Were the folks at NASA aware of this simple experiment? http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/tubular/index.htm http://www.gravityforum.com/lifters/usa/pittsburgh/tubular-lifter/
Would they say ions were streaming downward from the _bottom_ of the lifter?? Harry ----- Original Message ----- From: Frederick Sparber <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: 11/17/2006 4:36:52 AM Subject: Re: E-Field Mass Cancellation If you buy my earlier contention that Electrons are actually Repelled by Gravity/Protons, then the lift Buehler saw is an electrostatic/electrogravity field interaction between the charged single plates, or the capacitors and earth ground. This would explain why the positive plate was repelled due to it's electron counter-charge added to earth ground. Fred Doyle Buehler's Experiments: http://www.space-mixing-theory.com/article2.pdf The NASA report on the Canning Cap Thruster: http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/CR-2004-213312.pdf "Electrostatic Forces without Current Flow One possible explanation for lifters might be electrostatic forces due to a net charge on the lifter interacting with induced charges (e.g. image charges) in the ground below. Lifters use a stationary power supply, and how it is configured determines if there is a net charge on the lifter (note the ground can be wired in different ways, and some examples are illustrated in figure 5 above). To investigate this possibility, assume the extreme case of a perfectly conducting ground plane below a lifter, and also assume that its distance from the lifter is one hundred times the distance between the charged plates of the lifter. If one plate is at ground and the other is at a voltage such as 100 kilovolts, then the electrostatic force between the lifter and an image charge is significant. Computations show it is about the magnitude necessary to lift the lifter. However, this force is attractive, so it would pull the lifter down, not push it up. The power supply could be configured so that the lifter has zero net charge. That is, one plate could be positively charged and the other negatively charged, giving zero net charge. This gives the electrostatic field of a dipole. If there were a perfectly conducting ground plane below such a lifter, then an image dipole would be induced. The resulting force would be reduced from that discussed above by a factor of one hundred squared, since each dipole would give a field about one hundred times smaller than a single charge. However, using a dielectric of relative dielectric constant one hundred would increase the force by a factor of one hundred squared. This force would then be of about of the magnitude that lifters experience. However, the force between a dipole and its image is attractive, so it would be a downward force. These effects are not likely to be significant for actual lifters, since grass and even a concrete floor (possibly with rebar in it) is not a good conductor. These effects may be more relevant for ACTs which may operate near metal objects. However, when an ACT rotates within a metal box, these effects may be expected to average to zero. These devices create a dipole like field for all distances larger than a few times the distance between their electrodes. This field is the same in front of the device as behind it, except for a change of sign. This symmetry causes a nearly total cancellation of forces for a rotating device. We note that Talleys experiment did not rotate, but instead suspended the device from a stiff wire. Since that did not rotate, his design was susceptible to electrostatic effects, as he reported.5 There are other plausible mechanisms for creating an electrostatic force. For example, accelerating charges radiate. When this radiation is incident on a conductor (or dielectric), it can cause a current. If the current and charge on the ACT were non uniform (as happens, for example, when there are Trichel Pulses), then there could be an induced charge and a resulting electrostatic interaction. We expect that such an effect would be quite small. Any charges that accelerate also decelerate, either by collisions with air the other electrode. These effects tend to cancel, so the net result should be quite small. Also, our experimental data using Argon show the ACT still produces a force, which depends on the current, and voltage in a similar way to in air. However, in Argon the current flows uniformly, and not in bursts. Thus, since this mechanism would not give a force in argon, we conclude that it is unlikely to be significant. Electrostatic Forces with a Current Flow A simple model was found to explain all of our data. The thrust produced can be explained by electrostatic forces moving ions, and by those ions transferring their momentum to the surrounding air by collisions. Using some reasonable approximations, this force can be easily computed. Later, some of those assumptions will be removed and the calculation made more accurate. We assume for now that all of the current consists of N2 ions traveling directly from one electrode to the other, and further assume that the voltage changes uniformly from one
