Antigravity "Lifters"

[John Kierein]

http://www.americanantigravity.com/
Back in the 1960s, I tried to build a similar one of these based on my (and Charles Brush's) "Pushing Gravity" theory. I made a capacitor out of sheet metal and mylar and charged it up from a high voltage power supply from my television set. I balanced it on a long wooden two by four. Nothing happened for me. I guess I should have turned it 90 degrees from the looks of these things.
Here's more:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,52432,00.html

<a name="20020531.5:37"> page 20020531.5:37 aka -gravGEN
On 2002-05-31 09:00, John Kierein wrote: To: 8 AKBAL 17 ZIP
http://www.americanantigravity.com/
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...#20020527.2:10
it must take a lot of force to do it
http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,52432,00.html
even on a very small scale
try putting a static charge on a ping pong ball
and then develope a way to spin it quickly
once its polorized? maybe a pith balls better{smaller} lighter

[Kaptain K]

Lifter technology is a sophisticated technology utilizing ... Ion-Wind propulsion to create directional thrust.

1) This is not new. It was the cover story in "Popular Science" magazine in the late '60s or early '70s.
2) It has absolutely NOTHING to do with anti-gravity.
3) It is simply a means of accelerating air by entrapping it in an ion stream between cathodes and an open framework anode.
_________________
When all is said and done - sit down and shut up!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-05-31 10:40 ]</font>

[John Kierein]

Whatever it is, it's mighty cool. Better than a hot air balloon.

[Phobos]

On 2002-05-31 10:33, Kaptain K wrote:

Lifter technology is a sophisticated technology utilizing ... Ion-Wind propulsion to create directional thrust.

1) This is not new. It was the cover story in "Popular Science" magazine in the late '60s or early '70s.
2) It has absolutely NOTHING to do with anti-gravity.
3) It is simply a means of accelerating air by entrapping it in an ion stream between cathodes and an open framework anode.
_________________
When all is said and done - sit down and shut up!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-05-31 10:40 ]</font>

Don't write off this type of research too soon. NASA just tested, produced and patented a similar device which has independently been verified by JLN laboratories.



Phobos

[Roy Batty]

I dont thinks its a question of 'writing it off', its just that the term kind of implies some sort of radical method of locally negating the 'force' of gravity. I mean, its probably an anti-gravity device in the same sense as a rocket or balloon.
[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[Wiley]

Appropriate Einstein Anecdote:*

Reporter: Do you think there will ever be an anti-gravity device?

Albert: We already have one. It's called an elevator.


*paraphrased due to failing memory.

[SeanF]

I've invented a device that allows one to see through walls.

I'm going to call it a "window."

[John Kierein]

You'll get sued by Bill Gates if you call it a window.
T. Townsend Brown

Biefield

[Chip]

On 2002-05-31 16:15, Wiley wrote:
Appropriate Einstein Anecdote:*
Reporter: Do you think there will ever be an anti-gravity device?
Albert: We already have one. It's called an elevator.
*paraphrased due to failing memory.

Do you think this would be a good time to patent my new invention, The Photon Generator? (It illuminates rooms at night.) Or did that Edison guy beat me to it? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[Roy Batty]

Being picky, but didnt Humphrey Davies invent the first.. yeah yeah, That Edison guy did it better though [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[beskeptical]

Perhaps the poster should designate the science language he/she is using. Anti-gravity probably doesn't cut it with physics folks, but might not confuse the biologists. "The geographer" thought I should use the terms north and south of x latitude and not above and below in another post.

Anti-gravity leaves a lot to be speculated about as a term. The elevator as an anti-gravity device works for me. Could we really neutralize or turn gravity off? That would seem to defy the laws physics. Wouldn't any anti-gravity device actually have to use some kind of counteracting force?

[Donnie B.]

Well, a helium balloon counteracts gravity without expending any energy to do it. Of course, it only works under certain conditions.

<a name="20020601.5:21"> page 20020601.5:21 aka about Gravity & My anti
On 2002-06-01 07:31, Donnie B. wrote: To: 5:22 A.M.
{hmm? i see its the 5 O:Clock hour }
so i'll try to stick to the plot?
I believe that when Solar Flares erupt
[SOMETIMES] Earth gets hit by Solar Particles
I will admit NOT KNOWING what the launch
velocities are for the "SUN", it must be quite high
noore do i have an exact figure for velocity of the
stuff that arives: Its just that i see, antiGravity as a morlikely script for that than conventional or even relatives physics? {oh my}

[Espritch]

You'll get sued by Bill Gates if you call it a window.

