lifters in a vacuum

For a discussion of the science of Townsend Brown, his experiments and his ideas.

distant, distant cousins

Postby Elizabeth Helen Drake » Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:47 pm

Yes David, I agree. The "discs" and the lifters are so far apart that they are similar in only some respects. Its like going back a genetic trail and trying to find a common ancestor. There, but sometimes hardly recognizable.

And you have an amazing grasp of what is going on here. Don't sell yourself short! Concentrate on your concept of a "pulsed discharge" and you will find yourself right up there with some of the best that NASA brains can offer. And because you are coming into this from a decidedly different knowledge base .... you might even have an advantage. Elizabeth
Elizabeth Helen Drake
Sr. Research Asst.
 
Posts: 1740
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:11 am

Postby wdavidb » Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:31 am

Maybe I am out to lunch........it was my understanding Dr. Brown did fly his disc in a vacuum.

No I have not seen a lifter fly in a vacuum, but if we are talking about saucer or disc shaped craft crossing interstellar space to reach earth and other tourist destination's those craft would be subject to a level of vacuum in space.

It was also my understanding that some of Dr. Brown's work was related to this very issue, as was a lot of work during the same time frame. Then it all dropped right off the radar, but the work did continue, but on the QT.

Okay, a pulsed discharge.........everything is pulsed, but the pulse rate is so high for solid materials that the pulses are indistinguishable from a wave.

Now, when you have a unified field system that allows for the controlled modulation of the disc's underlying dynamics you have a time gap between the disc and the observer on the ground or in the lab. And because the underlying energy level of the disc is so much higher than the field in which it is operating it is possible to distinguish between a pulsed effect and a wave. What is being observed is observed in slow motion relative to its actual pulse rate.

Otherwise it would be very difficult to determine the pulsed nature of physical structure, in relation to the underlying frequency of the pulsing system.

This is why I say the electrical discharge would be pulsed. But on top of this we have to realize that the disc is out of sync with the field in which it is operating, which creates a non-uniform relationship between the disc and the environment in which it functions, be it a vacuum or not. Therefore the disc is attempting to find balance with the environment around it, which results in a pulsed electrical discharge.

This in itself poses a certain degree of risk to the health of those conducting the experiments, as they are subject to the non-uniformity of the operational disc, whether it is in a vacuum or not, simply because they are on the outside of the disc and subject to the radiant discharge.
wdavidb
Junior Birdman
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Salt Spring Island BC Canada

no smoking, maybe

Postby Elizabeth Helen Drake » Sat Jan 13, 2007 1:08 pm

Paul recently posted a picture of Dr. Brown happily smiling between two gentlemen. Dr. Brown was in his lab coat, one fellow was a young mathematician, (the other so far unidentified )and behind the three on the wall is a "no smoking " sign. And someone posted the comment. "Why was that?" (In an age, the fifties, when smoking was so prevalent)

I am sure there were physical safety reasons due to the nature of the work.

But also I just wanted to point out that NO ONE smoked in the presence of Dr. Brown.

Even Josephine who begain smoking when she was a young socialite in Zanesville and who continued that habit for the rest of her life .... never lit a cigarette near him. It was an understood courtesy, never something that he demanded. Most around him knew, especially during the later years, that smoke bothered him, gave him a headache and sometimes actually made him quite ill.

In fact in the 1970s he actually developed a design for a "smokeless ashtray" so that he could have the pleasure of her company while she smoked, without having to deal with the smoke.. I have seen the patent applications for this device and seen pictures of it in operation but I don't know that he ever bothered to continue the process. It was after all, another thing he just called "an ashtray product!" <g>

Oh David, discs in a vacuum? Absolutely. Subject to radiant discharge? Well, I understand thats one of the things that made being in the same lab with Dr. Brown so ...... interesting ........ Elizabeth
Elizabeth Helen Drake
Sr. Research Asst.
 
Posts: 1740
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:11 am

It's this nagging need I have...

Postby Paul S. » Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:36 pm

...for something that borders on "proof"...

wdavidb wrote:Maybe I am out to lunch........it was my understanding Dr. Brown did fly his disc in a vacuum.


Well, that is my "understanding," too... but since that result would be a departure from the common "Lifter in a vacuum" experience, I was just wondering if anybody in the current circle had actually witnessed such a thing with their own eyes.

