
Put in a magnetic field, a coil carrying a current will receive a force. If there are
two coils, then there would be a resultant force, but then there was a resultant
force in the first place anyway.
I think there is an idea in here somewhere.
Paul-R
Hi Paul-R
indeed just trying to get like minds working.
With the cap the unknown developed force i believe is related to the shape of the electrodes and the way the ions are released from the anode, hence a smaller diameter wire creates a greater force, because there is less cross sectional area, asymmetrical caps can be created by using a flat disc with the anode as a vertical pin standing up in the middle of the disk but insulated from the disc
I guess with respect to a conventional transformer where the primary is smaller diameter and the secondary is larger diameter we are part way, if the core was removed and the secondary was flat i wonder what would happen then, in this case we would have a asymmetrical capacitive transformer >:-) A sort of bifilar with 1 thin wire on top of the edge of a wide flat wire.
I wonder what would happen if the inductor started with a thick wire gauge and progressed to a smaller diameter along it's wound length and then this thing was pulsed at high frequency.
Many ideas here for experimentation.
Perhaps a shaped magnetic field like a tapered inductor or something similar to Walter Russells square function coils.
Motive force is the target?
If so, only the center coil in my pic may have a chance.
The two outer ones have a full length cylindrical magnet core. Any forces developed between the magnet and coil will be radial and even all the way around.
The center one is different in that the magnet is only at one end. Yes, the core it is glued to is ferrous but the right amount and direction of current will separate the magnet and core, magnetically (into separate fields). One current direction will aid attraction between the magnet and core. The other will hinder attraction. If the latter is strong enough (equal to the magnet's field) a radial field will be developed between the coil/core and the magnet. Any possible motion detected would on have the ambient field to push against.
I know that happens but I haven't looked for unidirectional motion.
After my homework is finished and there is time before bed I'll try it.
As far as special shapes of coils.... I doubt there will be a positive result as the potential of the B field doesn't change from one end of the coil to the other. The same amount of 'field lines' enter as exit.
From WW
QuoteAs far as special shapes of coils.... I doubt there will be a positive result as the potential of the B field doesn't change from one end of the coil to the other. The same amount of 'field lines' enter as exit.
Maybe and maybe not. The idea is to have a difference in the density i.e the lines taper outwards at the less dense region. The # of lines could still be the same.
In the asymmetrical capacitor there is a dense region of charge and a less dense region of charge.
Here is a picture of an asymmetric ceramic cap (barium titanate) I had specially made at HIGH ENERGY CORP..
Very interesting guys, ha ha the ions from the small wire in the asym cap could be equivalent to forcing more flux lines out from a small point, these flux lines then induce current over a large surface area or many wires at once.As ION said about shaped field
My mind keeps telling me we should be operating the coil above its first self-resonant frequency so it starts behaving like a capacitor instead of an inductor, the trouble with flux lines is that they are always referenced to their source, as we know with Lenz
Wow love that cap O0
We also know Tesla played with coils that shape
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.09.20, 21:43:47
Very interesting guys, ha ha the ions from the small wire in the asym cap could be equivalent to forcing more flux lines out from a small point, these flux lines then induce current over a large surface area or many wires at once.As ION said about shaped field
My mind keeps telling me we should be operating the coil above its first self-resonant frequency so it starts behaving like a capacitor instead of an inductor, the trouble with flux lines is that they are always referenced to their source, as we know with Lenz
ION,
I don't currently have such a conical coil so I may need to make one to answer these questions.
Peterae,
Driving a coil to the negative inductance state may be the right answer. ;)
Time for homework, now. >:(
>>Edit...
No joy tonight. Homework has the best of me ......
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.09.19, 21:13:27
We Know that asymmetric capacitors can produce thrust
...
It is only due to leakages. Thrust from asymmetric capacitors and without reaction has been dismissed by Nasa experiments.
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/GLTRS/browse.pl?2004/CR-2004-213312.html
"It may be concluded that that the ion drift model explains how a thrust is developed by ions pushing on air."