He'll only have a case if it crashes your wall every time you use it.

[Prince]

http://www.rense.com/general25/antigrav.htm

[Phobos]

3) It is simply a means of accelerating air by entrapping it in an ion stream between cathodes and an open framework anode.

Not according to the following; lifter link where it is claimed;

A more compelling proof that Biefeld-Brown is something other than ion-wind
comes from Purdue University, where the lifter experiment was replicated inside
a vacuum-enclosure with positive results. While ion-propulsion can work in
space, it usually assumes that there is argon, krypton, or other noble gas to be
used as the propellant – the vacuum enclosure showed that with no gas available
for transport the lifter showed a moderate improvement in performance.

After further research I tracked down the experiment results and confirmed the experimentor with the following link;

<link removed at the request of the copyright owner>

Observations/Conclusions:

When operating in atmosphere and at 30 kV two observations were made. The first reading was taken from the back electrode, with the aft electrode within the collector. The second measurement was taken from the fore electrode. From the first reading, it was observed that the current was 1.7 ěA, whereas the fore electrode had a reading of .7 mA. The reasoning behind a larger current coming from the fore electrode is that the electric field is actually stripping electrons off the collector, instead of from the ions. Also the expected theoretical result in vacuum is off by a factor of more than a thousand (being a thrust of 3.65 e-4 mN expected, whereas a force of at least .31mN was observed at a lower voltage of 17kV). These were the only observations recorded, since it was deemed unnecessary to try to take readings within a vacuum since the observed and experimental currents are off by orders of magnitude and not enough to produce any meaningful effect during Electrokinetic Propulsion experiments

As a final check I tracked down the experimentors Purdue University Directory entry;

<link removed at the request of the copyright owner>

Phobos

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-06-01 19:37 ]</font>

[Chip]

Stein's paper requires further study, especially the parts about propulsion in a vacuum. This is interesting and fun. I haven't read through everything yet, but he doesn't seem to think of any of this as "anti-gravity." The equations are interesting too. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[Kaptain K]

...especially the parts about propulsion in a vacuum...

Again, as far as I can tell, nothing new here. Not only has ion propulsion been speculated about for decades as a means of interplanetary or even interstellar propulsion, but the recent success of DS-1 proves its viability.

[Phobos]

On 2002-06-02 12:42, Kaptain K wrote:

...especially the parts about propulsion in a vacuum...

Again, as far as I can tell, nothing new here. Not only has ion propulsion been speculated about for decades as a means of interplanetary or even interstellar propulsion, but the recent success of DS-1 proves its viability.

DS-1 was a good example of Ion propulsion, but as can be seen from the notes above we are not talking about Ion propulsion. If we were they how do you explain how the lifters perform better in a vacuum ?

Phobos

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-06-02 14:59 ]</font>

[beskeptical]

On 2002-06-01 07:31, Donnie B. wrote:
Well, a helium balloon counteracts gravity without expending any energy to do it. Of course, it only works under certain conditions.

No no no. Helium is lighter than the Nitrogen/Oxygen air. A helium balloon is just floating to the equilibrium point where the less dense but heavier air weighs the same as the more dense but lighter helium held under the pressure of the balloon. It isn't going to float off into space!

[Phobos]

On 2002-06-03 03:50, beskeptical wrote:

On 2002-06-01 07:31, Donnie B. wrote:
Well, a helium balloon counteracts gravity without expending any energy to do it. Of course, it only works under certain conditions.

No no no. Helium is lighter than the Nitrogen/Oxygen air. A helium balloon is just floating to the equilibrium point where the less dense but heavier air weighs the same as the more dense but lighter helium held under the pressure of the balloon. It isn't going to float off into space!

Donnie was just giving another example of how the term "anti-gravity" could apply to a balloon (he did qualify it at the end saying it only worked under certain conditions - ie within an atmosphere).

The use of the term Anti-Gravity provokes a lot of reaction. Any process that produces an effect which counters the force of gravity can be described as being Anti-Gravity, but there are usually more scientifically acurate ways to describe what is actually happening.

