Propellantless Propulsion?

Do you have any data in non-youtube format? Like a paper?

From this test we have minimal data, but from my most recent work I have tons of data, which I guess I can post some of it without running the risk of being rejected by the Journal I'm trying to publish with.

But to give you an idea we use on average 40kv DC from a Spellman SL30PN40 DC High voltage power supply. The maximum amperage is .775 milliamps. In steady state DC experiments we've seen 28 milliNewtons at 41.5Kv @ .002 ma or .083 watts. In more recent experiments using new devices and configurations, we've done as good as operating with less than >.0009 microamps at 30Kv with about 10 MilliNewotn's. We've been concentrating on eliminating ion wind, which are considered a loss mechanism in our work. As a result every time we reduced ionization we observed an increase in force and reduction in power input, which in my opinion is not consistent with ion wind or coronal wind phenomenology, since it's a current dependant phenomenon.

Let me see what I can post for everyone to read and get a better feel for what we are seeing. I've got some extensive Oscilloscope measurements that I can add if that will help.

OK - let's just pretend that I don't know anything about what you're talking about and see if you can explain it to me. What exactly are you trying to accomplish? What is this force? Where does it come from? How is it created and how are you measuring it? What are it's applications?

Well in this forum I'm trying to get opinions, ideas or suggestions that may improve my experiments.
As to what is the force, well that's a big question mark at the moment because no standard force phenomena seems to fit exactly what is happening.
We only know we put in energy in the proper voltage, amperage ratio and a percentage of the input power over time is converted to a change in the kinetic energy of the device being tested.
The force is the produced by applying high voltage at low current into a device suspended in a simple pendulum configuration using a total of two suspension points, the first a non conducting string, the other a small diameter insulated high voltage wire.
The force is measured as the product of the change in angle of the device from its horizontal rest position. While the second suspension point has a significant mass, we calculate as if it did not, making the force measurement conservative in nature.
Application fields at current force and power levels would be satellite maneuvering and station keeping at higher levels vehicle propulsion in marine, terrestrial and aerospace applications.

Do you have any explanation as to how a current manages to flow at all? Is it a DC current, or only evidenced during charge/discharge (turning the voltage on/off)? What is the approximate capacitance of the system (i.e. between anode & cathode)?

I don't know much about your experiments so perhaps these aren't relevant questions but you got my curiosity.

How did you cancel out the ion wind forces, it would seem to me that would be the hardest part to account for.

In terms of the force that you saw from this, is it much more or much less than you would get from the ion wind forces alone?

To get this effect you need a high voltage which is also what you need for ion wind effect. Not to discount what you are researching as if you find something it would be very important, but for propulsion applications, would this be more effective than just using ion wind for propulsion and why?

Last question, as I understand it this is in a vacuum chamber, is this a metal vacuum chamber? if so with high voltages, I would imagine you would get all sorts of forces between the chamber an what you are testing, how do you deal with that?

Ionization without a doubt was the most likely source of the force, however in the vacuum tests of 2003 we used the vacuum level of better than 1*10^-6 Torr to eliminate the probability of ion wind effects. In fact in all test the vacuum pumps were isolated from the chamber via their gate valves to prevent damage and in none of the experiments we observed any rise in vacuum levels, suggesting that ion wind ablation or any other ejection mechanisms was not involved.

As for the chamber itself the we can eliminate any stray forces effect by the fact that the device measured 6 inches in diamter and the nearest chamber wall was ~ 2 ft way. In addtion the devices rotation would have moved it into a position were the nearest chamber wall would have been over 5 ft way since it is shaped like a cyclinder orientated horizontally through its axis. Finally we replicated the same effect in air with very similar results in a much larger area. By themselves they don't prove much but collectively they make a strong argument for something other than standard EM forces being involved. Still it's a very good question and we're alwasy looking to improve so I'll take a second look at this issue. The chamber was made from Steel not sure what exact grade.

In the more recent forms of the experiments we used fully insolated high voltage cables to connect to a fully encapsulated device. In more than one test we've added a Faraday cage to the devices outer layer without any reduction of the thrust with or without the cage. In addition we've tested the devices in and out of a faraday cage.

While the current is very low we still tested for magnetic fields, but found that such emission were negligible and could not be distinguished from the magnetic field or earth. We used an F.W. Bell 7030 Gauss Tesla meter for these tests.

In addition we did static and dynamic testing of the devices while under high voltage using smoke and a green fanning laser in all axis looking for air jets, with negative results. The only time we had a positive ion wind was when we created it on purpose as a point of reference.

The ionization effect of the ion wind can contribute to the effect, but this induces a large power penalty, which will drop the efficiency of the effect significantly. However the ratio between the two appears variable so it can be varied if desired. We've done no specific testing in this direction yet. Our focus has been towards the elimination of the ion wind and standard EM effects so that we can measure the pure non-conversional force effect.

