Surprising info in Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion book

reply to post by Studenofhistory


OK i know this post / thread is based on anti grav but what ones missing and i will point this out is

Anti universe did anyone ever think of that?

Imo aliens or whoever use anti universe "use the power of the whatever the universe is in" to power there ships

If you are not in it the rules dont apply

Sounds far fetched i know but i got that idea from bubbles in beer

gravity is week yes but the universe is just a mass and if you can esacpe its mass then the light speed and everything inside "the universe" do not apply

think outside the box for the box is cirucle and not a box

jnaudin.free.fr...

There's one of those lifters concept reacting in a vacuum tested by none other than NASA and lo and behold it span. Showing that the ion wind theory is only half of the equation.

reply to post by broli


Rather than a video, a published paper would be nice. It seems odd that an experiment allegedly carried out at NASA would produce a video but no published results.



Here is another controlled experiment (though not published) of lifters, which also operate on the Biefeld–Brown effect (as JL Naudin says).
www.blazelabs.com...




[edit on 12/22/2008 by Phage]

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.

Funny, the only thing it tells me is that a non-linear voltage-controlled device is achieved, nothing more.

See, you are thinking this is what happens(where the dotted line is output and solid line is input):

But I'd be willing to bet my honor that what actually happens is this(assuming 100% efficiency at some point):

Yep, clipping is a bitch, it happens in every single amplifier I know of, linear or non-linear. Prove me wrong and you will be famous.

reply to post by daniel_g


Okay, obviously I can't PROVE you wrong because I'm only going by what's in the book written by LaVilolette about Brown's work. If Brown's assertion that torque increased exponentially(raised the power of 2.6) as voltage increased then it's reasonable to assume that higher torque equals higher alternator output and we're talking about voltage and not power ie. there doesn't seem to be any clear relationship between the torque and total power consumed then I'm just wondering (and not making any claims) whether a given amount of power(watts) can generate higher torque and therefore output power if voltage is stepped up (which would have to mean that amperage went down in order to keep total power consumed the same).

I can't prove it but it's an intriguing possibility. Brown was more concerned with using this technique to lift an object rather than build a self-sustaining generator.

reply to post by Studenofhistory


I know what you are trying to say:
If power is doubled and torque grows exponentially, then blah.

But like you said, the relationship was found between voltage and torque. Voltage is not power. The relationship between energy and torque is linear(E = T*theta).

There is most likely an exponential relation between voltage and current(I smell a voltage controlled current device) and what I'm saying is that as voltage increases, power consumed also increases exponentially(and so does torque).

I = Ae^(bV) --- or something like that
P = VI
E = integral(P) = some exponential
T = some exponential / theta

There will be a point where you will be unable to supply an exponential amount of current. I think that point will determine the voltage that will produce clipping - then everything (torque, voltage, power) will increase linearly never exceeding input power. And even if that point didn't exist, you could never produce more power than the input since it would keep increasing exponentially as well.




[edit on 22-12-2008 by daniel_g]

OK, since Studenofhistory asked me to chime in in a U2U, I will. I just can't guarantee how timely any responses will be, since I have a full plate right now. Also, this post will be mostly constructed from memory and untested (as of yet) theory, so take it as such and please don't ask for links. I don't have time; if you need links, just consider everything I say as fantasy.

I first came across a reference to the Biefield-Brown effect about 20 years ago. Since that time, I have studied what information I have been able to find and theorized on the possible mechanisms behind the famous 'flying plate' experiments.

Thomas Townsend Brown was a very good scientist and experimenter, but was somewhat lacking in the area of imagination. He discovered an as yet unknown force mechanism (via examination of a Coolidge Tube) and proceeded to study it until he had a working prototype. Even when his prototype, which was essentially flat plates tethered to a center pole via 50kV wires which flew around the pole, was demonstrated, he could not explain exactly how it worked. He was also beset throughout his life with bad luck which hindered his ability to continuously experiment.

Further examinations of his demonstration have resulted in an ionic wind effect which can simulate anti-gravity in an atmosphere via ionic propulsion. These ion engines cannot work in a vacuum, since they require a surrounding ionizable medium to produce lift. Ion engines have since been conceived and developed which use 'fuel' to operate and therefore can operate in a vacuum through Newtonian inertial forces.

I do not believe , however, that Brown's initial demonstration used such ion propulsion for its lift. His experiment has not been disproved using the same basic apparatus he used. I believe there is something happening that is akin to true artificial gravity, but any attempts I have made to confirm my hypothesis using lower voltages have been derailed due to difficulties in fabrication.