There is another paper of a lifter negative test under very high vacuum but I don't retrieve it.
In my more energetic days after grad school, I was working for a defense contractor and interacted with a lot of interesting folks, some had worked at JPL even. During that time, I learned about the lifters that people were playing with and asymmetrical capacitors in general, and I decided to developed my own Method of Moment code for calculating the net force on a asymmetric capacitor discretized with a fine grid. At first I obtained a small net force or thrust and that got me very excited, but later I realized it was due to numerical error introduced by the fact that this was a discrete model not a continuous and smooth curved model. So I made the grid finer in hopes of convincing myself the force might be real, and this net force just became smaller with a smaller grid size, than I refined the grid even more and the force went down even more, almost to 1e-16 N if I remember correctly, all of this while using high voltages like 1e6 volts, which were producing forces on the plates on the order of hundreds or maybe thousands of newtons, and that's when I realized that the forces will always balance out and there is no loop hole, just like theory dictates. So yes, the small thrust observed is due to the ionic wind as proved by NASA and others.
On the other hand, if one desires field propulsion, an almost certain requirement is that we use electroDYNAMICS, not STATICS.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.09.21, 08:46:27
On the other hand, if one desires field propulsion, an almost certain requirement is that we use electroDYNAMICS, not STATICS.
Hmmm....
We have:
Electrodynamic
Electromagnetic
Electrostatic
Electrostrictive
Magnetodynamic
Magnetoelectric
Magnetostatic
Magnetostrictive
Piezodynamic
Piezoelectric
Piezomagnetic
Piezostrictive
Thermodynamic
Thermoelectric
Thermomagnetic
Thermostrictive
(many more....)
An electrodynamically driven system is one which the mechanical forces are developed by the interactions of currents in a conductor and the magnetic field generated by those currents in reaction to the ambient magnetic field.
Are we saying the best bet is to build a powered compass? :D
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.09.21, 07:58:43
It is only due to leakages. Thrust from asymmetric capacitors and without reaction has been dismissed by Nasa experiments.
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/GLTRS/browse.pl?2004/CR-2004-213312.html
"It may be concluded that that the ion drift model explains how a thrust is developed by ions pushing on air."
There is another paper of a lifter negative test under very high vacuum but I don't retrieve it.
I was producing thrust when the asym caps were sealed in potting compound with zero air movement sourounding the potted caps, the potted caps were on weighing scales and i could easily see a lifting force occur.
QuoteIt was further assumed that this current involves charged ions which undergo multiple collisions with air.
My tests were not related to collisions with air and definitely showed valid thrust.
Also last time i looked these devices were shown to work in a Hard vacuum some tests that had failed previously to show this were not using a good enough vacuum.
QuoteVacuum-chamber testing for Lifters and Biefeld-Brown technologies have been difficult to conduct, because a hard vacuum is required to eliminate all trace-gasses from the chamber prior to testing. Nonetheless, a number of organizations have been able to achieve hard vacuum at 10–7 Torr or lower pressure, and have run experiments with varying results.
The suggestion of variance in vacuum-chamber results has been claimed to be the product of experimental error because of the conflict in overall results. Purdue University research Hector Serrano was able to create hard vacuum during testing, and yet still observed measurable thrust in his asymmetrical capacitor apparatus. Other testing, such as that by Dr. Jonathan Campell at NASA, indicate quite the opposite – without the presence of an atmosphere, Campbell saw no propulsive motion, which led him to the conclusion that ion-wind was the key to producing propulsive force in Lifters.
Lets not forget Brown found the force originally using sealed stacked plates in a suspended box.
With lifters most of thrust is due to ionic air movement but there is also a small component of thrust which is to my knowledge unexplained bearing in mind i have not studied it for a number of years.
In my tests i also ruled out electrostatic attraction with regard to the movement, this was achieved by varying the orientation of the sealed device with which measurable thrust would follow orientation.
