lifters in a vacuum

For a discussion of the science of Townsend Brown, his experiments and his ideas.
Locked
Elizabeth Helen Drake
Sr. Research Asst.
Posts: 1742
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:11 am

getting from here to there

Post by Elizabeth Helen Drake »

Gewis and kevin,

Here is a perfect example of what I was trying to say Gewis when I welcomed you. kevin gets from point A to point Z without necessarily hitting all of the letters in between and when you first encounter this the first reaction is WHAT? But hang in there!. kevin will surprise you sometimes with insight that just can't be gotten by the standard means.

kevin. You and I are cut from the same threaded cloth. Lets not scare the new guy until he gets to know us better! <g> Elizabeth
Chris Knight
Keeper of the Flame
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 5:35 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Post by Chris Knight »

Hi Gewis,

Pretty close. there are three basic axis of movement - x, y and z. The tri-arcuate discs were flown in a vacuum, sans solid dielectric between the anode and cathode, although the configuration you are describing would be applicable for a purely x and y horizontal movement as seen in the photos of the flat discs tethered to the central maypole.

It might be easier to think of the Effect as being a combination of variables which can be maximized. For example, the force derived from the area of the plates can be varied, but there will always be some plate area, as will the weight of residual gas in a vacuum, the dielectric constant of a vacuum (K=1), the distance between the plates.

Reducing one variable to a minimum will not nullify the Effect, but may minimize it to the point of being unusable, i.e. the minimal gravitational field created by the alternating electrical field in a lamp cord.

However, there are other variables acting in the operation of the tri-arcuate discs, and while there is a mass factor that can be maximized with the tri-arcuate discs, you're really looking at two different applications designed to incorporate different aspects of the same Effect.

As you pointed out, the electrostatic pump/fan/lifter is designed to ionize and maximize air flow. Some models could move a LOT of air, but in the end, it was just air - an ashtray product as Townsend often said.
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."
Gewis
Junior Birdman
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:17 pm
Location: Utah

Post by Gewis »

Ah, already spending too much time reading here. :) The joys of internet forums. I have equipment training to go to right now so I'll make my question to Chris Knight brief:

Brown described the field as acting on the mass of the dielectric, or coupling to the mass of the dielectric. If this variable, dielectric mass, goes to zero, doesn't this mean that effect goes to zero? If you could explain or point me to some source documents, I would appreciate that.
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research!" -Einstein
Chris Knight
Keeper of the Flame
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 5:35 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Post by Chris Knight »

I'm not sure I can give it a better explanation. Another explanation is found in the Structure of Space, but that's a cop-out, so let me try with this:

Look at the characteristics you described, which probably came from "How I Control Gravitation" at http://www.qualight.com/stress/control.htm or some such. Those variable are widely referenced, so it really doesn't matter where they came from.

All of the variables are related to the electrical characteristics of capacitances - plate area, distance, dielectric material, plate separation distance - with the exception of the integration of mass.

Now, you can go and build an apparatus without taking the mass of the dielectric into consideration, but including the mass into your design will increase the overall force by that portion of the force dependent on the mass of the dielectric. That portion of the force would then vary relatively from a minimal value to a maximum value found at an infinitely dense dielectric (or in reality, relative to the densest dielectric material in existence, which would contribute 100% of that part of the force dependent on the mass of the dielectric). Of course, the densest dielectric material may only have a dielectric constant of K=1...

Also, keep in mind that those five variables are by no means the only variables in the construction of such an apparatus, but you can still build one that works. However, by maximizing those additional variables, you could potentially maximize that portion of the overall force dependent on those variables and therefore increase the overall force.

Hope that helps a bit.
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."
Gewis
Junior Birdman
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:17 pm
Location: Utah

Post by Gewis »

Hmm... that's interesting. I assumed (and apparently wrongly) that the force contributions were multiplicative rather than additive. Some components most definitely are multiplicative. Zero voltage = zero force, even if you maximize the other components, for instance. Same should go for surface area. It made sense, in that context, that a minimum dielectric mass of zero should follow the same sort of proportionality rule. That is, when other variables are held constant, force is proportional (perhaps not even linearly) to dielectric mass.

Thank you for the clarification, though.
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research!" -Einstein
ETernalightwithin
Space Cadet
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:14 am

Post by ETernalightwithin »

Gewis wrote:
Mikado is right on the money about the difference between lifters and brown's discs: the dielectric. Brown stated, paraphrasing, that the effect is contingent upon 5 factors: area of the plates (larger area = larger effect), separation of the plates (smaller separation = larger effect), voltage applied to the plates (higher voltage = larger effect), dielectric constant of the dielectric (higher dielectric K = larger effect), and the clincher: mass of the dielectric.
I agree. Thank you for stating it clearly. lol, sometimes brain already knows it, but doesn't know it knows. :?
Gewis wrote: Mikado says solid dielectric is necessary. I agree with the principle. Massive dielectric is the key, but it doesn't have to be solid. Fluid dielectric contained between the plates ought to suffice and in fact has several advantages over solid dielectrics. If voltage on a solid dielectric is brought too high, then arcing occurs across the dielectric creating a conductive channel through it, forever ruining it. Fluids, on the other hand, have the ability to heal after arcing.