No I have not seen a lifter fly in a vacuum


Nor do I think you ever will. See a LIFTER fly in a vacuum, that is. The assumption here is that the discs are a horse of a different color altogether.


It was also my understanding that some of Dr. Brown's work was related to this very issue, as was a lot of work during the same time frame. Then it all dropped right off the radar, but the work did continue, but on the QT.


Yes, well, that is the presumption that brings us all here, isn't it?

I'm just wondering if anybody reading this has actually witnessed the phenomenon we're discussing, or if it's all in the realm of presumption and hearsay.

--PS
Paul Schatzkin
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
Paul S.
Sr. Rabbit Chaser
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:11 pm
Location: Psych Ward

lets see

Postby grinder » Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:23 pm

Paul,

What you are effectively saying is , if there is no one ALIVE to step up and declare that these vacuum tests were done successfully, then you have no PROOF that they occurred? Is that what you actually just said?

Just seeing if I am getting your drift right

grinder
grinder
Senior Officer
 
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 6:20 am

Here We Go Again...

Postby Paul S. » Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:30 pm

...debating "proof."

grinder wrote: if there is no one ALIVE to step up and declare that these vacuum tests were done successfully, then you have no PROOF that they occurred?


Since we are now accepting the assertion that the "discs" are something different from the "lifters," I'm looking for either specifics of what makes them different and/or some contemporary evidence and/or testimony re: their viability in a vacuum.

Hopefully that doesn't sound like too unreasonable a query.

--PS
Paul Schatzkin
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
Paul S.
Sr. Rabbit Chaser
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:11 pm
Location: Psych Ward

don't you already have that?

Postby grinder » Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:52 pm

Paul,

So what you are asking is ..... what the real difference between the discs and the "lifters" are?

Are you hoping that there is some mystery person out there that has more information than you do at this point? Don't you already have access to this information?

I understand your problem. You are dealing with an area where .... back then ... nobody talked .... and now ......... fifty plus years later .... most are dead. So I guess you have to develop other sources rather than eye witness accounts huh? Cause those are " going away", or long gone already.

Maybe you will never have conclusive proof of any of this. Then what do you do? grinder
grinder
Senior Officer
 
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 6:20 am

Re: Here We Go Again...

Postby Mikado14 » Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:00 pm

Paul S. wrote:
Since we are now accepting the assertion that the "discs" are something different from the "lifters," I'm looking for either specifics of what makes them different and/or some contemporary evidence and/or testimony re: their viability in a vacuum.


I will give you a simple explanation so as not to lose anyone. In the lifter, there are two charged plates, the wire and the foil. The plates are asymetrical as in the disc but the difference is the dielectric. The lifter is more of a cousin to ElectroHydrodynamics. The is no real dielectric with the lifter, it is air. The air is being ionized and will move and create a thrust when the potential is high enough to overcome the ...weight (I wanted to say mass but..).

With the disc, the dielectric is solid and the orbit of the electron is affected in that it is distended (elongated) creating a plate that is negatively charged and a plate positively charged. The dielectric's job is to prevent the flow of current to allow this to happen, in short, a dielectric is an insulator but is different in that we can stress the hell out of the electron orbit without causing it to flow. At some point however, current can be made to flow but then you have destroyed the dielectric. When you have charged the hell out of it, at some point you will see the Biefeld-Brown effect.

Simplified further, Lifter = dielectric is air and is constantly replaced from ionization and a flow is created

Disc = dielectric is solid and the effect is NOT ionization, the orbit of the electron around the atom is being affected (Bohr Model).

Mikado

Paul S. wrote:...
Hopefully that doesn't sound like too unreasonable a query.



No, it is not unreasonable. I hope this helps some.

Mikado
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
Mikado14
Mr. Nice Guy
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Somewhere in Pennsy

Re: don't you already have that?

Postby Mikado14 » Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:02 pm

grinder wrote:Paul,

So what you are asking is ..... what the real difference between the discs and the "lifters" are?

Are you hoping that there is some mystery person out there that has more information than you do at this point? Don't you already have access to this information?