I discount the idea of gravity wells and hills. There may be a sort of circulating gravitational current, if you will, but the concept of hills and wells is so inexact as to be detrimental to any understanding of what is happening. There is also the question of what constitutes actual gravity and simulated gravity. Technically, any downward force can be considered a type of gravity and any upward force can be considered a type of anti-gravity. I am assuming what we are discussing here is a force that is similar to gravity and inertial mass (the two being identical according to Einstein) in that it operates through a distance (even through a vacuum) and on all matter.

I agree with the poster who mentioned that you should try to fabricate a version of it. I just recently constructed a 25kV DC power supply for under $50, and would be happy to assist you via U2U or email in making your own (as time allows me, of course). Electronics is a far cry from rocket science (figuratively speaking), and if everyone who had an idea decided to wait until someone else built it, we would be eating raw animals in caves today.

If you can somehow get me more information on the apparatus, I would be happy to give a more detailed critique of it, but with what you have posted so far I can only guess at whether it is feasible. I might also be able in some future time to build a model and report back here on my results, but again, this is dependent on available time.

TheRedneck

reply to post by daniel_g


First of all my thanks to Redneck for his post. Now to respond to daniel_g's last post.

In the book on page 374, it talks about Lafforgue's thruster which while different in design is using the same field effect as Brown's levitating disk/rotor devices. On the basis of Lafforgue's experimental results, the author calculates that if four thrusters were attached to rotating arms of 2 feet in length, with each thruster producing 680 kilograms of force (based on using a 4,000 K dialectric charged with 100 kilovolts), they would collectively generate 12,000 foot-pounds of torque and would spin at 5,250 rpm generating a theoretical 12,000 horsepower or it's equivalent in Kw of 8.7 megawatts. He goes on to say that efficiency losses due to bearing friction, etc. of a motor-generator combination would probably give a practical output of ONLY 5 megawatts of power and the power required to run this motor is just 4 watts (not kilowatts). The difference here is so HUGE that it's not just a close approximation. Even if the output calculation was off by two orders of magnitude, it would still generate more power than it uses. This calculation was based on extrapolation of actual results using various sized thrusters, various dialectrics, and various voltages. The data he gathered show that K value and capacitor length affect thrust proportionately and voltage affects it exponentially. So it would appear that your guess as to clipping is not correct.

reply to post by Studenofhistory


Seriously, I wouldn't trust a book that gets a figure wrong by a factor of 3000 and still publishes it's material:

Update for p. 373, where a thrust-to-power ratio is estimated for the Lafforgue thruster: It is likely that, due to the opposing thrust vector developed by its polarized dielectric, the Lafforgue thruster loses its thrust once it becomes fully charged. Hence, like Brown's electrokinetic apparatus, it may need to be repeatedly charged and discharged to create a continuing thrust effect. In the case where 30 Lafforgue thrusters are delivering 20 metric tons of force, if these thrusters were to have a combined capacitance of about 30 microfarads and were to be charged to 100 kilovolts once every second, they would draw 300 kilowatts of power. This would project a thrust-to-power ratio about 3000 times lower than was previously estimated, or about 670 newtons per kilowatt (45 times that of a jet engine).

www.etheric.com...

PS. The author figures are still off. Now don't get me wrong, Lafforgue propulsion works like a charm, just not the way the book describes it.

[edit on 25-12-2008 by daniel_g]

I remember seeing a YouTube video of the vacuum chamber experiments. Quite interesting.

reply to post by daniel_g


Well at least LaViolette had the honesty to admit his mistake but even with the revised figures, 5 megawatts of output is still far more than the 300 kw of input power.

in one part of the bible, the new testement, the bible states that Jesus walked on the water and so did Peter try to also, failing after a few steps from seemingly lack of faith, in another part of the bible it states....the father is the wind! and also it states "you could say to this mountain be thou removed and be cast into the sea and if you would have faith enough that it would happen when you say it would then it would happen!"


Mod Note: Please stay on Topic – Review This Link.

[edit on Fri Dec 26 2008 by Jbird]

I have studied this for a very long time, and I have come to the conclusion that the Aether flows within an electric current.

Now before you all go and bite my head off, ask yourself this:

Do you know what EMF is? I mean, really, do you?

Equations are fine, but do they tell us what a thing actually is as well as how it behaves?

My point is the accepted EMT is incomplete. It is like watching blind men describe an elephant when they are feeling different parts.

And they have been feeling this elephant for 110 years.

Paul is to AG as Erich Von Daniken is to AAT. You'll get everything in there, the sensationalism and the information, but it is up to the smart ones to sift it out. That is the way popular science works. Has and always will.