Surprising info in Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion book

I'm reading Paul A. LaViolette's latest book about antigravity research and on page 84, he describes how T. Townsend Brown built a very simple device that could easily be turned into a self-powering electric generator. This book is just chock full of cool technology. I highly recommend it.

The device on page 84 is described this way.

"The apparatus consists of an arm that rotated about a central bearing and that was fitted at each end with a pair of electrodes. When the electrodes were oppositely charged, the rotor spun like a pinwheel, revolving around it's axis in the negative to positive direction." Now here's the interesting part.

"It was found that the torque increased in an exponential fashion with applied voltage." So if voltage doubled, torque increased by more than two times. What that says to me is that if this device were hooked up to an alternator, at some point, the electric output would exceed the power required to make the device run. What Brown discovered is that the key to electrogravitics depends on very high voltages BUT NOT HIGH POWER CONSUMPTION. ie. High voltage but very low amperage = modest power consumption.

In case you're thinking this is electromagnetic repulsion or something like that, it isn't. The oppositely charged electrodes at each end off the rotor, cause local areas of positive and negative gravity. The positive gravity in front of each end of the rotor pulls the rotor towards it and the negative gravity behind each end pushes the rotor away from it. Brown also built disks that when supplied with high voltages were able to completely negate the pull of earth's gravity.

One of his disk experiments done in a vacuum, demonstrated a thrust to power ratio that was 150 times greater than a jet engine and 10,000 times greater than a space shuttle main engine. LaViolette goes on to say that a 100 ton spacecraft with 6,000 of these small electrokinetic thrusters could generate a constant thrust of 0.21 Gs which would be enough to make the trip to Mars in just 5 days. WOW! I'm only on page 96 and this book has already blown me away.

reply to post by Studenofhistory


T.T. Brown's patent is for an electrostatic motor. You can download the patent (1974483) here and see it yourself.
The patent describes the operation and theory of the motor and it has nothing to do with gravity. There is no mystery involved about high voltage and low amperage. That is how all electrostatic devices operate, that is the point. You don't need bulky magnets and high current, making electrostatic motors well suited to use certain applications.

The patent you quoted was from 1930 and yes it does describe itself as electrostatic. The device I'm talking about was demonstrated in 1957. I don't know if electrostatic is the same as ion wind but Brown demonstrated his rotor device inside a vacuum and with each rotor end enclosed in a plexiglass bubble, which would have prevented motion if the motion had been induced by ion wind. The device continued to spin even in a vacuum and enclosed with Plexiglass. Here are some additional (and later) patents. He may not have used the term electrogravitics in his patents but it's clear from his notes and work for US Military that that's what he believed he was working on. LaViolette is a Ph.D physicist who also was convinced that Brown had stumbled onto a way to manipulate gravity.

patent numbers 2949550, 3018394,3022430, 3187206, 2958790,3263102

reply to post by Studenofhistory

No this patent does not involve ion "jets" but electrostatic attraction and repulsion.

Why would an ion "wind" type motor not work a vacuum? It is an action/reaction effect, Newton's third law. It's no different than a jet or rocket engine. In fact, ion drives have been used on spacecraft like SMART 1 and Deep Space 1.

What the heck is positive and negative gravity?

reply to post by Phage


en.wikipedia.org...

I assume you're talking about those thrusters. Those will NOT work in a vacuum if there's nothing to ionize. Those engines need fuel, something to strip electrons off of. What the TS is talking about is propulsion with no fuel what so ever. Before your physics box explodes of what it thinks is possible. There is indeed such thing as "fuel less" propulsion. I put it between quotes to not have a semantic war.

I have done some deep Tesla research and I believe Tesla has proved the existence of the Aether or the natural media as he used to call it. I have a nice theory of gravity in my head that uses the concept of Aether to explain gravity. So "anti" gravity is a ridiculously simple result if you can tap into the Aether like Tesla did.

I saw that book I think at Borders the other day. It was pretty hefty as I recall. If I get any gift certificates from Santa maybe I will get it.

reply to post by Studenofhistory


US 2,949,550 filed in 1957 is for an "electrokinetic apparatus". In the description Brown says the device must be "immersed in a dialectric medium, as for example, the ordinary air of the atmosphere."