As for efficiency it's staggeringly higher than conventional propulsion systems like XIPS and even ion wind devices like the ionocraft and lifters. Xenon Ion Propulsion System (XIPS) operates at ~3.6^-5 N/W (Newton/Watts), Ionocraft reported ~6.1^-3 N/W, Lifters ~3.4^-3 N/W, while our devices average greater than < .3 N/W.

The only real limiting factor that we are facing at the moment is that, to date I have not been able to find an off the shelve power supply that can provide power in the correct waveform to make the best use of the effect.

I find it very difficult to get any idea of what's going on, here, from some video of a wobbly cross and some obscure 3D sketches of a rotor device.

Any chance of some decent diagrammatic representations of the setup?

I hope this helps, if not let me know.

1. Monel aluminum ancher point.

2. Glass tube, with copper power line.

3. Copper power line cathode electrode.

4. Aluminum sheet anode electrode.

5. Not Shown

6. Anode grounding cable.

7.Alumina Ceranic insulating body structure. Unfired.

8. Grounding stud like shown on 1.

This is the device shown on the YouTube videos. It's the last of three devices taken to NASA in 2003. All components were bonded using a Lesker vacuum approaved epoxy.

"I hope this helps, if not let me know."

Nope. Please tell us in a short paragraph what you think is happening, and why you think it is happening.

How will that change the facts?

What facts?

Let me digress on my answer, because it's based on the assumption that you're asking for a hypothesis and that's not fair to you.

So my question is, are you asking for a functional explanation, or are you asking me for a hypothetic/theoretical explanation of the underlying cause?

Please also clarify the nature of the voltage you are applying - is it sinusoidal, on/off or what? Also, (assuming that the suspending wire provides a restoring torque) what is the natural frequency of oscillation of your system? Can you observe displacement with switched, but otherwise fixed DC levels?

Very good questions. The Spellman power supplies are high voltage DC (only) power supplies. The voltage is applied as close to a square wave as possible. In fact you are correct about the suspension cable providing a restoring force. While a steady state force does exist at all times when operating purely in a DC mode, the movement back and forth is caused by the cyclical application of power (Pulses) from the power supply via the inhibit circuit. Prior to that via simply turning the power supply on and off. Using the inhibit results in a larger power input over a shorter period of time and a subsequent increase in force over the same period time.

Are you switching the voltage at the resonant frequency of the system?

Is displacement observed when the voltage is applied (once)? You state that "a steady state force exists" - can you support that assertion?

Yes I can support the claim of a steady state force under pure constant DC. I have plentty of video that shows that. The application of pulse power is simply because it increases the total force output.

Again,

(me) "what is the natural frequency of oscillation of your system?"

and

(me) "Are you switching the voltage at the resonant frequency of the system?"

If not, at what frequency are you switching?

(you) "The application of pulse power is simply because it increases the total force output"

Is it an impulsive force (only in effect when the voltage is switched)? You've really lost me on this one.

greater than 1hz.

yes, to increase the visibility when desired.

A pulse can apply more power over shorter period of time than operating in a steady state mode.

Capacitance is less than a microfarad, in most devices it can be considered parasitic. In the devices we try to maximize the conversion of input energy into force not storage over time.

Hi Grav01,

It appears that the pulses are set to the resonant frequency to maximize the swing. The springiness of the support cable returns the unit to the static position. The only question is what causes the force. Somebody suggested the sharp corners. Since you seem to have no theory, what prompted the design? Have you tried using rounded plates? If they don't work as well, then the sharp corners are the key. How are you measuring the force, by the way?

S

In both the torsion and simply pendulum the force is measured as the product of the change in angle. This has been used by many other researchers for similar force measurements reliably.

You're correct I have a guiding hypothesis. It's heresy against the current laws of physics so I rather not get into it and just stick to the empirical facts.

The force is also the measured at the time of the initial impulse not when the device is swinging from multiple pulses. When running on steady state from the maximum deflection angle.

Hi grav01,

The way you are measuring force seems a little ad-hoc. Why not put bearings on it and just let it rotate? That would make a better demonstration anyway. Then you could put a pulley on it and actually measure the work being done.

S

Sounds good. I think I'll do that. Thanks for the advice.

All relative movements are related to friction either sliding or rolling When so small forces (mN) are involved even very low frictions can pollute the results.

The torsion spring (wire) which is presented in one of the documents has the advantage of a quasi null friction and can be used also as torque transducer if it is well calibrated. But I do not know how it can be used in the new concept.