I've always wanted to return to some experiments at some point, i built a variable frequency fet driven LOPTX stage, and use this to power my asym cells, and when i do the basic lifter style asym cap experiments the anode wire would ionize the air enough to see in the dark and makes the nodes visible and these are spaced under a cm apart in the low kHz, offcourse i wasn't interested in this at the time but could be a visible method of measuring pulsed dc spacing in a standard copper wire
http://jlnlabs.online.fr/plasma/html/oaugdp.htm
I have had a lot of fun with this, as well :)
P.S.
I've had much better results with the coil made of coaxial cable with the outer insulation and shield stripped from the coil.
The 'resonance' of the OAUGDP coil plasma is of the plasma, not the coil. The plasma acts more like acoustic waves. You can vary the frequency to see the nodes/anti-nodes.
Make sure your room is dark and let your eyes adjust to the dark before throwing the switch ;)
@Peterae
QuoteI was producing thrust when the asym caps were sealed in potting compound with zero air movement sourounding the potted caps, the potted caps were on weighing scales and i could easily see a lifting force occur.
that's quite interesting Peter. If that is realy a thrust and not attraction to the scales or some dynamic effect while charging (which I knows exists) than it must be an effect that occurs in the dielectric. The code I wrote years ago assumed vacum as the dielectric so it is not applicable to your device. hmmm, I might have to start coding again. >:(
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.09.21, 23:20:02
The code I wrote years ago assumed vacum as the dielectric so it is not applicable to your device. hmmm, I might have to start coding again. >:(
I love to write code. Flipping the 'ON' switch for a real experiment is a whole lot more interesting. Sometimes grabbing my master 'Off' switch is even more fun (fire extinguisher hanging next to my bench).
Can you actually let that pesky smoke out of a circuit with your code? I don't need to write code for that. Letting the smoke out comes naturally to me.
Why just write the code?
good point WW, experimentation is more fun. O0
I like the simulation and modeling part because it uses theory, and I can improve a design and optimize it before I build it. Also, I can predict first, than build and test, and than compare results, and any discrepencies can be used to address the theory and refine it. I saved companies where I worked over the years millions, by first simulating electromagnetic structures and showing them the predicted results before they had the courage to go build and invest the money. Theory hasn't let me down yet, but I always look for loop holes and excercise the theory first to see if it supports a new radical view, so I guess I'm more of a theoretician, but I do like to build and play with stuff, that's always fun, but not the smoke part. :-[
Quotethat's quite interesting Peter. If that is really a thrust and not attraction to the scales or some dynamic effect while charging (which I knows exists) than it must be an effect that occurs in the dielectric. The code I wrote years ago assumed vacum as the dielectric so it is not applicable to your device. hmmm, I might have to start coding again.
I have still got the dielectric, it just changed substances and because my new potted dielectric cannot move like air i do away with the ionic thrust.
I believe this proves that the asym cap will work in a hard vacuum also because the effect i was seeing is not related to the dielectric coefficient, the dielectric strength is important for breakdown, there are declassified papers saying military was spending millions on dielectric research, offcourse to build a viable craft it is obvious that a sulphurous foam was used for this purpose, it's self healing and can have very high dielectric strength.
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.09.21, 14:50:59
I was producing thrust when the asym caps were sealed in potting compound with zero air movement sourounding the potted caps...
Not relevant.
The relevant test is: asym caps in high vacuum. It is the only way to prove that ionized gas is not the cause of the thrust.
Asym caps failed the test. When the pressure was decreased down to µPa, the thrust decreased gradually down to zero.The test had already been done in the 80's:
"Direct experimental results show that under high vacuum conditions... no detectable propulsive force was electrostatically induced by applying a static potential difference... between test device electrodes..."
The new test gave the same negative result.
Conclusion:
"In spite of decades of speculation about possible new physical principles being responsible for the thrust produced by ACTs and lifters, we find no evidence to support such a conclusion. On the contrary, we find that their operation is fully explained by a very simple theory that uses only electrostatic forces and the transfer of momentum by multiple collisions."
