PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2026-08-19, 17:46:39
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Asymmetric Capacitor  (Read 25095 times)
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1625
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
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4698


Buy me some coffee
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
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYMUv1VJ3VQ&NR=1[/youtube]
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2205
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.

   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4698


Buy me some coffee
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
Quote
Brown’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
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 59
Gravitec patent:
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) :
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGN65lse5yE&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

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
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1504
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

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1504
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.


   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1504
...
I find this video interesting (from http://www.gravitecinc.com/videos.html) :
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGN65lse5yE&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
...

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.

   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4698


Buy me some coffee
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.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 4127
It's turtles all the way down
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.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4698


Buy me some coffee
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
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1625
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


   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2205
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
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1504
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...

   
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2026-08-19, 17:46:39