I've done rotary devices in the past using both metal bearings and later plastic/glass ball bearings and yes it would take multiple devices running in parallel to drive the wheel, because the breakaway force is significantly greater to get the rotation going than the force needed to keep the device rotating. In addition there is a significant amount of mass that must be put into motion when we're talking about fully insulated device using a self-supporting rigid mechanical structure. Tolerances are very tight in all respects, including mass/weight distribution. It's possible, but more complicated given the relatively small forces. Nonetheless I think it's worth doing again.

Grav01,

What company are you with?

Was the work at NASA done on an SBIR, some other basis with NASA, or did you simply pay for time in a vacuum chamber?

Did NASA personnel participate in any way in the research?

Was the USAF, USDoD, or DTIC involved in any way?

What are the foundatonal studies on which your efforts are based?

This will help me better understand.

Thanks.

This is a long and complicated issue, but I'll try to explain. The research was conducted at NASA by us Gravitec Inc, in cooperation with NASA personnel mainly Dr. Richard Grugal. He as a NASA agent paid for the use of the LEEIF facility as well as our travel and other related expenses.

As I said in a prior posting this was supposed to be the first of a series of experiments, however the small thrust disappointed Dr. Grugal and he refused to participate after the second day of testing, at which time we continued tested for ourselves and ended our relationship with them.

There is no SBIR or any other normal contractual mechanism. Like all of NASA they were curious to try it but not to put there name officially behind it when the time came.

Forgot the last question. The work is based on TT Browns asymmetrical capacitor force. We've since evolved the concept far from the asymmetric capacitor concept. In fact the new device are not capacitor at all. Actually it's hard to categorize them, you'll see why when we show them, they are unique.

The experiment at NASA were based on R.L. Talley's work in the late 80's and early 90's.

Reminds me of an experiment I saw on a TV science programme many years go. A piece of metal was suspended from a long thin wire in a vacuum tube, and a light shone on it, it responded by moving, the discussion that followed was, did it move due to photons striking it or did it react to the heat created by photons. I see from your demonstration that the object is brightly lit.

Might therefore suggest that the above may be involved and its reacting to light? Only a suggestion?

Regards JD.

Good point. This exact same possibility was raised by the Dr. David Infante from the Aerospace Corporation at the NRO. That was back when I was working with Dr. John Rusek at Purdue. This issue has since been addressed by subsequent experiments. However, it has been some time since anyone has thought of that. Thank you.

Also thank you for using Lit and Lighted. LOL.

The Youtube videos, without accompanying narrations are interesting but of doubtful value/interest. Music reproduction not so hot.

Thanks, I'll work on that this weekend.

Hmmm. You might like to revisit Tesla scalar theory. Sounds similar to the MEG.

The issue I have with Tesla's theory is that to my knowledge it's conceptual in nature, but little if any computational formulas exist to accompany the theory. If I'm wrong on this please let me know. However, I leave all doors open for consideration. Thank you.

I like to thank everyone who has made a comment up to now for doing so. Your comments are really helping me hone in my presentation. I don't know if I can finish everything I have to do this weekend, but by next weekend I should have all the new improvements done.

If you haven't made any comments yet or have questions or ideas please feel free to add them here, I'm taking notes and making plans according to your suggestions.

Time lapse photography reveals that plants wave around in a circular pattern. This is due to the subtle gravitational affects of the Sun and Moon; we no longer wonder about the cause of the ocean tide... Somehow the subtle rotational movement of a charged rotor, does not surprise me.

"Time lapse photography reveals that plants wave around in a circular pattern. This is due to the subtle gravitational affects of the Sun and Moon"

Nope, that's not why plants "wave around in a circular pattern". It's because of heliotropism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliotropism

The time lapse phothorgaphy I refer to was done in a sealed photo room with constant artificial light. The plants wave around in a 24 hr circular pattern. My father has dozens of such time lapse sequences spanning weeks and months of various flowering plants.

The plants are genetically programmed to move in a 24 hour cycle, and will constantly move in an attempt to gather the most light.

Where you stand in the room will have more gravitational effect than the sun or the moon will.

I really don't know the validity of your research, only time will tell. However, I do know a little about plants, and when you use their behavior to strengthen your argument, it should be based on facts. Unless you want to take on the botanical world also.

