@lorenzogemma By the way T.T. brown had quite the reputation for exaggerating his results... By exaggerating I mean out right lieing about them. He believed that it was antigravity but no one would fund him because every sane scientist at the time said it was ion wind. So he lied about test results in an atempt to get funding. He believed that once he had funding he could use that funding to get legitimate results. He was however quite wrong.
Do you see how much air is still left in there to be ionized for thrust?"-Joeviocoe
"yes I in my video say for first that this vacuum is not absolute"
"In space a little trust is very important..."-you
Your test is at 4,360,465,100% higher pressue than what would be acceptable for a proper test. Under these conditions you have failed to prove there would be any thrust in space. You are a joke.
@lorenzogemma P.S. You just made your self look even dumber because my percentage was correct.
75 / 0.00000172 = 43,604,651.16 = 4,360,465,116%
You move the decimal point BACK two digits not foward dumb ass. Also I just wanna point out you left out one of the "0"s in 0.00000172 when you where dividing... That is why you came to 4,360,465 instead of 43,604,651.
Nice try though, but next time you try to use math to prove your point... I suggest you go back and check it a few extra times.
@lorenzogemma How do you expect to be taken seriously when you seem to think there is no relevence in the fact that your test is at over 43 MILLION times higher pressure than what you are trying to prove it can operate at? Even if we get past that fact there is still the fact that you just demonstrated that you cannot perform a simple equation properly. It is simply baffling how you cannot understand why being so far off from the correct pressure is so important.
@lorenzogemma You have reduced the amount of gass being ionized but there is still plenty of gass in there to be ionized and because you are still ionizing it with the same amount of energy and that energy is now acting on a smaller amount of mass it is accelerating the gas faster than what it was before making it roughly equal to the normal pressure test as far as the thrust is concerned. untill you have taken away enough gas to the point that it struggles to ionize the gass it does not matter.
@lorenzogemma 1/10th of atmospheric pressure huh? 1/10th atmospheric pressure is hardly any change at all really. It is not surprizing at all that you don't see a significant reduction in thrust from it because there is still plenty of air in there to ionize. I take it you where assuming that the reduction in thrust would be equivilant to the reduction in air pressure? Such a naive assumption...
@lorenzogemma You really are stupid aren't you. Yes there are fewer air molecules to be ionized. However your lifter is still ionizing that air with the same amount of energy. If I hit a 10 pound rock with 10 pounds of force how much force does it move away with? The answer is 10 pounds... If I hit a 5 pound rock with 10 pounds of force how much force does it move away with? The answer is still 10 pounds because that is how much force was applied to it. It is the same here.
@lorenzogemma Look man... I have provided you with far more evidence against your claims than I should need to. It is very clear to me that even if your poorly conducted vacuum test had failed to show any function you would still be in denial of the fact that it is ion wind. You want to believe it so strongly that you are completely incapable of accepting the posibility that you could be wrong even when there is absolutely no significant evidence to support you.
@lorenzogemma Once again you waste a perfect opprotunity to provide evidence to support your claims and use it to insult me instead... Am I to infer that you have no further evidence to provide? Who is the one that is blind the one who keeps handing over information or the one who keeps handing over baseless insults.
@lorenzogemma An opinion is something that cannot be proven right or wrong. I have no opinion in reguards to your video only facts and supporting evidence. These are two things that you have failed to provide in your rebuttle.
@lorenzogemma And as I said that is because the machine is not exactly starved for air molecules to ionize. You won't see a noticable change untill you are at 1/10,0000,000 of atmospheric pressure. Infact your video is a response to a test that IS at such pressure which shows no movement. So what is your answer to why it doesn't work in their test which is at such low pressure?
I know that Townsend Brown made his work in vacuum air!
I first in my video said that mine is not REAL vacuum, but it is a little demonstration of the force of apparatus at 1/10 atm it does.
I have seen other videos with more vacuum in wich there is a force more strong that in Casimir effects and it is sufficient for me, more than multi-dimensional space-sistem of your "science"!
@lorenzogemma Yea I have seen those videos too... You are talking about the one's put out by gravitec right? Did you even bother to check into their credibility? They claim to have ties to NASA but infact have absolutely no ties to NASA at all. Even if you ignore that their company is not registered with the government which is illegal because it is a form of tax evasion. They are con artists and criminals plain and simple.
@lorenzogemma It really does not matter what I say does it? Even if I threw it into a vaccum chamber at an impossibly perfect vacuum and shouved your face right up against it to make you look at it not functioning you would still be incapable of accepting it... Incase you have not figured it out according to T.T. Brown's electrogravitic theories Any machine which runs on electric current above 20kv should levitate. Including vacuum tube TVs, tasers, tessla coils, the entire powergrid...
@lorenzogemma So you are seriously saying that it does not matter if the people at gravitec are criminals who pretend to be scientists from nasa in hopes that people will donate money to them? Money that they have no intentions at all to do any research with... You are saying that it does not matter to you that they are faking it to scam people?
@lorenzogemma I just wan't to point out that you never gave me an answer to my question of how you explain why the mythbuster's vacuum test showed no functionality in the lifter under vacuum. Care to answer that one. Hey while you are at it how about you tell me what war you are reffering to that was fought over oil? Do you mean the iraq war? If so I would like to point out that america has an oil deposite in alaska that could supply the entire world for 200 years. Why go to war for it?
@lorenzogemma Weather you like to believe them or not they put the lifter in hard vacuum and filmed it failing to function for all to see... By the way no it is not top secret. Nasa has been very open about what they plan to do with the technology. One proposed plan would involve adding asymetrical capacitors to existing gas propellant systems to accelerate the gas to make it more effecient. Now why would NASA feel the need to use it with the gas systems if it did not work based on ion wind?
it is no necessary, the Biefeld-Brown effect works very well without air (he proved gravitators in oil and he made gravitator with solid dielectric instead of air).
Brown made other experiments and he saw a reduction of weight (30%) of his material under physical stress.
The military applications of NASA are Top Secret! Don't you know?
@lorenzogemma Right... And I bet you believe the oil companies are so evil that they surpress all technologies that threaten them right? Oh but they just completely forgot to even try to surpress hydroelectric dams, wind turbines, solar cells, thermoelectric cells, sterling engines, and frankly the list is just too long for me to even put it all here? Why is it that all of the legitimate alternative energy methods go completely unchallenged yet the ones that are questionable claim surpression?
So why we use car engine that loses 75% of their energy, why the Ford T was disappeared ,why J.P.Morgan stopped to finance Tesla when he understood the free energy project of the scientist, why electric cars are not universal diffused, why incandescent lamps were used instead of more efficient ed economic neon lamps (invented by Tesla in 1880)?
@lorenzogemma Untill recently battery technology simply could not store enough electricity to make an electric car a viable option. Lithium ion batteries have made that possible. Though gasoline engines are inneffecient gasoline requires a relatively small amount of storage space compared to the amunt of distance you can travel on it. It was used because it could travel further before needing to be refuled than most other energy sources at the time and it was safer than steam power.
@lorenzogemma J.P. Morgan stopped financing Tesla was because the wireless power transmission system he was commissioned to develop was impossible to meter. The system was only designed to save the company money by making power lines obsolete. They would have no longer needed to build or maintain power lines and storms would no longer have been able to cause black outs. Tesla did not believe in free energy but he did believe this system could pull elecricity out of passing thunderstorms.
@lorenzogemma Incandescent lamps where used over the neon lamps because in the early days neon lamps where much more difficult to manufacture in bulk. This caused them to be quite expensive compared to the incandescents. Again only relatively recent advancments in manufactureing methods have made them a viable and reasonable option.
@lorenzogemma "I say Edison doesn't want using the AC current for neon lamps."
Let me just double check here... Yes... you really just said that. You really have no fucking clue at all do you smart guy? Do you not realize that Incandescent bulbs can run on either AC or DC current? As long as the voltage and amperage are correct the polarity does not matter. The same is true for Neon bulbs aswell. By the way Neon gas was expensive and neon bulbs needed external power regulation curcuitry.
hahahahahahahhahaaha, tou say to me about Ac or DC current?
Only in 50's we begun to use fluorescent lamps and now we yet use incandescent lamps that are less efficient than ALL lamps! The "external power regulation curcuitry" was NEVER a problem for Nikola Tesla 120 years ago! The Edison's invention was no useful...
@lorenzogemma Why do you think Edison whent to the trouble of inventing a fluorescent lamp of his own? He did try to commercialize the technology however because incandescent bulbs where cheaper and easier to manufacture in mass his attempt at a commercial use of fluorescent bulbs failed. He simply did not get a good customer base. Now tell me if Edison hated fluorescent bulbs so much why did he go to so much trouble trying to sell them himself?
sorry: Edison and his engineers were unable to make cicuits controllers for fluorescent bulbs.Only Tesla was able in a good way with his Tesla coil and his patents.