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/CR-2004-213312.pdf
Sure it is a conspiracy from the army wanting to keep for itself a great discovery ;D
I am not sure what is driving your comment here ex it has been proven that an asym cap does produce thrust under a hard vacuum
Here's another example and there have been other verified examples
http://www.gravitecinc.com/
Here's another device built by the same company and then verified by NASA in a NASA research facility
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYMUv1VJ3VQ&NR=1
Peter, I like your dielectric and potting approach, ex probably missed this point. I do however have doubts about the way gravitec tested that device. For one thing electrons can carry momentum and they do move in a hard vacuum and create a space charge like in vacuum tubes, but granted there is no heating of the filament so the work function is much different, however I have another theory, the displacement they see could be due to the attraction of the larger electrode towards the chamber itself. There is also too much oscillation in there and they try to say there is displacement but I don't see it, they could have easily put up a grid on that window and set the camera in a fixed location so we could visually see any relative motion. This shows me these guys are not very meticulous in their research, more amateurs, but certainly a step above most of us here on the forum, as they seem to have a very nice chamber and equipment.
EM
Yeah agreed EM but the torsion device that NASA tested from the same company rules out any vessel attraction, i posted after the previous video and you probably missed this
So here it is again
Is there history showing similar tests with the rotation around a horizontal plane?
I learned in the military some 30 years ago that similar activity can be due to Lorentz forces.
There have been a number of devices using the torsion arrangement or horizontal bearing Assembly's in the past some in a vacuum some not, NASA had 2 polystyrene cups arranged as asymmetrical caps on a horizontal bearing assembly i think this was done in a vacuum but my memory maybe wrong on that, when powered they spun to very high speed a few times the speed of sound for reference, Naudin built one but ran it in an air environment.
http://montalk.net/science/84/the-biefeld-brown-effect
QuoteBrown's first experiments consisted of two lead spheres connected by a nonconductive glass rod, like a dumbell. One sphere was charged positive, the other negative, with a total of 120 kilovolts between them. This formed a large electric dipole. When suspended, the system moved toward the positive pole, arcing upwards and staying there against the force of gravity tugging downward. This showed that electric dipoles generate self-acceleration toward the positive pole. This experiment was repeated in oil, in a grounded tank, proving that ion wind was not responsible.
Improved versions of this setup replaced the lead spheres with metal plates, and glass rod with dielectric plates or blocks. This created a high voltage parallel plate capacitor with one or more layers. Brown's British patent #300,111 – issued in 1927 – described what he termed a "cellular gravitator" consisting of numerous metal plates interleaved with dielectric plates, the entire block wrapped in insulating material and end plates connected to output electrodes and a spark gap to limit the input voltage. This device produced significant acceleration.
Later, Brown experimented with saucer-shaped disks with positive and negative electrodes on opposite sides. This created an open-air high voltage capacitor that combined the electrogravitational effect with ion wind phenomena for propulsion. They worked well in air, and they worked well in vacuum.
Interestingly, the majority of modern articles investigating Brown's work tend to focus on disk gravitators. Because they include ion wind as part of their operation, debate has arisen whether the Biefeld-Brown effect cannot be explained away entirely by ion wind. Brown's 1927 patent, however, described a self-contained device that exhibited no ion wind effects and relied solely upon the electrogravitational action arising from the electric dipoles within the gravitator-capacitor.
In my opinion, the cellular gravitator is far more important in demonstrating the validity of the Biefield-Brown effect than the debatable disk-shaped gravitators. Why did Brown never mention cellular gravitators again after the 1930s, considering they unequivocally proved electrogravitation? Maybe because that part of his research became classified. The remaining public aspect, particularly his later patents, were limited to ion wind type devices, or at least those that included that possibility so as to make the electrogravitational aspect more ambiguous. We should remember that Brown was allegedly involved in Project Rainbow, suggesting that much of what we know publicly of his work may only be the "soft" stuff.