If there is some documentation that plants have a genetic 24 hour clock of sorts, you will have to point it out to us. In my father's plant photo room there were fixed gro-lights; the plants did not have to "seek out light"; the photo flood lights would come on only for a few seconds to shoot each frame (this was the "old days" of Kodachrome and his 16mm Bolex"; the time he set varied from every ten minutes, to once an hour depending on how fast the plant (for example, an amaryllis) grew; ALL plants waved around in a regular circular pattern; it could not be helotropism, because there was no natural light; the only force that would or could produce the phenomenon was that of the gravitational force of the sun and moon; don't forget, the sun and moon govern the tides, and if what you say is true about a human body having more gravitational pull (presumably at close range) than the sun or moon, a person would attract water...!; tides would be higher on sunny beach days, etc., and I do not think there is any evidence of that. (~;

The phenomenon at bar, is a charged, free hanging device in a sealed vacuum chamber; having grown up with my father's results in photographing plants, to me it is exactly the same phenomenon as the plant's circular swaying; in fact for some plants the sway orbit was quite pronounced, several inches across; that was in the early 60's and we all knew it was sun/moon gravitation, the same that affects the tides, so all of this hubris about propellantless propulsion and the implication of some mysterious "free energy".... I'm ROFLMAO.... There are already energy recovery systems gathering tidal energy, we have some at the bottom of the East River and some wave operated systems off-shore; theoretically we can even harness the movement of plants, but it would not be cost effective; to me the riddle is solved.

Don't know much about plant life, but to put forward an alternative reason why plants should waver? Plants take in water at the roots, this is then passed to the leaves, therefore one would expect some movement of the stem as the water is pumped up to the leaves? Just a thought.

Regards JD.

I never heard about it but I do not doubt your father"s research.

Would it be possible to make a "youtube" (or equivalent) presentation?

Did he send his results to a University where such behaviour is analysed?

It could be of general interest since as far as I know the deflection is generated by a different rate of cell growth with and without light.

Nick, My father did time lapse plant photog' as part of his usual intellectual and curiosity quotient driven activites including designing, building his own equipment... and we all loved seeing flowers grow, bud and bloom in a few minutes. He ended up with quite a library on 16 mm reels; my sister likely had them, but she passed away years ago...

hello grav01!

I would like to know if you are absolutely sure about the electrical isolation of that pendulum and the camera were it is under the vacuum?

Also, if you register any load effect (even very tiny) in the DC source when you apply the field to the camera?

The camera was actually outside of the chamber looking through a view port at the device.

As for a load, yes there is always power flowing to the devices when they generate thrust. We've never seen thrust without power consumption. We've been able to do more with less as of late, but there is always a current of some amount flowing.

http://www.energyfromthevacuum.com/

Tamu, you linked

http://www.energyfromthevacuum.com/

Please tell me this not an endorsement of the so called "bedini motor"

In a nutshell, it is BS.....

I don't have any experience in this area, but will toss out some ideas anyway. If they are foolish, you can at least enjoy a good laugh!

1) I gather from your description that you are applying a DC (only) current. Could the electric fields be interacting with the Ceramic Plate on some sort of Piezo-electric Resonance? The accompanying dynamic shape change might interact with the gravitational field to somehow produce a torque. Could the current surge and initial shape changes be what sets off this Resonance?

1B) Variation on above: Any Vibration induced in the setup might produce a torque on the mounting pivots (i.e. dynamic inertial loads from changes in the Plates reflecting off the end supports).

2) At such a high Voltage, could the square corners of those "Aluminum Sheet Electrodes" be creating enough of a directed Electric Field that it creates a dielectric type force with the walls of the Chamber?

Thanks for the ideas I appreciate you putting thought and time into thinking about them.

Your first suggestion sounds a lot like Dr. Woodward's device. I have Two main reasons why I don't think this is the case. The first is that we've done it with other than ceramic dielectrics. In fact most of our insulators are polymers not ceramics. Ceramics were used in vacuum, because of there low out gassing.

The second reason is that in their experiments Woodward's devices operate close to 100 Watts of power input and produce 1 dyne of force or .00001 Newton's. We are talking orders of magnitudes of difference.

On your second suggestion, all I can say is that both the Torsion and Simple pendulums have been used throughout the centuries to prevent exactly these kinds of effects from contributing to observations.

As for electrostatic forces and mirror charges, these are well-understood phenomena and can be accounted for relatively easily and does not appear like that is the cause either. However given the potentials we sighted I'm sure a few people will plug them into MathCAD and see what they get.

Like I said I appreciate every thought, you guys have been great.

"... both the Torsion and Simple pendulums have been used throughout the centuries ..."

This pre-empted my next question: have you experimented with a simple pendulum?

Yes I currently use a simple pendulum in my experiments. I stated this in a prior post. I also ignore the weight penalty of the use of a fully insulated power cable in those experiments.

OK, I've had much the same conceptual difficulties as others have expressed, but let's see if this is the crux: you have some form of energy creating motion in a suspended almost-capacitor (a-c); you have eliminated/accounted for all external energy input sources; you are getting an unexplainable energy input that manifests itself as movement of the (a-c). Correct? And the quest is to describe the nature and source of this energy?

Ok let me explain how things work at an electromechanical level. In the vacuum device at either side of the ceramic body there are two electrodes, Number # (3) is the positive leading electrode, while the Number# (4) is the negative grounded trailing aluminum electrode. These electrodes are separated by both the vacuum and the ceramic dielectric material Number # (7). These devices are considered asymmetrical capacitors.