Tesla realized also wireless lamps: only 4 years ago "Witricity" Co. discovered this technology!
@lorenzogemma A tesla coil does not power a florescent bulb... It excite's the fluorescing substance inside of it. The difference is that there is no plasma in the tube. In a fluorescent bulb's normal operation the plasma inside of the bulb gives off most of the light it emits the fluorescing substance is there simply to enhance it's brightness with it's own glow. Because a Tesla coil only causes the fluorescing substance to glow it does not light the bulb very brightly.
@lorenzogemma Also edison did have regulatory curcuit designs that where fully functional. As I said manufactureing the bulbs was not easy in that time period and was more costly. Getting the gas to fill the bulbs with in large quantities was hard because there where few companies that produced it and those who did only did so as a byproduct of other goods that they produced. Most companies that produced the bulbs where owned by the same people who owned the companies that made these byproducts.
@lorenzogemma By the way I am fairly confident you are confused and mean to be saying fluorescent lamps instead of neon lamps because early neon lamps and incandescent bulbs where actually roughly equal in regaurd to their effeciency. By the way I would like to point out that Edison actually invented a fluorescent bulb in 1896 which used calcium tungstate as it's fluorescing substance... Ofcourse you probably don't even know what that means.
There was a enormous difference between incandescent bulbs and fluorescent (the neon lamp works with same method, plasma) lamps of early years: it was more easy to make a fluorescent one that the other.
But Edison,who doesn't like the AC current,doesn't commercialized it.
Nikola Tesla in the 1890s, devised high frequency powered fluorescent bulbs that gave a bright greenish light, no commercial success was achieved.
@lorenzogemma Fluorescent lamps do not work purely based on plasma. The interior of their tube is coated with a fluorscent minneral which glows when in the presence of plasma making them more effecient. Clearly I was right when I assumed you did not know what I was talking about when I said "fluorescing substance"... The need for external regulators made production of neon and fluorescent lamps more costly and complicated which is why incandescent bulbs where more popular.
@lorenzogemma By the way... I didn't say I believed iraq had WMDs. But given the fact that every major intelligence agency in the world was saying they did back before the war started I can see how Bush might have thought they did.
@lorenzogemma By the way your "gravitator" is only covered with scotch tape... 20kv can pass through scotch tape and scotch tape is negatively charged just like the foil. Using scotch tape as a covering does not stop the ion wind effect at all.
@lorenzogemma The charge of the tape does matter. The ions are not drawen to the aluminum foil because of it's conductive properties they are drawen to it because it is negatively charged. The scotch tape is also negatively charged so the ions are also attracted to the tape. By the way scotch tape is actually not a good insulator when you are dealing with voltages in the 20kv+ range.
I don't know, my english is wrong but you don't read what I wrote!
T.T.B. and I used CARNAUBA WAX, EMPIRE CLOTH and after TAPE (insulated tape) for gravitators (not lifter)!
The corona discarge doesn't allow to work to gravitator! It is important!
So a perfect HV insulation is necessary!
After that, in lifter the aluminium foil is crossed by AC current of my power supply as a capacitor in AC current, NOT DC!!! So the capacitor is charged and discharged a RC circuit in AC current!
@lorenzogemma The electrical energy being used in this model is the energy being exherted on the surrounding air molecules. Solong as there are enough air molecules in the container for there to be a steady flow of them through the machine it will function with very little reduction in it's thrust. However, once the pressure reaches a point so low that the flow of particles through the machine is not a steady flow it essentially stalls out and stops working. That is why your test is flawed.
"watch?v=CGN65lse5yE" A small group of con artists who claim to have ties to NASA but infact DO NOT creating a fake vacuum test video to promote their company "gravitec Inc." Which I can find no registration for so it may not even be a real company.
"watch?v=xYMUv1VJ3VQ" The gentlman who posted this one works for Russle Anderson owner of applied electrogravitics (A web site that sells lifter kits).
Google search "high voltage ion motor" and you will see how one is built and explanations how it works. It is EXACTLY like the one in this video, with the only exception that they use a wire instead of tin foil. Otherwise, the devices are the same and work on the same principle.
This is not your lifter you claim generates anti-gravity. You have yourself an ion motor. I built one years ago, it's neat to see the thing spin with no motor. Make your triangle thing and put it in a true vacuum chamber and try it again.
@lorenzogemma No, all I saw was a tupperware container. Doesn't appear to be a vacuum, as the lid should be dented into the dish. Plus the device is nothing more than an ion motor. Proves nothing to the claim of lifter technology.
If I gave you experiments to try to prove anti-gravity, would you follow them to the letter and accept the results without bias?
@lorenzogemma Shows how much you know. The lid is not glass, it's plastic, or some composite of plastic and rubber. Either way, there is NO vacuum, or insignificant vacuum to properly test it.
Your English is terrible and your intelligence seems to be very low. You don't even support an argument, but spew insults. Yeah, very mature.
@lorenzogemma The LID is what he is talking about dumb ass... That lid is not made of glass it is a plastic and if there was any significant vacuum in there it would be bowed inward. These containers are not designed to withstand the level of vacuum that would be required to prove anything in requard to lifters. They certainly cannot compare to the vacuum chamber used on the mythbusters clip that you made this video in response to.
@lorenzogemma The container is made of glass. Yes I know and can see that dumbass. I am talking about the lid. It is made of plastic, or a combination of plastic and rubber. I see NO bowing into the container if you truly had a vacuum inside it. It might be your words are so simple that nobody can understand them.
The lid of the container is not designed to hold its shape under internal vacuum, at least not at near perfect vacuum pressures.
You can actually find plans on the net for the EXACT thing and they call it an ion motor. They don't put it in a vacuum chamber, because they're not trying to "prove" that it's a lifter. They know what the device is and how it works. I have the same project in a book I've had for over 20 years. It goes into detail how it works.
It is your simple mind that just can't understand that the device has NOTHING to do with gravity manipulation. All you have is a fancy spinning device.
@lorenzogemma Ya it is impossible in full vacuum... thing is your little food container here is hardly at anything close to that and all tests that have been performed at "full vacuum" have resulted in the machine failing to function at all.
@MrAwsome514: the rotation is the same at 1 atm and at 20kPa (my food container).
The NASA test was positive.
Other videos in Youtube are positive, Townsend Brown experimented with good results in a real laboratory (see wikipedia).The Kasimir effect proves that there is energy from vacuum (ether).
@lorenzogemma You know you are an idiot don't you? Where is the proof of an ether? There is nothing in a vacuum, no ether, no energy. I am quite familiar with the claims of townsend brown and the kasimir effect. There has been no corroborating evidence proving their claims.
"These mechanisms were considered, both on theoretical grounds and by comparison with test results. All of the mechanisms considered were eliminated except one. A simple model was developed of ions drifting from one electrode to the other under electrostatic forces, and imparting momentum to air as they underwent multiple collisions. This model was found to be consistent with all of our observations"
However in the link I gave they also investigates and explains what is called "Asymmetrical capacitor".
In addition, I doubt you achieved a good enough vacuum to investigate the claims that asymmetrical capacitors work in space (if I understood you intentions right.)
@lorenzogemma NASA does NOT grant patents for any devices at all. That is the job of the....patent office. So, you either lie out the side of your mouth, or you just quote something other people have said. Either way, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
@krononauten It's nothing more than an ion motor. A high voltage generator attached to a wire (or in this case, aluminum foil) causing ions to cast off the end giving the wire a push, causing it to turn in circles around the center pivot. The book I have shows how to build one and explains its function.
@UnderManlac I know how it works, but thank you for taking time the tell me.
I tried to convey it to the video-uploader by giving him the link to the NASA report where they deduces the same as you stated.
There are many faults I think with the setup in the video if one should be able to prove any other affect than ionwind and the possibility of using it in outer space.
@lorenzogemma Since when does NASA have the power to grant patents? Isn't that what the patent office is for? I thought NASA was a group of scientists concerned with space, not patenting ion wind generators and ion motors.
anuary 31, 2002, the NASA patent application US2002012221 " Apparatus and Method for generating a thrust using a two dimensional asymmetrical capacitor module".
@lorenzogemma 2002 huh... oddly enough in 2004 nasa released their research on asymetrical capacitors. They found that it is mere ion wind. By the way that patent number was listed in the document as one of the models they performed testing with. You failed to take into account the possibility that they created their own version simply to test it and compare the results against other previous models. Which is exactly what they did with it.