Of course, a very good question here is, "How do you contain a fluid dielectric between the plates without using a solid to contain it?" Well, you don't. But you can use a polycarbonate around the outside of the gap with a high voltage tolerance to prevent arcing, and then fill the interior of the capacitor with the fluid dielectric. This also allows testing of air at 1 atm vs 2 atm, inside the disc (but the disc in vacuum). Varying the atm this way allows a direct test of the proportionality relationship between dielectric mass and effect strength.


True and I'd love to use one but... 1. Are there any high-k liquid dielectrics? Or massive for that matter... 2. If you lose the fluid, say in space, you're screwed. Well, doesn't matter where you are, lol. "Down" you go.

So, just not exceed the max voltage threshold. Maybe operate over 0-80% of breakdown value? With say 95% for emergencies?
Gewis wrote: Congratulations to Mikado for seeing this crucial point. I saw it independently about a week and a half ago, when I was ignoring these forums and reading over null results from vacuum tests.


Lol, Mikado is one of many that have seen it throughout the years. Thank you Mikado for posting your thoughts for everyone's benefit

ETlight
Gewis
Junior Birdman
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:17 pm
Location: Utah

Post by Gewis »

ETLight, you're quite right about problems in space. Know the tolerances and capabilities of your equipment so you don't die. Solids are superior for those applications, because of their amazing k-values. I imagine that if you fried your capacitor because Captain Sulu ordered the helmsman to "FLY HER APART, THEN!" you'd be equally screwed.

As for high k-value liquids, I'm still looking. :)

I still believe that a compressible fluid, i.e. air, is near-perfect for isolating and testing the contribution of dielectric mass to BB effect. That is, at 2 atm, the air will be twice as massive but very similar in its k-value to air at 1 atm. Voila, isolation of variables.
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research!" -Einstein
ETernalightwithin
Space Cadet
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:14 am

Post by ETernalightwithin »

I believe that the entire capacitance equation is multiplicative. If you double the area, you double the capacitance. Decrease the plate separation by 10, you increase capacitance by 10.

C = Permitivity*(Area of plates / distance between plates)
Err, where is the addition here?

Anyone know where mass fits into this equation?
Also, I remember several posts about needing high voltage and amperage. I believe this is incorrect. If you read "How I control gravitation" You'll notice that Brown says that Voltage determines amplitude of movement. This means that the more voltage you put through the dielectric, the more movement. The higher the breakdown voltage of a substance, the more voltage you can apply, hence more movement. The amperage is only necessary to maintain the voltage. Ie. it's overcoming the losses in the dielectric. What I think this means is that the lower the leakage, the smaller amount of amperage needed to maintain a certain level of voltage potential. If you draw your attention to what Brown says about mass. It almost seems that he is saying that mass allows you to hit the max effect.
Like it is the ceiling or threshold. You might be able to hit 100 "B-B effect unit" but because you have a low mass dielectric, you only get to use 80% of full potential, with X volts, Y plate area, and Z Plate separation.

...Sorry if you all know this or I'm confusing the heck out of you. I'm making up for all those school years of not being able to vocalize my thoughts in class. :wink: It's how I work through things in my head.

ETlight

P.S. Chris. Isn't it said that the B-B effect won't work with Alternating current? What is you pulsed the AC and timed it so that the sine wave that the dielectric "saw" was only the positive 1/4 wave. The 1/4 negative AC wave could go to another gravitor.
Only thing is.... you'd need a damn fast switch.


Gewis wrote:Hmm... that's interesting. I assumed (and apparently wrongly) that the force contributions were multiplicative rather than additive. Some components most definitely are multiplicative. Zero voltage = zero force, even if you maximize the other components, for instance. Same should go for surface area. It made sense, in that context, that a minimum dielectric mass of zero should follow the same sort of proportionality rule. That is, when other variables are held constant, force is proportional (perhaps not even linearly) to dielectric mass.

Thank you for the clarification, though.
Last edited by ETernalightwithin on Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
ETernalightwithin
Space Cadet
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:14 am

Post by ETernalightwithin »

Gewis wrote:ETLight, you're quite right about problems in space. Know the tolerances and capabilities of your equipment so you don't die. Solids are superior for those applications, because of their amazing k-values. I imagine that if you fried your capacitor because Captain Sulu ordered the helmsman to "FLY HER APART, THEN!" you'd be equally screwed.

As for high k-value liquids, I'm still looking. :)

I still believe that a compressible fluid, i.e. air, is near-perfect for isolating and testing the contribution of dielectric mass to BB effect. That is, at 2 atm, the air will be twice as massive but very similar in its k-value to air at 1 atm. Voila, isolation of variables.
LOL, that's why you need a Mr. Scotty. :lol:

Very interesting. So THAT's how you would separate the effect mass has on the gravity impulse! Novel.
Mikado14
Mr. Nice Guy
Posts: 2343
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Somewhere in Pennsy

hmmmm...do you know...