More importantly Brown showed the electrogravitational device to produce more thrust when the earth was aligned with a certain constellation, hence the amount of thrust would fluctuate over long period. i cannot find reference to this right now, maybe it's been erased C.C
Gravitec patent:
http://www.google.com/patents/about/6492784_Propulsion_device_and_method_emp.html?id=_h0LAAAAEBAJ (http://www.google.com/patents/about/6492784_Propulsion_device_and_method_emp.html?id=_h0LAAAAEBAJ)
I find this video interesting (from http://www.gravitecinc.com/videos.html (http://www.gravitecinc.com/videos.html)) :
I read about T Townsend Brown back in 1979 I think or earlier, UFO Magazine, and I wish I still had the thing. I did some experiments with disk capacitors, but my understanding of what they were talking about was so minimal, I got no results of note.
Robert
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.09.22, 08:15:24
Here's another device built by the same company and then verified by NASA in a NASA research facility
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYMUv1VJ3VQ&NR=1
This test dates 2003.
Not confirmed and dismissed in the 2004 nasa paper:
"In spite of decades of speculation about possible new physical principles being responsible for the thrust produced by ACTs and lifters, we find no evidence to support such a conclusion. On the contrary, we find that their operation is fully explained by a very simple theory that uses only electrostatic forces and the transfer of momentum by multiple collisions."
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/CR-2004-213312.pdf
I experimented a lifter in 2002 (it made me renew with physics). At this time, the lifter was assumed to work according to the T Townsend Brown effect and was even presented as an "anti-gravity" system.
As soon as I built a lifter, I tested it, it worked well, but my first surprise was that it consumed a lot of current. I concluded that it was not a real capacitor or it was a capacitor with a lot of leakages.
So the question became: is the thrust due to the current or to the voltage? If it is the T Townsend Brown effect, then no current is needed.
I replaced the wire by a wire of same diameter but insulated with teflon. The current was nullified but the thrust also! I was disappointed because it was obvious that the lifter was a conventional device of poor efficiency, working thanks to ion wind.
Quote from: ArtistGuy on 2011.09.23, 08:55:48
...
I find this video interesting (from http://www.gravitecinc.com/videos.html (http://www.gravitecinc.com/videos.html)) :
...
Not conclusive.
No current measurement. No continuous rotation. A displacement is not enough to prove the effect:
In high vacuum the current is very weak, the forces from the ion wind disappear and the electrostatic forces become predominant. The immediate environment of the capacitor becomes an important source of perturbation due to the conductor mass around. The capacitor moves toward the position of minimum electric potential in space and then it stops.
Ex the company in that video is run by a guy who posts on a forum probably out of desperation, he goes into details, the current drawn is uA, i cannot remember where the forum was and don't have the time right now to look for it, if you do some searching you may find it, this is recent stuff 2009-2010 he has shown it to work time and time again and carried a lot of experiments to rule out a number of issues that may cause incorrect results, trouble is no one wants to know to verify the results and because of this he cannot move forward.
A small perturbation in a metallic chamber when HV electrostatic charge is used will certainly produce misleading results.
For vacuum chamber testing the device should be allowed to rotate continuously at some high RPM and torque measured with some type of mini prony brake. This should nullify the attraction to the chamber provided it is placed centrally in a uniform conductive space..
A long time ago I read in a gov't report on the "Brown effect " that the force could supposedly be increased many thousand times if the "k" facter of the dielectric were increased, so I had that special capacitor made and tested it in free air suspended from long thin wires.. I could not measure any noticeable displacement force.
I built a lightweight rotary device based on one of the Brown patents and in such a way that minimized corona and was regrettably unable to obtain rotation.
For now I have shelved the "effect". These forces (if they exist) are so small as to be nearly unmeasurable.
I have a friend that is into lifters and is impressing the girls that he has discovered antigravity. I have to chuckle as he cannot even lift the power supply no matter how small he tries to make it.
Agreed ION very small to measure which is why i had to switch to 0.1 gram scales instead of 1 gram scales, and this is also why i moved on, although i could scale up and did a few larger units, offcourse i could never get a payload and certainly not the power supply, with ionic wind though, i built a 3 foot diameter 20 cell device this could indeed carry a small load but not big enough to do anything with.