@lorenzogemma No... you patent it because it works and you don't want other people to copy it. Don't forget they allready knew the machines fly their tests where designed to prove why they fly. Don't be such a dumb ass.
@MrAwsome514 We're dealing with a child, or child mind. He does not possess any debating skills, nor, it seems, any scientific background. He cannot support the claims in the video. Citing a patent without researching it doesn't tell me he knows what he's talking about.
It does NOT work better in a vacuum. This Asymmetrical Capacitor shown as a video response took nearly twice as long to get up to speed when under a half-assed partial vacuum using a cheap pump to keep food fresh.
Under a full vacuum, it would not spin at all. And spinning requires MUCH LESS thrust than "lifting" does. Which is why you never see Lifters in a vacuum, only well balanced object that rotate.... VERY slowly and pick up speed. Because even very thin air can be ionized and used.
In atmospheric pressure, it rotates 180 degrees in about 5 seconds.
However, in full vacuum (1.72 x 10e-6 Torr),
It moves like 30 degrees of rotation in about 10 seconds VERY LITTLE THRUST. And that could be attributed to heavy atoms (possibly gold or lead) of the capacitor electrodes ionizing and breaking off. Point is... IT IS SLOWER in a vacuum. Certainly not enough thrust to be anything new like electrogravity. It is still ions!
This is not antigravity and I have documents that I obtained directly from NASA that prove it. The documents are a review of thier results on all testing they performed on lifters and other asymmetrical capacitors which clearly states that they have concluded that it is a simple ion wind effect which allows it to fly and nothing more. I will gladly give a copy of this document to any one who requests one.
If you cant measure the vaccume there might aswell be no vaccume because we don't know if it is strong enough of a vaccume to call this a successful test or not.
@lorenzogemma Yea that is great for food storage and all but for this test you need something a little stronger. The goal behind doing a vaccum test is to see if it can be used in outer space. Your little tupper ware container is still like a full baloon compared to the vaccum of space. By the way there is only one vaccum test on record which showed any movement of the lifter. The man who performed that test later said it was probably just static cling drawing it to the side of the chamber.
@lorenzogemma Yes what you fail to comprehend was he was talking about his test which was performed in a vaccum chamber made mostly of metal. Only the front of his chamber was glass. I allready told you that you have not reached a sufficient vaccum here for your test to be valid. There is still plenty of air in there for he device to act on.
@lorenzogemma Look man if you manage to pull off exoatmoshperic pressure in there then maybe your experiment will matter. By the way yea we know it was patented so quit trying to throw that up like it some how proves your test is of some sort of value. What you have done here is prove that these things can operate at high altitude which was allready knowen. The question is can they fuction in space and how it compares to thier atmospheric functionality.
"but the lifter inventor made his experiments in vacuum and had success."
No... he did not! He ran into the same problem. The better the vacuum, the less it worked.
Yes, NASA has learned from their asymmetrical capacitor. They learned that high voltage can break off bits of metal from the cathodes. They patented this technology as "Ion Propulsion" and they already use it in many spacecraft. It is not shocking! And has NOTHING to do with Lifters (which ionize air).
The patent US 6,317,310 " Apparatus and Method for generating a thrust using a two dimensional asymmetrical capacitor module" of Nasa, doesn't regard any ions !!! It is not a ion engine, because there is not a gas container !
Townsend Brown had success (go to Wiki) and he invented the "gravitator" in which the metal is covered with insulating wax.
(note: NASA calls these asymmetric capacitors, because that is ,in essence, exactly what they are. Jump to page 16 and make sure you read the conclusion)
@Joeviocoe: SORRY you say NOTHING ! OK? Are you sure that we have gone to the Moon? Nasa don't say the truth. You don't know what a "gravitator" is (in gravitator the metal plate are insulated) and Nasa has patented a thing that doesn't work? It is absurd, like your faith in official science. Do you say something about cold fusion? Sorry this is not pseudo-science but obscured one! All the tests are made with low voltages 15kV: Townsend worked on 150kV and more ! Sorry the tests are not good!
This statement tells me that you are not a scientist, or engineer, or even anybody with a real understanding.
MOST Patents are for devices that don't work. They ARE not proof of a claim. They are simply legal documents that allow someone to sue in the event that someone build something similar.
The fact that you are ignorant of this... tells me all I need to know.
So you are a moon landing denier too. And believe two con artists who could never replicate their cold fusion experiment. UFO abductee too? How about the Holocaust denier?
On this page you can download a PDF of a document NASA published reguarding all of thier testing with asymetrical capacitors and yes the T.T brown patents are included. They lay out the experiments they performed so clearly even a child could duplicate them. They lay out the math plain enough that even you might be able to understand it. Since you believe what you see... TAKE A LOOK.
@MrAwsome514: ok you belive in science fiction of Star Trek, like: black holes, cosmic strings, strange matter, inflation theory (the time accellerates and decelerates as a... car! ), infinite universes ! Where is the REAL science: what you see or what they want YOU see ? See the video: "Lifter test in vacuum By Nasa"... If you don't see, YOU are a blind man, nothing more...
@lorenzogemma I am familiar with the man who posted the video your talking about... Where you arware that Mr. only1egg (whos real name will be left out due to youtube eula terms) Works closely with a man named russel anderson who sells lifter kits through his company (applied electrogravitics) via thier website. Hardly an unbaiased source. Furthermore both individuals work with a man named john searl who is a well knowen conman who deals in science related scams.
@lorenzogemma There have been many scientific tests which where conducted poorly reguarding both aysymetrical capacitors and the so called "cold fusion" you are talking about. You have chosen to believe them because they gave the results you wanted to hear. It is that simple. And no doubt a few conmen have helped you to make that decision... they probably sold you some books on it in the process too. They do love to peddle those crappy books of thiers.
@lorenzogemma Cold fusion has been proven to be false. The experiments are not repeatable. If you believe it's possible, then you are in need of serious education.
Nobody said chemotherapy is the solution for cancer, nobody ever claimed it. It's just one of the best things so far that we have to treat it.
@UnderManiac - Actually cold fusion has been proven to be true. Search for LENR/CANR and Farnsworth Fusor to see numerous successful experiments. The problem is that it costs far more energy to maintain the reaction than you can get out of it.
@HungryGuyStories Then that is NOT cold fusion. Fusion would generate more energy than it would take to fuse the particles in the first place. That is how the sun sustains itself. Otherwise, it would have died out millions of years ago. It is another false claim.
In January 2011 researchers from the University of Bologna, Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi, claimed to have successfully demonstrated commercially viable cold fusion. The apparatus, built by themselves, is called an Energy Catalyzer. In March 2011, two Swedish physicists evaluated the Energy Catalyzer, under the control of Rossi.
@lorenzogemma Thanks for the information. I will have to research it. However, I have not seen any information in scientific magazines or peer reviewed publications confirming such a device being tested independently. And exactly how would one produce fusion at relatively low temperatures? I think this is a dupe, a scam.
@lorenzogemma Wow it took you 7 months to respond? Any way these things have allready been proven to operate purely based on ion wind. The people who claim otherwise are like the one who made this video. You know... performing "vacuum tests" with cooking ware instead of proper testing gear, not even using any guages to show that the "vacuum chamber" is actually sealed properly and maintaining a strong vacuum. That sort of thing. Then ofcourse there are the con artsts trying to make a buck off it
@lorenzogemma Wow it took you 7 months to respond? Any way these things have allready been proven to operate purely based on ion wind. The people who claim otherwise are like the one who made this video. You know... performing "vacuum tests" with cooking ware instead of proper testing gear, not even using any guages to show that the "vacuum chamber" is actually sealed properly and maintaining a strong vacuum. That sort of thing. Then ofcourse there are the con artsts trying to make a buck off it
@lorenzogemma Townsend brown was an idiot. His experiments where proven to be failures by a nasa study in 2004. Unfortunately con artists like Russle Anderson keep selling false information. It is unfortunate but you have been lied to. This is simple ion wind, and I work with it quite frequently. By the way my vacuum chamber was actually designed to be a vacuum chamber... Apparently mine gets a stronger vacuum because it won't work in mine.
sorry, you know nothing,in a video of mine in my site you can see that the lifter moves himself instantly and after ion wind appears and move a paper.Townsend was a genius and his "gravitator" operates in a closed apparatus. Why NASA don't believe in lifter and after patented the asimmetrical capacitor in open space?
It is very strange for a normal brain but not for yours...
@lorenzogemma I don't pay any attention to fools who play scientist with tupper ware and scotch tape. Escpecially not ones who give absolutely no measurements or other information with which some one else could verify or disprove their results.