I understand your problem. You are dealing with an area where .... back then ... nobody talked .... and now ......... fifty plus years later .... most are dead. So I guess you have to develop other sources rather than eye witness accounts huh? Cause those are " going away", or long gone already.

Maybe you will never have conclusive proof of any of this. Then what do you do? grinder


Grinder, do you want one?

All you need is two spun aluminum discs and a dielectric of your choice. Oh, and don't forget the power supply, that is the real expensive item for true Biefeld-Brown effect.

But then lately, I could be wrong.

Mikado
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
Mikado14
Mr. Nice Guy
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Somewhere in Pennsy

Hey, All I Did was ASK

Postby Paul S. » Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:10 pm

grinder wrote:So what you are asking is ..... what the real difference between the discs and the "lifters" are?


That would be an excellent place to start.

Don't you already have access to this information?


Since we started making the differentiation between the "lifters" and the "discs," I'm not sure what I have or don't have; except that I'm pretty sure we don't have any contemporary results that would corroborate what we accept as having happened 50 years ago; or, at least, nobody who is willing to step forward and say "I've seen it work that way" as readily as the "Mythbusters" types are willing to discount the Lifters.

So I guess you have to develop other sources rather than eye witness accounts huh? Cause those are " going away", or long gone already.


It certainly seems reasonable to me that if we're going to accept the assertion that the "discs" are different from the "lifters," and thus possess properties other than those the lifters exhibit (i.e. some means of lift/propulsion besides ion wind), then yes, wouldn't it be nice to have some actual evidence of that besides accounts from the 1950s?

For example, is there anything in the patents that suggests a composition of the discs that is clearly different from the composition of the lifters, and would thus produce different behavior in the vacuum? I'm hoping that somebody who has looked at the patents more carefully than I've been able to might be able to shed some light there.

Maybe you will never have conclusive proof of any of this. Then what do you do?


Am I the only one who has to answer that question? What are ANY of us going to do?

--PS
Paul Schatzkin
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
Paul S.
Sr. Rabbit Chaser
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:11 pm
Location: Psych Ward

Who's Got an Erector Set?

Postby Paul S. » Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:15 pm

Mikado14 wrote:Simplified further, Lifter = dielectric is air and is constantly replaced from ionization and a flow is created

Disc = dielectric is solid and the effect is NOT ionization, the orbit of the electron around the atom is being affected (Bohr Model).

I hope this helps some.


Yeah, that helps a lot.

Now, who wants to build one?

--PS
Paul Schatzkin
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
Paul S.
Sr. Rabbit Chaser
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:11 pm
Location: Psych Ward

Just build one

Postby Elizabeth Helen Drake » Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:50 pm

And if it turns out to be the cosmic ferrari, should we? Elizabeth
Elizabeth Helen Drake
Sr. Research Asst.
 
Posts: 1740
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:11 am

Re: Just build one

Postby Paul S. » Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:54 pm

Elizabeth Helen Drake wrote:And if it turns out to be the cosmic ferrari, should we? Elizabeth


Depends on who gets the keys.

--PS
Paul Schatzkin
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
Paul S.
Sr. Rabbit Chaser
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:11 pm
Location: Psych Ward

ah!

Postby Elizabeth Helen Drake » Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:03 pm

Ah! Elizabeth
Elizabeth Helen Drake
Sr. Research Asst.
 
Posts: 1740
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:11 am

Postby Chris Knight » Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:44 pm

I hate to spell all this out, but I have to admit there's really not much out there. I'm fairly comfortable discussing the lifters and discs. We're not going to discuss the solid units Mikado mentioned, which are an entirely different beast.

One of the problems in understanding Brown's work was that the Beifeld-Brown Effect is described as a coupling between electricity (electromagnetic force) and gravity.

However, let's first talk about the coupling between electrostatic and magnetic forces (electromagnetic force). How many apparatuses use the electromagnetic force? Everything that uses or produces electricity. All of the millions and millions of apparatuses use the coupling in a different manner for a different effect, but they all have a common denominator - that they work due to electromagnetic force.

SO, let's talk about the coupling between electromagnetic and gravitational forces. How many apparatuses do you think could be designed based on that coupling. Billions? Sure, but they would all work on the basis of electromagnetic-gravitational force.