When a potential builds between these electrodes a small charge flows between them and without the apparent need for a working fluid to act as a momentum exchange medium the devices generate a force, which changes the momentum of the devices.

So the claim is that we might have found a viable method to achieve a propulsive force without the need for a reaction mass. This does not exclude the existence of reaction medium, but this is at best hypothetical.

Well, it all seems very strange, perhaps wonderful, possibly illusionary, and potentially useful. For now, I'm content to follow this thread to its conclusion (if ever!) and just add it for now to the long list of things that I know more about than I understand...

E-man,

I'd like to take a stab at this.

A device hangs suspended in a chamber. The device moves. What causes the movement?

1. It is not moved by a breeze (flow), whether ionic in source or otherwise, since there are too few atoms of air remaining in the chamber.
2. Device motion is not caused by interaction with terrestrial gravity, since that acts only vertically, and observed motion reflects a horizontal force.(Actually, a force oriented to the device under test, rather than earth.)
3. There is no significant magnetic field to cause force, because magnetism (from an e-m source) is proportional to current, and the measured current is very small.
4. There is no other electro-magnetic force related to interaction with the chamber walls because the chamber walls are too distant, and the force remains aligned with the device even when reoriented within the chamber.
5. There are no spring or spring-like components in the device under test.
6. The device under test does not significantly change temperature, eliminating any possible force resulting form thermal expansion/contraction.
7. A piezo-electric device could exert oscillating motion if such a device was present and an oscillating electric field existed. There is no such device and no such field.
8. Device motion does not reflect any other external mechanical influence (seismic, building plumbing, trucks driving by outside, etc.) presumably because the chamber is mechanically isolated against all such influence.
9. "Fill in here, the potential force I have missed."

All possible known sources of force having been eliminated, clearly the device is moved by a force not known to date to be generated by such a test arrangement.

I think that is the argument.

BTW: The US Air Force did some research of this phenomenon in the late "80s. It appears interest in it was lost. I don't know what that means.

"A piezo-electric device could exert oscillating motion if ... an oscillating electric field existed. There is no such ... field."

There is an oscillating field - see #35.

Roger that. I sit corrected. Now, if there is something that could act as a piezo-electric crystal, we may have our culprit.

"There are no spring or spring-like components in the device under test"

Please see #35 (again!).

Sorry I missed it last time.

This was already addressed on reference #30.

For more information on that type of propulsion look at Dr. Woodward's work. He's the authority on piezo propulsion.

Hi v1sor,

Thanks for answering the question the poster wouldn't.

"appears interest in it was lost. I don't know what that means."

Maybe they figured it out. Do you have any links?

S

Your welcome. I expect Grav01 would have answered; he seems to have been fairly forth-coming. It was just a good way for me to work through what had been discussed. I am fortunate to have been reviewed and corrected.

There were at least two relevant studies (reports probably available at the Defence Technical Information Center - DTIC.mil) date '88 or '89 or '90. The studies were conducted for an Air force engineering command (I don't recall which.) One was reported by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC.) I don't' recall who did the studies. Probably the electric propulsion studies would address it. Mostly a lot I don't know. I will try to look for them later. ANyone else is cetainly free to do so.

Not sure what the question was but if you're looking for Air Force studies go to my website http://www.foldedspace.com and hit the link on research. There you will find two Air Force studies from Edwards Air Force Base.

Hope that helps.

It seems very interesting. According to what I know there are a couple of ways to generate a force:

- electrodynamic with the interaction of current and magnetic field

- electrostatic with the help of an electrostatic field with which a load is moved

- by impulse F= d(m*v)/dt

As far as I understand you have a current and the particles are accelerated by an electric field of 41.5 kV. Have you computed the d(m*v)dt of the particles under such conditions? If yes how big is the resulting impulse?

I try to understand and if I am wrong I do not mind to be told I can only learn some thing more. Thanks for an explanation.

Actually the answer would be no, because what you're actually looking for is the unbound current that would drive the ion propulsion effect. We never got to measure the unbound current in that experiment. However I guess I can calculate what the force would be if all the energy was unbound and the total mass of the particles in the vacuum were accelerated simulteniously in the opposite direction.

That will take me a little time to workout. Sorry. I'll get back to you. However, without calculations I doubt that this would even add up to 1 milliNewton, but I won't know until I do it.

Thanks.

When one has to deal with so small forces one of the problems is how to measure them. The uncertainty has to be about 0.1 of measured value. Since you quantify in milinewton range the uncertainty of the method has to be 1E-4 N. I would be interested how you quantify such forces. The reason is that I work in the development of transducers for forces and other physical parameters and I know how difficult it is already in the Newton range to have uncertainties of 0.01N.