@lorenzogemma Your video does NOT support anti-gravity claims of the asymmetrical capacitor. ALL you have here is an ion motor. I have a book that shows me how to build a high voltage ion motor that looks so similar to the one in your video that I'm almost convinced you've made one, possibly using the same book. This does NOT show any LIFT technology.
@MrAwsome514 Keep up the good work MrAwesome514. These people couldn't care less about the science behind the devices they claim work on an unsupported principle. The just go ahead and see a reaction happening and immediately think they have proof of what they're trying to claim. They do no measurements and do no further experiments to verify that the results are what the claim or maybe it's something they haven't considered. The device is just an ion motor. I have a book with plans for one
@lorenzogemma I'd like to hear what you "think" gravity is and how you "think" the asymmetrical capacitor (or "lifter") creates anti-gravity. Main stream science already knows what gravity is, which is not a difficult concept. It's very elegant and simple. It was figured out decades ago. Once you figure it out, you will realize that the lifter is incapable of producing gravity or anti-gravity, it's just an ion wind. Your device is called an ion motor.
Oops just noticed I put an extra 0 in there. It is supposed to say 1/10,000,000 not 1/10,0000,000
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514: it doesn't matter...
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma By the way T.T. brown had quite the reputation for exaggerating his results... By exaggerating I mean out right lieing about them. He believed that it was antigravity but no one would fund him because every sane scientist at the time said it was ion wind. So he lied about test results in an atempt to get funding. He believed that once he had funding he could use that funding to get legitimate results. He was however quite wrong.
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514: sorry he was not a mad.
His soucers made of aluminium were 60 cm of diameter and he proved them in vacuum chamber at speed of 100 mph and more!
There are even some papers review about this!
He was wrong?
Sorry, if the apparatus didn't work no one would have to finance him!
Instead of this he had a big lab for his studies and no exaggeration in his experiments!
After they closed the financing because the project was at beginning and more investment needed.
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
"10 kPa = 75 torr
a FULL vacuum... like the one NASA used is...
0.00000172 Torr
Do you see how much air is still left in there to be ionized for thrust?"-Joeviocoe
"yes I in my video say for first that this vacuum is not absolute"
"In space a little trust is very important..."-you
Your test is at 4,360,465,100% higher pressue than what would be acceptable for a proper test. Under these conditions you have failed to prove there would be any thrust in space. You are a joke.
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514:
sorry you are a joke
4,360,465 is the ratio of 75/0.00000172
NOT 4,360,465 per cent BUT 43,604.65 per cent!
In my box there is 1/10 of atm but the trust is the same as you can see by rotation!
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma Your test is still at 43,604,651 times higher pressure than what is acceptable. P.S. It is spelled percent not "per cent".
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma P.S. You just made your self look even dumber because my percentage was correct.
75 / 0.00000172 = 43,604,651.16 = 4,360,465,116%
You move the decimal point BACK two digits not foward dumb ass. Also I just wanna point out you left out one of the "0"s in 0.00000172 when you where dividing... That is why you came to 4,360,465 instead of 43,604,651.
Nice try though, but next time you try to use math to prove your point... I suggest you go back and check it a few extra times.
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514: it is not important your mad percentage .
If you would see a real lab, you have to know that the number is NOTHING without the error!
My test is only qualitaive not quantitative!
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma How do you expect to be taken seriously when you seem to think there is no relevence in the fact that your test is at over 43 MILLION times higher pressure than what you are trying to prove it can operate at? Even if we get past that fact there is still the fact that you just demonstrated that you cannot perform a simple equation properly. It is simply baffling how you cannot understand why being so far off from the correct pressure is so important.
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514:
hahahahahahahahahaha,
I can't perform a simple equation properly?
Put in YOUR mind(?) that a physical experiment is NOTHING without ERROR !!!
I didn't make a misure precisely!!!
It doesn't matter the number when there is not error calculation!
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma You have reduced the amount of gass being ionized but there is still plenty of gass in there to be ionized and because you are still ionizing it with the same amount of energy and that energy is now acting on a smaller amount of mass it is accelerating the gas faster than what it was before making it roughly equal to the normal pressure test as far as the thrust is concerned. untill you have taken away enough gas to the point that it struggles to ionize the gass it does not matter.
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514: NO!!!
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma 1/10th of atmospheric pressure huh? 1/10th atmospheric pressure is hardly any change at all really. It is not surprizing at all that you don't see a significant reduction in thrust from it because there is still plenty of air in there to ionize. I take it you where assuming that the reduction in thrust would be equivilant to the reduction in air pressure? Such a naive assumption...
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514:
yes, if the trust cames from ions 1/10 of atm is as 1/10 of ions...
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma You really are stupid aren't you. Yes there are fewer air molecules to be ionized. However your lifter is still ionizing that air with the same amount of energy. If I hit a 10 pound rock with 10 pounds of force how much force does it move away with? The answer is 10 pounds... If I hit a 5 pound rock with 10 pounds of force how much force does it move away with? The answer is still 10 pounds because that is how much force was applied to it. It is the same here.
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514:
your reasoning is empty as the pressure of NASA experiment!
There is not the same amount of energy if you hit the rocks because the work is force for displacement and work IS ENERGY!!!
Sorry you don't know elementary physics... :(
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma Nerd used rage! The attack was not very effective...
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514: ?
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma You really ought to buy physics for dummies. You might actually learn something for a change.
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514:
YOU KNOW NOTHING !!!
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma Look man... I have provided you with far more evidence against your claims than I should need to. It is very clear to me that even if your poorly conducted vacuum test had failed to show any function you would still be in denial of the fact that it is ion wind. You want to believe it so strongly that you are completely incapable of accepting the posibility that you could be wrong even when there is absolutely no significant evidence to support you.
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514:
oh yes!
But I say the same thing of your mental concoctions...
I saw your posts in other videos...
You are blind!!!
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma Once again you waste a perfect opprotunity to provide evidence to support your claims and use it to insult me instead... Am I to infer that you have no further evidence to provide? Who is the one that is blind the one who keeps handing over information or the one who keeps handing over baseless insults.
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514:
oh yes, and your opinion and taste (you dislike my video, not?) are more baseless than my insults!
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma An opinion is something that cannot be proven right or wrong. I have no opinion in reguards to your video only facts and supporting evidence. These are two things that you have failed to provide in your rebuttle.
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514:
facts and evidence are the same thing in this video.
There is a trust at 1/10 of atm and it is the same or more of 1 atm (in video, rotation is more speedy in vacuum).
Your one is ALWAYS an opinion, because you don't know the apparatus as you can see in the other video of mine.Bye
7
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma And as I said that is because the machine is not exactly starved for air molecules to ionize. You won't see a noticable change untill you are at 1/10,0000,000 of atmospheric pressure. Infact your video is a response to a test that IS at such pressure which shows no movement. So what is your answer to why it doesn't work in their test which is at such low pressure?
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514:
What tests?
I know that Townsend Brown made his work in vacuum air!
I first in my video said that mine is not REAL vacuum, but it is a little demonstration of the force of apparatus at 1/10 atm it does.
I have seen other videos with more vacuum in wich there is a force more strong that in Casimir effects and it is sufficient for me, more than multi-dimensional space-sistem of your "science"!
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma Yea I have seen those videos too... You are talking about the one's put out by gravitec right? Did you even bother to check into their credibility? They claim to have ties to NASA but infact have absolutely no ties to NASA at all. Even if you ignore that their company is not registered with the government which is illegal because it is a form of tax evasion. They are con artists and criminals plain and simple.
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514: I saw the video.
It doesn't matter if they are criminals or not.
You and I live with the oil companies that give us energy in a criminal way (with wars), why I don't believe in other one?
Townsend Brown experimented in vacuum and in oil!
Where is ion wind in oil?
I made a video "Townsend Brown's Gravitator: antigravity? " with very covered plates of aluminium.
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma It really does not matter what I say does it? Even if I threw it into a vaccum chamber at an impossibly perfect vacuum and shouved your face right up against it to make you look at it not functioning you would still be incapable of accepting it... Incase you have not figured it out according to T.T. Brown's electrogravitic theories Any machine which runs on electric current above 20kv should levitate. Including vacuum tube TVs, tasers, tessla coils, the entire powergrid...
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514:
YOU KNOW NOTHING.
Townsend began his research exactly when he see a momentum after he swich on a X-ray machine!
Yes, the trust is ALWAYS present! Bye.
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma So you are seriously saying that it does not matter if the people at gravitec are criminals who pretend to be scientists from nasa in hopes that people will donate money to them? Money that they have no intentions at all to do any research with... You are saying that it does not matter to you that they are faking it to scam people?
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514: "to scam people"?
People that believe that Nuclear Reactors are necessary is fooled people!
That believe that war is right for oil is fooled people.
That believe in science-fiction theories is fooled people.
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma I just wan't to point out that you never gave me an answer to my question of how you explain why the mythbuster's vacuum test showed no functionality in the lifter under vacuum. Care to answer that one. Hey while you are at it how about you tell me what war you are reffering to that was fought over oil? Do you mean the iraq war? If so I would like to point out that america has an oil deposite in alaska that could supply the entire world for 200 years. Why go to war for it?
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514:
I don't believe in 3 TV-people that are smiling and joking about things that they don't know.
Electrogravitic is used by USAir force and other governments for military uses. It is Top Secret.
Ha, and you believe in Bush's mass destruction weapons in Iraq?
You are the only man in the world that believes in that.
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma Weather you like to believe them or not they put the lifter in hard vacuum and filmed it failing to function for all to see... By the way no it is not top secret. Nasa has been very open about what they plan to do with the technology. One proposed plan would involve adding asymetrical capacitors to existing gas propellant systems to accelerate the gas to make it more effecient. Now why would NASA feel the need to use it with the gas systems if it did not work based on ion wind?
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514:
it is no necessary, the Biefeld-Brown effect works very well without air (he proved gravitators in oil and he made gravitator with solid dielectric instead of air).
Brown made other experiments and he saw a reduction of weight (30%) of his material under physical stress.
The military applications of NASA are Top Secret! Don't you know?
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma Right... And I bet you believe the oil companies are so evil that they surpress all technologies that threaten them right? Oh but they just completely forgot to even try to surpress hydroelectric dams, wind turbines, solar cells, thermoelectric cells, sterling engines, and frankly the list is just too long for me to even put it all here? Why is it that all of the legitimate alternative energy methods go completely unchallenged yet the ones that are questionable claim surpression?
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514:
OMG, what a fairy tale !
So why we use car engine that loses 75% of their energy, why the Ford T was disappeared ,why J.P.Morgan stopped to finance Tesla when he understood the free energy project of the scientist, why electric cars are not universal diffused, why incandescent lamps were used instead of more efficient ed economic neon lamps (invented by Tesla in 1880)?
Welcame in the REAL life !!!
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma Untill recently battery technology simply could not store enough electricity to make an electric car a viable option. Lithium ion batteries have made that possible. Though gasoline engines are inneffecient gasoline requires a relatively small amount of storage space compared to the amunt of distance you can travel on it. It was used because it could travel further before needing to be refuled than most other energy sources at the time and it was safer than steam power.
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514: yes, you belive in what oilmen say!
I see instead a lot of suppressed inventions as the car with water or free energy magnetic engines or cold fusion or zero point energy systems...
I see the Tesla Car which has a self-sufficiency of 400 km and more.
Don't we really have the technology to realize some efficient cars?
I say that some one doesn't want to commercialize them...
Wake up old man!
Do you remember the movie Tucker? You have to learn a lot of things from it!
lorenzogemma 6 months ago
@lorenzogemma J.P. Morgan stopped financing Tesla was because the wireless power transmission system he was commissioned to develop was impossible to meter. The system was only designed to save the company money by making power lines obsolete. They would have no longer needed to build or maintain power lines and storms would no longer have been able to cause black outs. Tesla did not believe in free energy but he did believe this system could pull elecricity out of passing thunderstorms.
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514: "impossible to meter"?
Yes but even it was impossible to control the expenditure of energy if people didn't pay Morgan!
Tesla believes in free energy from earth resonance... but this is another story.
lorenzogemma 6 months ago
@lorenzogemma Incandescent lamps where used over the neon lamps because in the early days neon lamps where much more difficult to manufacture in bulk. This caused them to be quite expensive compared to the incandescents. Again only relatively recent advancments in manufactureing methods have made them a viable and reasonable option.
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514: you say "a viable and reasonable option" I say Edison doesn't want using the AC current for neon lamps.
At the beginning the incandescent lamps were very expensive and of short life than neon lamps.
Tesla realized neon lamps that he lighted without wires!
Now we use Internal combustion engine that are less efficient of electric engines, because the oil companies does'nt want to use it for cars!
lorenzogemma 6 months ago
@lorenzogemma "I say Edison doesn't want using the AC current for neon lamps."
Let me just double check here... Yes... you really just said that. You really have no fucking clue at all do you smart guy? Do you not realize that Incandescent bulbs can run on either AC or DC current? As long as the voltage and amperage are correct the polarity does not matter. The same is true for Neon bulbs aswell. By the way Neon gas was expensive and neon bulbs needed external power regulation curcuitry.
MrAwsome514 6 months ago
@MrAwsome514:
hahahahahahahhahaaha, tou say to me about Ac or DC current?
Only in 50's we begun to use fluorescent lamps and now we yet use incandescent lamps that are less efficient than ALL lamps! The "external power regulation curcuitry" was NEVER a problem for Nikola Tesla 120 years ago! The Edison's invention was no useful...
lorenzogemma 6 months ago
@lorenzogemma Why do you think Edison whent to the trouble of inventing a fluorescent lamp of his own? He did try to commercialize the technology however because incandescent bulbs where cheaper and easier to manufacture in mass his attempt at a commercial use of fluorescent bulbs failed. He simply did not get a good customer base. Now tell me if Edison hated fluorescent bulbs so much why did he go to so much trouble trying to sell them himself?
MrAwsome514 6 months ago
@MrAwsome514:
sorry: Edison and his engineers were unable to make cicuits controllers for fluorescent bulbs.Only Tesla was able in a good way with his Tesla coil and his patents.
Tesla realized also wireless lamps: only 4 years ago "Witricity" Co. discovered this technology!
Edison's invention was no good.
lorenzogemma 6 months ago
@lorenzogemma A tesla coil does not power a florescent bulb... It excite's the fluorescing substance inside of it. The difference is that there is no plasma in the tube. In a fluorescent bulb's normal operation the plasma inside of the bulb gives off most of the light it emits the fluorescing substance is there simply to enhance it's brightness with it's own glow. Because a Tesla coil only causes the fluorescing substance to glow it does not light the bulb very brightly.
MrAwsome514 6 months ago
@lorenzogemma Also edison did have regulatory curcuit designs that where fully functional. As I said manufactureing the bulbs was not easy in that time period and was more costly. Getting the gas to fill the bulbs with in large quantities was hard because there where few companies that produced it and those who did only did so as a byproduct of other goods that they produced. Most companies that produced the bulbs where owned by the same people who owned the companies that made these byproducts.
MrAwsome514 6 months ago
@lorenzogemma By the way I am fairly confident you are confused and mean to be saying fluorescent lamps instead of neon lamps because early neon lamps and incandescent bulbs where actually roughly equal in regaurd to their effeciency. By the way I would like to point out that Edison actually invented a fluorescent bulb in 1896 which used calcium tungstate as it's fluorescing substance... Ofcourse you probably don't even know what that means.
MrAwsome514 6 months ago
@MrAwsome514: please, write no poems! OK?
There was a enormous difference between incandescent bulbs and fluorescent (the neon lamp works with same method, plasma) lamps of early years: it was more easy to make a fluorescent one that the other.
But Edison,who doesn't like the AC current,doesn't commercialized it.
Nikola Tesla in the 1890s, devised high frequency powered fluorescent bulbs that gave a bright greenish light, no commercial success was achieved.
"Of course" BEFORE Edison!
lorenzogemma 6 months ago
@lorenzogemma Fluorescent lamps do not work purely based on plasma. The interior of their tube is coated with a fluorscent minneral which glows when in the presence of plasma making them more effecient. Clearly I was right when I assumed you did not know what I was talking about when I said "fluorescing substance"... The need for external regulators made production of neon and fluorescent lamps more costly and complicated which is why incandescent bulbs where more popular.
MrAwsome514 6 months ago
@lorenzogemma By the way... I didn't say I believed iraq had WMDs. But given the fact that every major intelligence agency in the world was saying they did back before the war started I can see how Bush might have thought they did.
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514:
poor man, all the states of world are slave of BANKS and OILMEN!
WAKE UP !
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma By the way your "gravitator" is only covered with scotch tape... 20kv can pass through scotch tape and scotch tape is negatively charged just like the foil. Using scotch tape as a covering does not stop the ion wind effect at all.
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514:
sorry YOU KNOW NOTHING!
The gravitator is insulated with carnauba wax and imperial cloth and AFTER scotch tape.
The HV cable are insulated no better!
The charge of tape is NOT important because it is an excellent insulator!
The ions can't cross the tape!
What the hell are you sayng?
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma The charge of the tape does matter. The ions are not drawen to the aluminum foil because of it's conductive properties they are drawen to it because it is negatively charged. The scotch tape is also negatively charged so the ions are also attracted to the tape. By the way scotch tape is actually not a good insulator when you are dealing with voltages in the 20kv+ range.
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514:
I don't know, my english is wrong but you don't read what I wrote!
T.T.B. and I used CARNAUBA WAX, EMPIRE CLOTH and after TAPE (insulated tape) for gravitators (not lifter)!
The corona discarge doesn't allow to work to gravitator! It is important!
So a perfect HV insulation is necessary!
After that, in lifter the aluminium foil is crossed by AC current of my power supply as a capacitor in AC current, NOT DC!!! So the capacitor is charged and discharged a RC circuit in AC current!
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514: tell me why it runs at other videos in internet?
Why Townsend demonstrated his experiments coram populo?
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma By the way what is so significant about you seeing my posts in other videos? It is not like I was hiding them from you...
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514: in video
"Asymmetric capacitor operating in high vacuum_v1.wmv" you say that there is no movement in capacitor but it does...
You don't believe to your eyes, sic...
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma The electrical energy being used in this model is the energy being exherted on the surrounding air molecules. Solong as there are enough air molecules in the container for there to be a steady flow of them through the machine it will function with very little reduction in it's thrust. However, once the pressure reaches a point so low that the flow of particles through the machine is not a steady flow it essentially stalls out and stops working. That is why your test is flawed.
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514:
my apparatus stalls when I turn off ac current. Stop.
There is no difference of rotation in my box open or closed.Instea I can see more rotation without air.
The test of mine is good!
See my video "Lifter: ion wind or not?".
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514
Yup im stupid but you are still a shill,traitor....there's no point in debating you because its a waste of time.We both know it will never end
Llfters tested in "full" vacuum.Couple of vids for those interested
watch?v=CGN65lse5yE
watch?v=xYMUv1VJ3VQ
Astrodicted 7 months ago
@Astrodicted You are a complete moron...
"watch?v=CGN65lse5yE" A small group of con artists who claim to have ties to NASA but infact DO NOT creating a fake vacuum test video to promote their company "gravitec Inc." Which I can find no registration for so it may not even be a real company.
"watch?v=xYMUv1VJ3VQ" The gentlman who posted this one works for Russle Anderson owner of applied electrogravitics (A web site that sells lifter kits).
Both parties stand to profit from decieving you.
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
watch?v=-CPWXepXR08&feature=related
UnderManlac 7 months ago
Google search "high voltage ion motor" and you will see how one is built and explanations how it works. It is EXACTLY like the one in this video, with the only exception that they use a wire instead of tin foil. Otherwise, the devices are the same and work on the same principle.
UnderManlac 7 months ago
this is AC right? I tried it a few months ago in school, but DC 25kV.
amrosik 1 year ago
@amrosik:
yes
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
This is not your lifter you claim generates anti-gravity. You have yourself an ion motor. I built one years ago, it's neat to see the thing spin with no motor. Make your triangle thing and put it in a true vacuum chamber and try it again.
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@UnderManiac
this experiment is in a vacuum chamber, don't you see?
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma No, all I saw was a tupperware container. Doesn't appear to be a vacuum, as the lid should be dented into the dish. Plus the device is nothing more than an ion motor. Proves nothing to the claim of lifter technology.
If I gave you experiments to try to prove anti-gravity, would you follow them to the letter and accept the results without bias?
UnderManlac 7 months ago
@UnderManlac:
you see bad, that is a glass box no plastic!
You don't know what are saying....
Bye
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma Shows how much you know. The lid is not glass, it's plastic, or some composite of plastic and rubber. Either way, there is NO vacuum, or insignificant vacuum to properly test it.
Your English is terrible and your intelligence seems to be very low. You don't even support an argument, but spew insults. Yeah, very mature.
UnderManlac 7 months ago
@UnderManlac:
you say nothing and posts bullshits!
My english is bad but you don't understand simple words:
the box is made of G-L-A-S-S, do you know this word?
YOU ARE A DONKEY!
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma The LID is what he is talking about dumb ass... That lid is not made of glass it is a plastic and if there was any significant vacuum in there it would be bowed inward. These containers are not designed to withstand the level of vacuum that would be required to prove anything in requard to lifters. They certainly cannot compare to the vacuum chamber used on the mythbusters clip that you made this video in response to.
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514:
The lid is strong enough to support the pressure of 10-30 kPa, other (your) speculations are bullshits!
Ah, the video of NASA is a fake?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, OK STOP POSTING!
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma The container is made of glass. Yes I know and can see that dumbass. I am talking about the lid. It is made of plastic, or a combination of plastic and rubber. I see NO bowing into the container if you truly had a vacuum inside it. It might be your words are so simple that nobody can understand them.
The lid of the container is not designed to hold its shape under internal vacuum, at least not at near perfect vacuum pressures.
This is NOT a lifter, it's an ion motor...
UnderManlac 7 months ago
You can actually find plans on the net for the EXACT thing and they call it an ion motor. They don't put it in a vacuum chamber, because they're not trying to "prove" that it's a lifter. They know what the device is and how it works. I have the same project in a book I've had for over 20 years. It goes into detail how it works.
It is your simple mind that just can't understand that the device has NOTHING to do with gravity manipulation. All you have is a fancy spinning device.
UnderManlac 7 months ago
@UnderManlac:
if you had a neuron in your empty brain you'll understand tha ion motor is impossible in full vacuum!
Your book is shit for childrens!!! :D
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma Ya it is impossible in full vacuum... thing is your little food container here is hardly at anything close to that and all tests that have been performed at "full vacuum" have resulted in the machine failing to function at all.
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514: the rotation is the same at 1 atm and at 20kPa (my food container).
The NASA test was positive.
Other videos in Youtube are positive, Townsend Brown experimented with good results in a real laboratory (see wikipedia).The Kasimir effect proves that there is energy from vacuum (ether).
YOU AND UNDERMANLAC ARE TWO DONKEYS IN LOVE!!! :D
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma You know you are an idiot don't you? Where is the proof of an ether? There is nothing in a vacuum, no ether, no energy. I am quite familiar with the claims of townsend brown and the kasimir effect. There has been no corroborating evidence proving their claims.
UnderManlac 7 months ago
Force on an Asymmetric Capacitor
Thomas B. Bahder and Chris Fazi
US Army Research Laboratory
2800 Powder Mill Road
Adelphi, Maryland 20783-1197
"The
calculations indicate that ionic wind is at least three orders of magnitude too small to explain the magnitude
of the observed force on the capacitor. The ionic drift transport assumption leads to the correct order of
magnitude for the force, however, it is difficult to see how ionic drift enters into the theory"
lorenzogemma 1 year ago
@lorenzogemma
Check the work in NASA/CR—2004-21331
"These mechanisms were considered, both on theoretical grounds and by comparison with test results. All of the mechanisms considered were eliminated except one. A simple model was developed of ions drifting from one electrode to the other under electrostatic forces, and imparting momentum to air as they underwent multiple collisions. This model was found to be consistent with all of our observations"
krononauten 7 months ago
@krononauten the asimmetrical capacitor in vacuum, see:
the NASA PATENT: US6411493 granted on June 25, 2002
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma
A patent is not a scientific result.
However in the link I gave they also investigates and explains what is called "Asymmetrical capacitor".
In addition, I doubt you achieved a good enough vacuum to investigate the claims that asymmetrical capacitors work in space (if I understood you intentions right.)
krononauten 7 months ago
@krononauten:
NASA says there isn't the asimmetrical capacitor in vacuum, but patents it.
Don't you think this is strange?
Yes I said that mine is not a real vacuum, but it works and Townsend Brown had a real laboratory to taste it
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma
"Don't you think this is strange?"
No.
krononauten 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma NASA does NOT grant patents for any devices at all. That is the job of the....patent office. So, you either lie out the side of your mouth, or you just quote something other people have said. Either way, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
UnderManlac 7 months ago
@UnderManlac:
hahahahhahahahahhahahahahaha !!!
You are a fucking joker !!!
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
Plus, you CAN patent an idea, without a working model. This does not prove the device works.
UnderManlac 7 months ago
@krononauten It's nothing more than an ion motor. A high voltage generator attached to a wire (or in this case, aluminum foil) causing ions to cast off the end giving the wire a push, causing it to turn in circles around the center pivot. The book I have shows how to build one and explains its function.
UnderManlac 7 months ago
@UnderManlac I know how it works, but thank you for taking time the tell me.
I tried to convey it to the video-uploader by giving him the link to the NASA report where they deduces the same as you stated.
There are many faults I think with the setup in the video if one should be able to prove any other affect than ionwind and the possibility of using it in outer space.
krononauten 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma Since when does NASA have the power to grant patents? Isn't that what the patent office is for? I thought NASA was a group of scientists concerned with space, not patenting ion wind generators and ion motors.
UnderManlac 7 months ago
@UnderManlac
anuary 31, 2002, the NASA patent application US2002012221 " Apparatus and Method for generating a thrust using a two dimensional asymmetrical capacitor module".
You are a joker!!!
Bye
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma 2002 huh... oddly enough in 2004 nasa released their research on asymetrical capacitors. They found that it is mere ion wind. By the way that patent number was listed in the document as one of the models they performed testing with. You failed to take into account the possibility that they created their own version simply to test it and compare the results against other previous models. Which is exactly what they did with it.
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514: hahahahahaahhaahaha,
to test something I need to patent it?
Bullshitssss !!!
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma No... you patent it because it works and you don't want other people to copy it. Don't forget they allready knew the machines fly their tests where designed to prove why they fly. Don't be such a dumb ass.
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514 We're dealing with a child, or child mind. He does not possess any debating skills, nor, it seems, any scientific background. He cannot support the claims in the video. Citing a patent without researching it doesn't tell me he knows what he's talking about.
UnderManlac 7 months ago
@UnderManlac BULLSHITS
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
So, you made a low efficiency motor?
Nomoreidsleft 1 year ago
@Nomoreidsleft:
yeeessss !
And if a I mount a flywheel the motor is more efficient !
lorenzogemma 1 year ago
It does NOT work better in a vacuum. This Asymmetrical Capacitor shown as a video response took nearly twice as long to get up to speed when under a half-assed partial vacuum using a cheap pump to keep food fresh.
Under a full vacuum, it would not spin at all. And spinning requires MUCH LESS thrust than "lifting" does. Which is why you never see Lifters in a vacuum, only well balanced object that rotate.... VERY slowly and pick up speed. Because even very thin air can be ionized and used.
Joeviocoe 1 year ago
@Joeviocoe:
sorry, sorry, sorry.
The spinning rotation depends by geometric shape of my apparatus !
NASA had patented the asimmetrical capacitor in vacuum, see:
he NASA PATENT: US6411493 granted on June 25, 2002 !
Bye!
lorenzogemma 1 year ago
@lorenzogemma
Yeah... saw the video dozens of times.
In atmospheric pressure, it rotates 180 degrees in about 5 seconds.
However, in full vacuum (1.72 x 10e-6 Torr),
It moves like 30 degrees of rotation in about 10 seconds VERY LITTLE THRUST. And that could be attributed to heavy atoms (possibly gold or lead) of the capacitor electrodes ionizing and breaking off. Point is... IT IS SLOWER in a vacuum. Certainly not enough thrust to be anything new like electrogravity. It is still ions!
Joeviocoe 1 year ago
@Joeviocoe:
you don't have considering the time in which the apparatus begins spinning, but only when rotation is full.
I can see that there is no difference among the two configurations.
lorenzogemma 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is not antigravity and I have documents that I obtained directly from NASA that prove it. The documents are a review of thier results on all testing they performed on lifters and other asymmetrical capacitors which clearly states that they have concluded that it is a simple ion wind effect which allows it to fly and nothing more. I will gladly give a copy of this document to any one who requests one.
MrAwsome514 1 year ago
If you cant measure the vaccume there might aswell be no vaccume because we don't know if it is strong enough of a vaccume to call this a successful test or not.
MrAwsome514 1 year ago 5
@MrAwsome514:
the vacuum is the same of food container:
from 10 to 30 kPa .
lorenzogemma 1 year ago
@lorenzogemma Yea that is great for food storage and all but for this test you need something a little stronger. The goal behind doing a vaccum test is to see if it can be used in outer space. Your little tupper ware container is still like a full baloon compared to the vaccum of space. By the way there is only one vaccum test on record which showed any movement of the lifter. The man who performed that test later said it was probably just static cling drawing it to the side of the chamber.
MrAwsome514 1 year ago
@MrAwsome514:
static force?
Hahahahahahahaha!!!
The box is made of GLASS, perfect insulator like the first condensators (the Leida jar).
Even a pencil of plastic is under the static forces, but it does not spin in a static field!
And if you don't believe in me an T.Townsend Brown see this NASA patent:
The NASA PATENT: US6411493 granted on June 25, 2002
Bye
lorenzogemma 1 year ago
@lorenzogemma Yes what you fail to comprehend was he was talking about his test which was performed in a vaccum chamber made mostly of metal. Only the front of his chamber was glass. I allready told you that you have not reached a sufficient vaccum here for your test to be valid. There is still plenty of air in there for he device to act on.
MrAwsome514 1 year ago
@MrAwsome514:
you even fail to understand that
The NASA PATENT: US6411493 granted on June 25, 2002
is about the asimmetrical capacitor in vacuum.
My test proves that there is no difference between air and a certain vacuum.
The absolute vacuum doesn't exist !
lorenzogemma 1 year ago
@lorenzogemma Look man if you manage to pull off exoatmoshperic pressure in there then maybe your experiment will matter. By the way yea we know it was patented so quit trying to throw that up like it some how proves your test is of some sort of value. What you have done here is prove that these things can operate at high altitude which was allready knowen. The question is can they fuction in space and how it compares to thier atmospheric functionality.
MrAwsome514 1 year ago
@lorenzogemma
10 kPa = 75 torr
a FULL vacuum... like the one NASA used is...
0.00000172 Torr
Do you see how much air is still left in there to be ionized for thrust?
Joeviocoe 1 year ago
@Joeviocoe:
yes I in my video say for first that this vacuum is not absolute, but the lifter inventor made his experiments in vacuum and had success.
The Nasa patented the apparatus for its spaceships!
In space a little trust is very important...
lorenzogemma 1 year ago
@lorenzogemma
"but the lifter inventor made his experiments in vacuum and had success."
No... he did not! He ran into the same problem. The better the vacuum, the less it worked.
Yes, NASA has learned from their asymmetrical capacitor. They learned that high voltage can break off bits of metal from the cathodes. They patented this technology as "Ion Propulsion" and they already use it in many spacecraft. It is not shocking! And has NOTHING to do with Lifters (which ionize air).
Joeviocoe 1 year ago 2
@Joeviocoe:
The patent US 6,317,310 " Apparatus and Method for generating a thrust using a two dimensional asymmetrical capacitor module" of Nasa, doesn't regard any ions !!! It is not a ion engine, because there is not a gas container !
Townsend Brown had success (go to Wiki) and he invented the "gravitator" in which the metal is covered with insulating wax.
See my video about "gravitator" please.
lorenzogemma 1 year ago
@lorenzogemma
That is because patents DO NOT SHOW how something works... rather how it is build.
And NO!!! I will not search Wiki, or any other UFO, pseudoscience website that exists.
This is direct from NASA about their asymmetric capacitors
gltrs. grc. nasa. gov/reports/2004/CR-2004-213312.pdf
*remove spaces*
(note: NASA calls these asymmetric capacitors, because that is ,in essence, exactly what they are. Jump to page 16 and make sure you read the conclusion)
Joeviocoe 1 year ago
@Joeviocoe
NASA specifically mentions Ions as in their paper regarding asymmetric capacitors.
Just because everyone else who quotes their work wants to ignore it... doesn't make it true.
Joeviocoe 1 year ago
@Joeviocoe:
you and Nasa (they know but don't say) don't know that the thrust that lift the capacitor is not enough if it is generated by only ions !
lorenzogemma 1 year ago
@lorenzogemma
"This model was found to be
consistent with all of our observations. It predicted the magnitude of the force (thrust) that was
measured."
They determined and tested that in fact.... the thrust generated by ions IS enough.
Joeviocoe 1 year ago
@lorenzogemma
"It may be concluded that that the ion drift model explains how a thrust is
developed by ions pushing on air. Tests were also performed in nitrogen and argon, and were
performed at reduced pressures. A thrust was also produced at moderately reduced pressures,
when the ACT produced a current flow without causing a breakdown of the air or other gas."
Joeviocoe 1 year ago
@lorenzogemma
" In
spite of decades of speculation about possible new physical principles being responsible for the
thrust produced by ACTs and lifters, we find no evidence to support such a conclusion."
NASA's Final report in 2004
Sorry dude... it is over! And it has been over for 6 years now.
Joeviocoe 1 year ago
lorenzogemma 1 year ago
@lorenzogemma
" Nasa has patented a thing that doesn't work?"
This statement tells me that you are not a scientist, or engineer, or even anybody with a real understanding.
MOST Patents are for devices that don't work. They ARE not proof of a claim. They are simply legal documents that allow someone to sue in the event that someone build something similar.
The fact that you are ignorant of this... tells me all I need to know.
Joeviocoe 1 year ago
@lorenzogemma
So you are a moon landing denier too. And believe two con artists who could never replicate their cold fusion experiment. UFO abductee too? How about the Holocaust denier?
Your credibility is shot.
Joeviocoe 1 year ago 2
@Joeviocoe:
hahahahahahahhahaha!
I believe in what I see:
I see electrokinetic trust and believe it.
I see cold fusion (in a lot of internet sites and in Rubbia's soppressed files) and believe it!
You see tunnel effect (do you know what is it ?) and believe it for faith!
You believe in black holes for faith.
You believe in Einstein theory for faith...
I have to continue? :D
lorenzogemma 1 year ago
@lorenzogemma
gltrs(dot)grc(dot)nasa(dot)gov/citations/all/cr-2004-213312(dot)html
On this page you can download a PDF of a document NASA published reguarding all of thier testing with asymetrical capacitors and yes the T.T brown patents are included. They lay out the experiments they performed so clearly even a child could duplicate them. They lay out the math plain enough that even you might be able to understand it. Since you believe what you see... TAKE A LOOK.
MrAwsome514 1 year ago 3
@MrAwsome514:
I know that files and it is FALSE !
The experiment was made at 15kV: Townsend made it until 300kV!
If I make an experiment in a bad way I obtein a bad result: simple!
I don't believe in files: I have same videos of mine that proved Townsend theory.
See GRAVITATOR !!!
You are like a blind man, open you eyes!!!
lorenzogemma 1 year ago
@lorenzogemma You are just another ignorant sucker trying to play scientist based on some crap science made up by conmen. Nothing more.
MrAwsome514 1 year ago 2
lorenzogemma 1 year ago
@lorenzogemma I am familiar with the man who posted the video your talking about... Where you arware that Mr. only1egg (whos real name will be left out due to youtube eula terms) Works closely with a man named russel anderson who sells lifter kits through his company (applied electrogravitics) via thier website. Hardly an unbaiased source. Furthermore both individuals work with a man named john searl who is a well knowen conman who deals in science related scams.
MrAwsome514 1 year ago 3
@lorenzogemma Or are you going to tell me you believe in the SEG too?
MrAwsome514 1 year ago
@MrAwsome514:
no, I don't know, I made no experiments about MEG, but it is not important who posts video but videos (of Nasa).
If you don't believe in "both individuals" see the "JLN" web site.
This is not faith but simple exeriments that prove the Biefeld-Brown effect !
In the same site there is even cold fusion: practical not theory !
lorenzogemma 1 year ago
@lorenzogemma There have been many scientific tests which where conducted poorly reguarding both aysymetrical capacitors and the so called "cold fusion" you are talking about. You have chosen to believe them because they gave the results you wanted to hear. It is that simple. And no doubt a few conmen have helped you to make that decision... they probably sold you some books on it in the process too. They do love to peddle those crappy books of thiers.
MrAwsome514 1 year ago 5
@MrAwsome514:
sorry, sorry, sorry.
The LENR (or cold fusion) is present in every scientific book or Wiki!
Do you know that Carlo Rubbia (Nobel) was the supervisor of these experiment in Italy?
After some succesful tests, Rubbia closed the experiments !!!
Do really believe that chemotherapy is the solution for cancer?
There are a lot of things that actual science uses only for commercial scope!
Please open your eyes !!!
In LENR there is a great emission of protons, that no one can explain!!!
lorenzogemma 1 year ago
@lorenzogemma Cold fusion has been proven to be false. The experiments are not repeatable. If you believe it's possible, then you are in need of serious education.
Nobody said chemotherapy is the solution for cancer, nobody ever claimed it. It's just one of the best things so far that we have to treat it.
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@UnderManiac - Actually cold fusion has been proven to be true. Search for LENR/CANR and Farnsworth Fusor to see numerous successful experiments. The problem is that it costs far more energy to maintain the reaction than you can get out of it.
HungryGuyStories 9 months ago
@HungryGuyStories Then that is NOT cold fusion. Fusion would generate more energy than it would take to fuse the particles in the first place. That is how the sun sustains itself. Otherwise, it would have died out millions of years ago. It is another false claim.
UnderManlac 7 months ago
@UnderManlac:
YOU are false...
You don't say anything.
Bye
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@UnderManiac
you are crazy:
In January 2011 researchers from the University of Bologna, Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi, claimed to have successfully demonstrated commercially viable cold fusion. The apparatus, built by themselves, is called an Energy Catalyzer. In March 2011, two Swedish physicists evaluated the Energy Catalyzer, under the control of Rossi.
From wikipedia: Cold Fusion.
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma Thanks for the information. I will have to research it. However, I have not seen any information in scientific magazines or peer reviewed publications confirming such a device being tested independently. And exactly how would one produce fusion at relatively low temperatures? I think this is a dupe, a scam.
UnderManlac 7 months ago
@UnderManlac: your opinion is irrilevant!
The LENR is a scam?
It is true the theory of "paralleles universes" that contemporary phisic accepts!
Hahahahhahahahahahhahaha, fuck you and your science for dummies!!!
Bye
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514:
sorry I spent no money for my culture!
There is internet, do you kow?
:D
Bye-bye.
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514:
no books for my culture,
only free internet!
Sorry... :D
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma Wow it took you 7 months to respond? Any way these things have allready been proven to operate purely based on ion wind. The people who claim otherwise are like the one who made this video. You know... performing "vacuum tests" with cooking ware instead of proper testing gear, not even using any guages to show that the "vacuum chamber" is actually sealed properly and maintaining a strong vacuum. That sort of thing. Then ofcourse there are the con artsts trying to make a buck off it
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma Wow it took you 7 months to respond? Any way these things have allready been proven to operate purely based on ion wind. The people who claim otherwise are like the one who made this video. You know... performing "vacuum tests" with cooking ware instead of proper testing gear, not even using any guages to show that the "vacuum chamber" is actually sealed properly and maintaining a strong vacuum. That sort of thing. Then ofcourse there are the con artsts trying to make a buck off it
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514: 7 months or 1 what is the difference?
If you search Townsend Brown on wikipedia you can see he proved his "gravitator" in oil and in full vacuum: it worked!
In my test you can see that rotation is the same in two configurations.
Do you know what the Casimir effect is?
Well, the "science" accept it but doesn't put on plates AC current, because they are sceptic!
Scepticism is a religion not a SCIENCE.
Contemporary science is a religion and you are a believer !
Bye
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma Townsend brown was an idiot. His experiments where proven to be failures by a nasa study in 2004. Unfortunately con artists like Russle Anderson keep selling false information. It is unfortunate but you have been lied to. This is simple ion wind, and I work with it quite frequently. By the way my vacuum chamber was actually designed to be a vacuum chamber... Apparently mine gets a stronger vacuum because it won't work in mine.
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514:
sorry, you know nothing,in a video of mine in my site you can see that the lifter moves himself instantly and after ion wind appears and move a paper.Townsend was a genius and his "gravitator" operates in a closed apparatus. Why NASA don't believe in lifter and after patented the asimmetrical capacitor in open space?
It is very strange for a normal brain but not for yours...
See my video "gravitator": where is ion wind?
Where is your video?
Bye
lorenzogemma 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma I don't pay any attention to fools who play scientist with tupper ware and scotch tape. Escpecially not ones who give absolutely no measurements or other information with which some one else could verify or disprove their results.
MrAwsome514 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma Your video does NOT support anti-gravity claims of the asymmetrical capacitor. ALL you have here is an ion motor. I have a book that shows me how to build a high voltage ion motor that looks so similar to the one in your video that I'm almost convinced you've made one, possibly using the same book. This does NOT show any LIFT technology.
UnderManlac 7 months ago
@MrAwsome514 Keep up the good work MrAwesome514. These people couldn't care less about the science behind the devices they claim work on an unsupported principle. The just go ahead and see a reaction happening and immediately think they have proof of what they're trying to claim. They do no measurements and do no further experiments to verify that the results are what the claim or maybe it's something they haven't considered. The device is just an ion motor. I have a book with plans for one
UnderManlac 7 months ago
@lorenzogemma I'd like to hear what you "think" gravity is and how you "think" the asymmetrical capacitor (or "lifter") creates anti-gravity. Main stream science already knows what gravity is, which is not a difficult concept. It's very elegant and simple. It was figured out decades ago. Once you figure it out, you will realize that the lifter is incapable of producing gravity or anti-gravity, it's just an ion wind. Your device is called an ion motor.
UnderManlac 7 months ago