I had 10 meters of 0.2mm anode spaced 0.5mm away from an alu skirt and using 0.5mm polythene, this was all folded up with more insulating polythene sheet into a small rectangular shape and then potted into a small cardboard box, when powered i could quiet easily measure the weight difference, i also made balance arms to suspend it, each time it showed thrust and the thrust would follow it's orientation.
The diameter of the anode has an enormous effect, the smaller the better and i mean small, and the higher the voltage the better, Brown was playing with over a million volts, the mass of the skirt seemed to matter as well
Anybody interested in exotic propulsion methods and devices should perhaps also consider these promising and practical technologies.
Here are a few that I would love to play with:
1) Hall effect thrusters principles, small thrust but efficient. However, how about using these same principles to build a device for operation in the atmosphere? The principles involved are simply the Lorentz force arising from current flow in a magnetic field that produces the accelerating thrust. Imagine if the air was so much denser we could have so much more thrust, but the air will be harder to ionize at higher pressures, but we could feed RF through the air next to the surface electrodes and than feed a heavy DC current through the ionized air which is now conductive, and we can have our thrust if we also have a static magnetic field present at 90 deg to the current flow. Or maybe we can do all of this with AC current and magnetic field of the same phase. I believe this is one of the principle behind some very exotic air vehicles.
2) Years ago I talked with an elderly gentlemen who was a WWII veteran from a European east-block country. He had a long career in the military afterwards and was petty high up in the intelligence community of his country. He shared with me the fact that the intelligence community believed the Nazi scientists had perfected a form of light propulsion that was very advanced and orders of magnitude more powerful than lab bench experiments. I never took this story too seriously, until a few years ago when I discovered that an intense burst of energy from a camera flash produces a strong impulse on a black or even a mirrored surface. The propulsion method is very simple in concept, the light hits the surface and heats up the air boundary layer rapidly, and the more energetic air particles expand and push against the hull of the aircraft as well as against the slower moving particles of the air. It's a form of skin propulsion, you explode thin layers of air around your aircraft to push you forward. I believe Boeing's facilities are experimenting with this type of propulsion method, but with actual rocket fuels not light sources. I was thinking, how about rapid heating from high current impulses through thin conductive strips on the outside of the aircraft? The substrate would have to be something that does not conduct heat very well so it allows for maximum temperature rise time, maybe aerogels would do the trick, they are good insulators and also lightweight. Anyway, in order for light propulsion to work, or any boundary layer heating method to work, the heat rise time would have to be fast and furious and repeat periodically fast enough to get practical levels of thrust. A few years ago there was a Gulfbreeze UFO report, and somebody saw this disk from the ground relatively close from the underside, and he describes a type of propulsion similar to what I described here.
3) Than there are the electrodynamics methods, antennas, etc... this can be a lot of fun too, but it's a bit more complicated.
EM
EM,
re: your #2
I heard a very similar story of an active project (other side of the curtain) doing much the same in the 70's. Later reports indicated it was scrapped because the light beam or laser beam had the tendency to ionize atmosphere around it for the entire path length. This doesn't sound bad but the report included incidents where the beam was directed downward from the ionosphere. This created a conductive conduit for the difference in potential between the surface and the transmitter.
The transmitter saw no ill effects but a new method of drilling wells was devised and dropped due to the peripheral damages.
Recent YouTube clips of weird glowing sky formations reminded me of it. Detection was possible by looking for a large area of concentric rings colored like the Northern lights
Anecdotal, I know. It followed conventional physics but also failed to provide thrust :o
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.09.23, 12:58:32
Ex the company in that video is run by a guy who posts on a forum probably out of desperation, he goes into details, the current drawn is uA, i cannot remember where the forum was and don't have the time right now to look for it, if you do some searching you may find it, this is recent stuff 2009-2010 he has shown it to work time and time again and carried a lot of experiments to rule out a number of issues that may cause incorrect results, trouble is no one wants to know to verify the results and because of this he cannot move forward.
No attested facts. No proof. Why to suppose a TT Brown effect? 1 µA=50mW at 50 KV which is a possible and likely cause of movement according to conventional forces.
A candidate for a next urban legend...