I would appreciate some indications about this aspect.

I still expect a promised answer. I am surprised that you do not try by several paths to find an explanation of what happens. You use the notion "unbound current" would you please be more precise. I can imagine that a flow of electrons due to their velocity (accelerated in the electrostatic field) will meet heavier atoms and ionize them generating thus bother accelerable particles which could add their impulse to the one of the electrons. The strong field can also ionize neutral atoms and generate particles with same effect. This can be estimated and you can see if it is true or not modifying the pressure (vacuum) in the experimental volume (as is suggested in an other comment). Higher pressure means more particles = higher meeting probability aso. and may be a higher force.

If you realy get more force it must be an explanation since physics are physics. Of course if you believe in the "ether" physics are not any more physics and no actual theory will bring an explanation. Although I am sure that we do not know all I do believe in the latin words "ex nihilo nihil".

I'm going to try, as you ask, but it appears not within your time frame. I've made my intensions clear, that when I'm done I will submit my work for publishing to a Journal, not here. Once that is done I intent to come back to this forum to discuss my research in far greater detail. This time frame may not meet with your approval and for that I'm sorry.

While I don't believe in the concept of the pre 20^th century Ether (which was proto relativistic in nature) I do believe that Space-Time shares many similarities with the concept of the Ether and given hypothetical concepts like the Alcubierre Warp, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive) this device might be making use of something similar to a propulsive force This would not be in violation of any known physics laws, but it would be surprising if cofirmed to be the case.

If you read R.L. Talley's paper (http://foldedspace.com/data.html) on his asymmetrical capacitor testing, he found that a small force was present at similar or higher voltages than what I used in mine. In his analysis he found that the force contribution from ion propulsion effects was approximately "less than 1/400 of the force measurement threshold value of 2*10^-9N (0.0002 dyn)". This can be found on pages 81-82 of the report itself, page 87-88 on the online PDF copy. Given the large difference in our forces I feel confident that when I finish my analysis the forces from ionization will still be orders of magnetite too small to account for observed effect.

Appreciate your advice and interest on my work. I will keep you and the rest of the forum informed as I near publishing.

I'm going to try, as you ask, but it appears not within your time frame. I've made my intensions clear, that when I'm done I will submit my work for publishing to a Journal, not here. Once that is done I intent to come back to this forum to discuss my research in far greater detail. This time frame may not meet with your approval and for that I'm sorry.

While I don't believe in the concept of the pre 20^th century Ether (which was proto relativistic in nature) I do believe that Space-Time shares many similarities with the concept of the Ether and given hypothetical concepts like the Alcubierre Warp, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive) this device might be making use of something similar to achieve a propulsive force. This would not be in violation of any known laws of physics, but it would be surprising if confirmed to be the case.

If you read R.L. Talley's paper (http://foldedspace.com/data.html) on his asymmetrical capacitor testing, he found that a small force was present at similar or higher voltages than what I used in my experiments. In his analysis he found that the force contribution from ion propulsion effects were approximately "less than 1/400 of the force measurement threshold value of 2*10^-9N (0.0002 dyn)". This can be found on pages 81-82 of the report itself, page 87-88 on the online PDF copy. Given the large difference in our forces I feel confident that when I finish my analysis the forces from ionization will still be orders of magnitude too small to account for observed effect.

I appreciate your advice and interest on my work and I will keep you and the rest of the forum informed as I near publishing.

Weren't you on Coast-to-Coast with George Norry or Art Bell?!

Also, what is so mysterious and fascinating about an asymmetrical capacitor generating a small force that can torsion a small device? It just seems like a variation on a theme - AKA a little, electric motor. What's the big deal?

Also, I have to say that it seems to me as though you're using NASA to further your credibility. Although, the story of how you got in there says something else. At least you were honest about that.

Forgive me if I sound hostile. I'm am not. It's just that so much stuff out there that seems revolutionary, turns out to be just a novel application of some known effect. There's one guy out there that swears when he throws a piece of metal through a Jacob's Ladder, it moves through time. Etcetera.

No I've never been on any radio shows.

As for NASA they were part of the story so I have to add them, however the facts are that they were the ones that paid for the experiments and we used their facility so excluding them from the story would have been wrong.

It's not the size of the force it's the origin that could be the breakthrough.

Sorry, but I'm not here to prove anything to you guys, I'm only gathering information in preparation for publishing in a peer reviewed journal. This is not the place to prove anything that's why Journals are in no danger of going out of business. The internet is no substitute for a good Journal.

Up to know it's been very educational and I appreciate it.

Oh and I know you're not being mean. Thanks.

Dear Grav01, What you are describing (demonstrating) appears to be the Biefield-Brown effect. Discovered by Professor Biefield and T.T. Brown using high voltages capacitors.

Dragon

P. S. Sorry I did not see the post about T.T. Brown earlier.

You're correct my work is based on the T.T. Browns, however what I've done is to concentrate on the underlying none ion wind force and harness it. In the process I discovered new things and as a result the devices I'm currently testing are unlike anything T.T. Brown ever did.

My vacuum tests were the first real evidence that the T.T. Brown effect was not simply the product of ion wind. If you assume it's everything that is speculated to be than it's unique in the fact that it's able to become anything under any condition.

In air it's ion wind, in vacuum it's an EMF motor, no wait an Electrostatic Motor, no wait an ion engine or maybe all four at once, or simply a radiant force motor, or piezo electric thruster, or, or, or. Can you see why I want to leave the judgment to the published journals?

If you are looking for a new concept as to what the force might be, try this way out of the box idea?

Thinking about another post, "What is gravity", and thinking how is it possible for mass to distort space, and as I have been putting forward the concept that space is a balance of equal and opposite forces (expansion and contraction), and there is an interface were they are in equilibrium, then consider the following.

An atomic nucleus pulls the interface around it's self creating a shell, which distorts the space around it, increasing the contracting force, while the expanding force locks up positively charged particles being similar in nature, while at the same time keeping negative charged particles at bay? This interface is different from the particles as it acts as a wave, and this wave action can radiate, such as a photon, a mass less object.

So to speculate as to how your experiment may be causing motion? Electrons interact with the interface, and as this interface is a point of equilibrium, and disturbing it may momentary alter the balance between the opposing forces, gravity might give it a jolt? Have you tried weighing the test piece, during above experiment.

Like I said this is out side the box, and not founded on any known facts.

Regards JD.

This is interesting. I have been following NASA's work in various areas of propulsion, including Ion propulsions, nuclear fusion rockets, and they have even looked at the possibility of a warp drive, hehehe. I know they have been looking into propellant-less propulsion, too. It was my impression that they were settling in on using magnetic and electric charges to build an ion sail type drive. Since the solar winds contribute an incredible amount of charge particles to space and since these particles remain over the ions, they remain a space force to be reckoned with. As you well know, space is a very dangerous place and, unlike earth, our astronauts do not have a strong magnetic field to help protect them from the solar winds or to deflect these particles away from dong harm. Perhaps your research can collect the charged particles to pass then through a central core and to serve two purposes, to protect the astronaut and to provide quasi-propellant-less propulsion.

This reply serves two functions, one is above and the other is to put my on this list for my reading file. FYI, I am on NASA's Science newsletter mailing list, too. It is a part of my daily reading file, along with ScienceDaily, Science Dev., and nanotechnology.

Thanks for the suggestion. NASA has been performing basic research on a device called M2P2 that operates just how you describe it. The picture I've included was taken when they were testing it at the LEEIF facility about a year before I used the chamber for my experiments.

In principal if you envelop a vehicle in the kind of field effect that we are working on, the particles both charged and neutral would be influenced by the field to travel along the path of the field lines thus changing their trajectories to varying degree dependant on their velocity, mass and relative angle of trajectory. This could be used in the manner that you described, however this would incur a power penalty on the power source, but it would be worth it if it offered that kind of protection.

We are far from any serious research along that or any other alternative uses for the phenomenon. Currently my main focus is scientific rigidity and application to propulsion. I appreciate the suggestion and hope to explore it in the future.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast04oct_1.htm

http://www.ess.washington.edu/Space/M2P2/

You are correct about the power penalty. Please refer to my science faction novel, Alien Reports, I have extended the idea to a space colony vessel to a major magnetic core that extends through the total 5 KM length of the vessel. Am also using it as the linear Fusion reactor. If the Proton/Helium 3 fusion reaction does become operational, it will produce an amazing amount of electric power, both for here on earth, but in space, too. However, I envision at least one fission pile needed to produce start-up power. Now mind you, I am not quite that deep into atomic and particle physics to really know what I am talking about, my physics is primarily in mechanics (physics/ chemistry double major). I do fine the quantum physics and the string theory interesting, though, especially when when the reach the mathematic dimensions for the M-theory and alternate dimensions, hehehehe.

This is my personal domain: http://www.chtank.org/

I have a friend at the Naval Surface Warfare Center that keeps me updated (as much as he can) on the progress of Bussard's Waffle ball WB7 device currently under testing. If it works as good as preliminary data showed from WB6 it should make fusion power possible in a small practical device, unlike the Tokamak devices. I'll checkout your website.

Here's a link to information on WB6 and Bussard's final research on it.

http://www.emc2fusion.org/

Gentlemen, No one has come up with an actual explaination of that is going on here. Come on, revisit Maxwell, Rutherford and Tesla regarding their theories regarding scalar energy and please stop telling me this is 'BS'. That's just a blinkered vision response and as engineers we have our eyes wide open. I don't understand it either. I'm an engineer. I just watch it work. I use devices here I can only theorise operate at the nano level. Quantum Physics is a discourse regarding what we don't understand. We don't understand many issues we take for granted because of our learnings. Grav01 came to this forum with his eyes wide open so let's respond with eyes wide open. I'm suggesting this motion is derived from ionic field stimulation. Plants, as we have observed for ages, do their own thing, grow in their own direction, thrive or die. That's not really the subject of this discourse.

Ions of what?

... which is a point to consider: grav01, how hard was your vacuum? Did you experiment at any other pressures?

Well we did not start the experiments before the chamber was at least at 1*10^-6 Torr, we could not do the experiments at 1*10^-5 Torr, because the LEEIF chamber pump(s) (which only one was working at the time) transition the chamber from 1*10^-4 Torr to 1*10^-6 Torr this took about a second. We did experiments at better than 6*10^-7 Torr. In all experiments the pumps were isolated from the chamber via their gate valves to prevent damage to them. So there was no active pumping while testing. The chamber was purged with dry nitrogen every time before starting to pump.

We did not observe any improvement in performance as the pressure changed, but this is not really surprising since the mean free path at 1*10^-6 Torr is far bigger than the chamber diameter along it's axis.

Tamu, I was only referring to the bedini motor. If you know someone, anyone, personally, who has one working, and is truly achieving "overunity", I will believe it only if I can go visit them, and truly see it in action. I looked all over, the first time I heard the term perpetual motion and had the net, way back when. No one I have ever seen, who tried to recreate it, has gotten it to give back more than was put in, thus I call it, and any other perpetual motion device, BS.

Tesla? Far be it from me to go against him, I have not the knowledge. But I have yet to hear that he personally claimed to have achieved perpetual motion, although he may have sought it....

Mobile, Tesla did not (as I understand his writings) claim perpetual energy was possible. He was more about what was possible with energies about us and was ridiculed by the then community around him. He was Edison's and Westinghouse's nemesis. Just to briefly cover the topic, Edison said DC, Westinghouse said AC and Tesla said RF. All as a means to transmit/distribute electricity. The point to all this is as Maxwell, Rutherford and Tesla wrote. There is more to energies than meets the eye. I have personally witnessed things I cannot understand but they relate directly back to Tesla, Maxwell and Rutherford and their writings surrounding Scalar Energy. Maxwell tried to make an equation out of it. What Tom Bearden et al have discovered is a device which does require a small amount of energy to get it 'swinging' then it performs as a seemingly hugely efficient generator of greater power. Tom's career in intelligence speaks loudly regarding weaponry from this energy. The Tesla Howitzer amongst others. Frankly speaking I cannot get an understanding that if I install a two part 'shell' (made from pewter with trace elements and minerals from West Australia) across a water pipe, with water heavily calcified and boilers with up to 1 inch of calcium build up on the elements, that, within 3 months, the boilers and elements are clean. I mean how can we talk about BS when I can clearly see the results infront of my eyes? I cannot accept the world revolves around gravity, EMF, atomics and so forth. As they all said, there is an other energy with us and best we accept it. Just what it is I have no idea, but at least, as engineers, we should open our minds and accept the possibility.

As I stated, I only speak of the bedini motor, none of the others. I KNOW IT DOES NOT WORK! I have known way too many people to try it, have debunked it myself, and it is easy to see that he, and bearden, are perpetuating a "myth" of their own device. I would call it a scam, or fraud, if they were trying to sell anything. Articles by them insinuate that John bedini is the founder of Bedini electronics, when in fact he is not, they just share the same name.

My personal thought is that they dreamed up a way to screw around with those gullible enough to try for perpetual motion, and eventually bedini lost interest, while bearden continued for awhile at least. I have not checked up on it for a few years....

As far as the possible effects of "scalar" energy, I cannot make a truly educated opinion, as I am not an engineer, but my guess is no one has come close to the right trck, if there is one.

But seriously, the only thing I am calling BS is the Bedini motor, I am not trying to poo poo the rest of what you said, and I hope I do not offend...

I have not read previously your comment that's why my question comes so late. With respect to the "wonder" of taking the 1" of calcium carbonate (not calcium which is an element and cannot stay free due to its reactivity with other elements) off, is it some thing you saw your self or is it a report from the cousin of a friend who was told that this happened? I heard about such "marvels" but according to people using them they did not work. There is an approach based on powerful permanent magnets which could have a physical background but it only avoids a calcite depot not what you mentioned.

Please give more details since it can be an interesting device and it will be very interesting to try to understand how it works, of course if it works.