Phobos

[beskeptical]

"Donnie was just giving another example of how the term "anti-gravity" could apply to a balloon ...", Phobos.

Yes yes yes, but he included, "counteracts gravity without expending any energy to do it". The energy that is expended is the pressure of the gas. When the lower mass gas is under the pressure of the higher mass gas, the heavier gas pushes up on the lighter gas until the two pressures exert equal force on eachother.

I certainly agree the term anti-gravity could describe the action, that's what I said in the first place: since counteracting gravity requires a force of some kind, unless you defy the laws of physics, elevators and the like are anti-gravity devices.

[Cloudy]

A bit of topic:

Why does helium balloon not violate the law
of conservation of energy? If you drop a rock from a helium balloon, where does that rock's kinetic energy come from if the balloon got to a high altitude without expending any energy?

This is not a rhetorical question. I really
want to know. I have no beef with the conservation of energy...

[Phobos]

On 2002-06-06 01:19, Cloudy wrote:
A bit of topic:

Why does helium balloon not violate the law
of conservation of energy? If you drop a rock from a helium balloon, where does that rock's kinetic energy come from if the balloon got to a high altitude without expending any energy?

This is not a rhetorical question. I really
want to know. I have no beef with the conservation of energy...

The kinetic energy originated with the creation of the Helium. In order for the Helium to be in the ballon at ground level one of 2 things probably happened:

1. Energy was expended creating the gas at ground level (eg. electrolysis)

2. Helium was brought down to ground level.

Phobos

[informant]

In my ignorance, I thought that potential (gravitic) energy was converted into kinetic energy when the rock was dropped.
Basicly the same thing as when you are standing on the ground with a rock in your hand and you drop it...?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: informant on 2002-06-06 10:26 ]</font>

[Phobos]

Actually a good way to think of where a helium ballon gets it energy from is to forget the ballon, and concentrate on the weight of the air that has been displaced above it.

The displaced air is heavier than the baloon and so I suppose it is more accurate to say that the stone got its energy from the displaced air (that said the air was put there by the manufacture of the helium so my origional arguement still holds).

Phobos

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-06-06 10:31 ]</font>

[Kaptain K]

Phobos,

FWIW. One cannot obtain helium by electrolysis, as it is the most "noble" of the "noble elements". It does not combine with any other element to form molecules that can be dissociated by electrolysis. The only commercial source of helium is as a by-product of natural gas production. The Hindenberg exploded because the U.S. controlled most of the world's helium supply, at the time, and would not sell any to Nazi Germany.

[Phobos]

On 2002-06-09 14:56, Kaptain K wrote:
Phobos,

FWIW. One cannot obtain helium by electrolysis, as it is the most "noble" of the "noble elements". It does not combine with any other element to form molecules that can be dissociated by electrolysis. The only commercial source of helium is as a by-product of natural gas production. The Hindenberg exploded because the U.S. controlled most of the world's helium supply, at the time, and would not sell any to Nazi Germany.

See this recent story in New Scientist.

Most physicists treat claims of cold fusion with derision. However, an underground of enthusiasts has continued performing experiments which, they say, demonstrate that deuterium nuclei can fuse to produce tritium and helium isotopes during the electrolysis of heavy water with palladium electrodes. The few outsiders who have tried to repeat the experiments have failed, and claims for cold fusion have not survived peer review to appear in mainstream journals.

So here we have electrolysis producing amongst other things HELIUM. There is general agreement that the process is a nuclear one, but most doubt that nuclear fusion is invoved.

Furthermore this is not an isolated experiment as the following quote shows;

Clarke also investigated similar experiments led by Yoshiaki Arata of Osaka University, Japan. Arata's team claimed to have detected an excess of helium-3 and helium-4 isotopes following the heavy water electrolysis. But Clarke's analysis revealed no excess.

Phobos

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-06-09 20:04 ]</font>

[Espritch]

The few outsiders who have tried to repeat the experiments have failed, and claims for cold fusion have not survived peer review to appear in mainstream journals.

So here we have electrolysis producing amongst other things HELIUM.

From a strictly scientific point of view the first quote from your post could be said to directly refute the second. Until these results can be duplicated by other researchers, they may only show that the researcher reporting generation of helium from electrolysis were in error.