He also says:
"The principle forces involved therefore are the forces involved in moving the charged atoms and molecules from the region of the positive electrode to and beyond the negatively charged body. The force so exerted by the sytem on those atoms and molecules not only produces a flow of the medium relative to the apparatus, but, of course, results in a like force on the system tending to move the entire system in the opposite direction."

Sounds familiar. And no discussion of gravity.

[edit on 12/21/2008 by Phage]

reply to post by broli


Yes, they are reaction drives, operating on the principles of Newton's third law. They work within a vacuum just a rockets do. Of course they need an energy source, just as Brown's devices do.

First, the experiment was done in a vacuum to eliminate the possibility that air movement was responsible for the rotor moving. The ion wind theory was disproven because the rotor ends were enclosed in plexiglass bubbles. If the electrodes had been spitting off ions, the ions would have hit the plexiglass bubble and produced an equal push in the opposite direction. Brown was trying to disprove two alternate theories at the same time but the vacuum had nothing to do with ion wind.

The terms positive and negative gravity are what I used to describe Brown's concept of a gravity hill and a gravity well. Brown theorized and LaViolette agrees, that electrons exert a repulsive form of gravity while protons exert an attractive form of gravity. Since ordinary matter has the same number of electrons as protons, the two forces ALMOST cancel each other out because the attractive gravity is slightly stronger than the repulsive gravity. Which explains why you need a really massive amount of matter to have a noticable (Net) attraction which we call gravity.

When you have two plate electrodes separated by a dielectric that has a high K value (don't ask me what that is, I've read it in the book and still don't understand it), and you cause one plate to have a high positive charge and the other plate to have a high negative charge, a gravity well(which is attractive) will form next to the positively charged electrode and therefore will pull the electrode towards it and a gravity hill(which is repulsive) will form next to the negatively charged electrode and will push it away from it.

I've just read a few more pages and there is in fact a lesser field effect that is called electrostatic, which can be used to supplement or oppose the electrogravitic/kinetic effect but it's very clear that these are two distinct field effects.

reply to post by Phage

Apparently the 1957 patent, which was issued in 57 and therefore may have been applied for earlier, was written before brown tested his levitating saucers. Here is his exact words.

"A significant feature of the curves is that, except for this limitation[the glow discharge gap], thrust remains constant with the reduction in pressure to 10 to the minus 6 mm of Hg, while current consumption falls off sharply--demonstrating the system's improved efficiency as a hard vacuum is approached."

reply to post by Studenofhistory


Since the device is very simple, I'm wondering if you have built a prototype. If you show a working prototype I'll definitely try building one myself.

reply to post by truthquest


Sorry. I wish I was in a position to try to build it but I'm not. When I said simple, I meant conceptually. In order to actually make it work, it requires an understanding of electricity that I don't have nor have I the physical means and resources to build one.

What is the name of this book that you are getting this information from?

People always start from scratch. If you put your head to it you can build up an experiment in less than a month with very little cost. That is to learn enough about it and gather the tools you need. But people will always stop themselves . Within the first week you'll start to question your ability in doing this, and quickly after that you'll just drop the project completely. You need a determined will power to pull it off . Any jackass can do it as long as he stays focused. What I'm saying is DO IT and don't dare to look down on yourself.

The patent application was filed in 1957 and the patent was approved in 1960.

Attempts to replicate Brown's results have been unsuccessful.
cat.inist.fr...

What you mean is that ONE attempt at replication failed and the linked article doesn't describe how that attempt was made. If you read the book, you'll find lots of corroboration that Brown was on to something.

Yeah, you have to buy the paper to find out the details but it is peer reviewed. That's the way science works. Experiment, publish so others can review and/or replicate.

Ok, here's another. But, like brown's experiments which were only cited in his patent applications, I can't find a peer reviewed publication.

Then, in December, they finished tweaking their vacuum. They were able to get the pressure inside the bell jar down to the equivalent of low-Earth orbit - 10-7 torrs, to be precise. They put the device inside and hit the juice.

www.wired.com...


[edit on 12/21/2008 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


No wonder it didn't work. They didn't build it the same way that brown did.

I've read that book!!! It's great. i especially like the section of his research into operation skyvault.

THe chapter or Searl was great too.

I recommend this book also, there is tons of info in it. It talks in detail about the b2 and it's possible electrogravetic mechanisms.