Post by Mikado14 »

Gewis wrote: Mikado says solid dielectric is necessary. I agree with the principle. Massive dielectric is the key, but it doesn't have to be solid. Fluid dielectric contained between the plates ought to suffice and in fact has several advantages over solid dielectrics. If voltage on a solid dielectric is brought too high, then arcing occurs across the dielectric creating a conductive channel through it, forever ruining it. Fluids, on the other hand, have the ability to heal after arcing.

Of course, a very good question here is, "How do you contain a fluid dielectric between the plates without using a solid to contain it?" Well, you don't. But you can use a polycarbonate around the outside of the gap with a high voltage tolerance to prevent arcing, and then fill the interior of the capacitor with the fluid dielectric. This also allows testing of air at 1 atm vs 2 atm, inside the disc (but the disc in vacuum). Varying the atm this way allows a direct test of the proportionality relationship between dielectric mass and effect strength.


30 years ago they didn't have the polycarbonates that you speak of ( well, they did but the Vbd was not high enough to put to practical use) but the idea was on paper for exactly the reasons that you state. BUT, there are still a few things to consider with it......go a little further.
Gewis wrote: Congratulations to Mikado for seeing this crucial point. I saw it independently about a week and a half ago, when I was ignoring these forums and reading over null results from vacuum tests.
You sure your not from Pennsy and I don't know you? <g>

Mikado
Last edited by Mikado14 on Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
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

Here's some info ....

Post by Mikado14 »

.......since it appears we have some new talent.

I referenced these patents 30 years ago:

US Patent 3,120,363 1958 Hagen.

US Patent 3,130,945 1959 de Seversky

I have not heard these names mentioned at all anywhere in this forum.
What do you think Mr. Twigsnapper? Friends of Townsend? or maybe Decker?

Notice the years my chess opponent. Whose move is it anyway?

Newer ideas:

You will want to read this report:

NASA report AD-A227121 AL-TR-89-040

I also believe that the Hector that posts periodically is Hector Serrano who holds patent WO 00/58623

We are very well represented here.

hey Elizabeth....how's this for the direct Mikado?

Mikado
Last edited by Mikado14 on Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
Chris Knight
Keeper of the Flame
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 5:35 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Post by Chris Knight »

ETL,

I had the opportunity to talk with J. Frank King (Bahnson Labs) some years ago, and he said they used both DC and AC up to a million volts for their work. I didn't delve into it further with him at that time, and he passed away a few months later.

I have the Bahnson lab notes, but to be honest, the handwriting is difficult to follow, and I haven't spent as much time as I'd like interpreting them, so I can't help you in that direction.

You asked if only DC worked on the B-B Effect. The pure definition of the Effect, yes. However, if you take one of his electrostatic fans/precipitators and reverse the voltage, it will work as well due to the asymmetric field. It's another case of an apparatus designed to maximize an associated characteristic.

Something to keep in mind is that when you are dealing with the tri-arcuate discs, one of the characteristics is the asymmetric field. There are accounts of UFO discs with characteristics comparable to microwave and other high frequencies.

Another question about the depleted uranium. The F-117 was developed at about the same time as the B-2. I wonder if it integrated similar technologies.
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."
Elizabeth Helen Drake
Sr. Research Asst.
Posts: 1742
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:11 am

a matter of timing

Post by Elizabeth Helen Drake »

I don't want to slow up the flow of this wonderful discussion but I have a question to ask of you Andrew.

When you speak of the lab notes from Bahnson Labs, are these the notes taken on experiments AFTER October of 1958? or before? And I am assuming these were in J. Frank Kings own handwriting? Or Agnew Bahnson himself. It has a bearing on the research that I am into right now so when you have a moment can you take a look?

And yes Mikado, I am watching the dates carefully.

So I will butt out and you guys go on. Like I said, I barely understand a word you guys are saying but isn't it wonderful! Elizabeth
Chris Knight
Keeper of the Flame
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 5:35 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Post by Chris Knight »

Elizabeth,

Looks like 1957-1960 from first glance.
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."
ETernalightwithin
Space Cadet
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:14 am

Re: a matter of timing

Post by ETernalightwithin »

I wish I could have met him. Tesla and Einstein too.
Maybe one day I'll get to meet Bedini. He makes these cool amplifiers too.

ETlight
Elizabeth Helen Drake wrote:I don't want to slow up the flow of this wonderful discussion but I have a question to ask of you Andrew.

When you speak of the lab notes from Bahnson Labs, are these the notes taken on experiments AFTER October of 1958? or before? And I am assuming these were in J. Frank Kings own handwriting? Or Agnew Bahnson himself. It has a bearing on the research that I am into right now so when you have a moment can you take a look?

And yes Mikado, I am watching the dates carefully.

So I will butt out and you guys go on. Like I said, I barely understand a word you guys are saying but isn't it wonderful! Elizabeth
Locked