Brown worked on a number of apparatuses, and they all share a common denominator. They are like the bloodlines we have been discussing. One apparatus won't necessarily do the same thing as another - for example, a generator and a cell phone both put out energy, but they serve entirely different functions and are modified to maximize a certain electromagnetic effect.

For arguement's sake, the electrostatic fan is probably the closest thing to a lifter. It is designed to maximize the flow of air (as the oil pump is designed to maximize the movement of oil, etc.). It is not designed to maximize the effects that would allow it to work in a vacuum. Period.

The discoid apparatuses used the same, basic denominator, but even though they work well in air, they were specifically designed to work most efficiently in a vacuum. While the lifters use ionized air molecules to produce the thrust, the discs use ionized wind at higher pressures and move into a plasma thrust-based situation as the vacuum increases at an increased effieciency. i.e. without the air, the discs functioned more efficiently. Hence the use of the term, Plasmahydrodynamics.

Here are a few snippets from a document written at Rahway, N.J. on September 5, 1962. Is that proof enough?

"Extensive tests were performed with various media...at various pressures from 1 atmosphere down to 10-6 mm Hg"


And,

"Vacuum tests conducted between 1955 and 1960 confirmed the dependence of thrust upon positive ion density"


And,

"...While such expression usually applies to material dielectric media (such as air or oil), it must be understood that the mechanical forces are present even in the dielectric of space (K=1), with the mechanical forces acting upon the charges which terminate the lines-of-force. The result is a "lever arm" repulsion causing opposite acceleration of the dipole structure and the ions."


The second and third quotes may seem contradictory at first, but they are not upon closer inspection. Then the document discusses the functioning of the disc in a vaccum environment.

"Current requirements in vacuum are greatly reduced because of the reduction of charge transport. Ohmic losses present at atmospheric pressure, and extending through the glow discharge region down to approximately 10-3 Hg, are not present in higher vacuum...The increase of efficiency is substantial. Current requirements drop to 10% or less of the value at 1 atmosphere..."


The discs are designed to work in a vacuum - they increase in efficiency in a vacuum.

"The role of...became apparent. In a vacuum of 10-6 mm Hg (the limit of the equipment used), the dipole thrust without...is readily measurable. Although the steady state (...) thrust at 10-6 is surprisingly great, it is still explained as due to positive ions in the residual gas..."


Followed by a brief discussion of the nature and cause of the vacuum sparking we have been talking about.

So you can see, the difference is like a cell phone to a generator. You can't use a generator to call your friends any more than you can power your house with a cell phone. They are each specifically designed to maximize the effect for which they are designed.

So do the lifters use the Biefeld-Brown Effect - a departure from the Coloumb Law of Electrostatic Attration in that opposite charges are not equal? Yes and no. No, because they work on the maximization of ionic wind. Yes, because there is always some minimal electromagnetic-gravitational effect associated with any electrical system. In that light a cell phone or toaster oven could also be claimed to work on the priciples of the B-B Effect.

In the purest sense, do the discs use the Biefeld-Brown Effect - a departure from the Coloumb Law of Electrostatic Attration in that opposite charges are not equal? Interesting question. Yes, because:

"Tests in air show that the integrated pressure derived from any profile does not account, however, for all the observed static thrust acting on the dipole system as a whole."


And no, in another sense, because it uses plasma to derive some thrust. So, plasma-hydrodynamics is an effect associated with the B-B Effect in some apparatuses, as ionic wind is in another, but it is the mass factor in the B-B Effect that links it to the coupling between electromagnetism and gravity.

What is the nature of gravity. Didin't Brown state that the B-B Effect is a secondary effect and can be difficult to study due to interference from the naturally larger electrostatic forces. Perhaps there is another aspect to the apparatus which we have not discussed, or another apparatus of similar nature which maximizes that aspect.

Qualight can build a prototype for you, wouldn't it be wiser to build a Model-T first ?
Last edited by Chris Knight on Mon Jan 15, 2007 2:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Andrew
Qualight Environmental
(http://www.qualight.com, http://www.qualightenv.com, http://www.qualightscp.com)

"If you think the situation is under control, then you don't truly understand the situation."
Chris Knight
Keeper of the Flame
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 5:35 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

PreviousNext

Return to The Science of Townsend Brown

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest