Gravitec testing at NASA LEEIF of asymmetric capacitor in vacuum 4

[Orionblade2003]

@ixamraxi: it's on a torsion balance...

[SlimAgnus]

It would have been nice with an explanation as to what the video shows. I'm guessing most people don't have a clue what is being shown here.

[hec031]

@SlimAgnus Good point, will work on a new version of the video that will address your points. Thanks for the constructive criticism.

[user25119498503]

For this to be definitive, factors obfuscating any real result must be eliminated. In particular, ionization of the surface material on the device could stimulate ejection of the looser particles in miniscule quantities (providing thrust). Also, the frequency of light used to observe the experiment should be tuned so as to prevent the manifestation of a contaminating photoelectric effect allowing the capacitors to push off of escaping electrons.

[hec031]

I agree that conventional forces must be eliminated, but the two that you mentioned could not have produced the force observed since it was ~3mN of thrust. The mass ejection needed to support that thrust would have changed the post test mass of the object, which was unchanged after testing.

In our most recent experiments in vacuum these force effects simply can't account for the observed force. Still they are legitimate concerns and will be addressed in our up coming publication. Thanks.

[aether222]

I believe that this forrn of the effect is not as given to vacuum operation as are other T.T Brown electrogravitic capacitor forms, I believe the ionization of the air changes the field shape around the anode that is missing in this form, also I suspect that a dietictric might be helpful along with pulsing, also IMO a plasma tube/bulb energized by TC facing an aluminum plate would create a more suitable thrust, not based on brown tho but other experimenters, see BSRF video and other examples.

[ixamraxi]

You realize this is an ion motor that isn't spinning right....

[hec031]

Pressure and current use do not support that claim, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[ixamraxi]

Oh, and would you be so kind as to carefully point out which display shows pressure and current?

In the upper right you can see numbers, and you must make the assumption that the left is current and the right is kilovolts, there is no legible or clear labeling. You are the one making assumptions.

The upper left video clearly shows it not moving despite the voltage and current readings in the upper right.

Where is the opinion?

[littlebobfirst]

Can I ask why the video of the asymmetrical capacitor in the vacuum has so much fuzz/noise?

[Beamshipcaptain]

The stars beckon, my friends, and a cleaner, saner, cooler world, and sensible aerospace-travel, for the common man in the street. A channge of mass-mind on a mass-scale, advancing human cosciousness, before we destroy ourselves... mankind must advance into deep space to survive. There are hughe space-projects ongoing since the 1950s in many countries including ours that are kept top-secret.

[elfranz]

don't mess with people not believing even facts, it's useless.

I am pleased to talk with one of the persons working on this subject. and hope there will be good news...

[hec031]

Thanks for the support. I'm currently working on going back to LEEIF for further testing. So keep your fingers crossed, but that won't stop me from publishing. What is slowing me down a little is a request by a government agency for a white paper on the research. This is my current priority, it's due next week.

[Joeviocoe]

Okay... so what ARE you claiming?

What do you say is the mechanism that provides thrust. Then we can go from there. We can then argue point for point.

As far as I am concerned. The proof that anything consistently happens in a high vacuum, has not been there.

There have been NUMEROUS replications of lifters (asymmetrical capacitors) that have been tested in a vacuum and they DON'T work.

The few accounts of working lifter in a vacuum is ALWAYS anecdotal. And no real proof.

[hec031]

Then I guess you're going to have to wait until my paper is published.

[Joeviocoe]

Well, NASA already has there explanation of this experiment on their website (search 2004/CR-2004-213312).

So, if you have nothing right now, they win this debate. It is Ions and nothing more.

[hec031]

It's just a matter of time before you and them will have to eat crow. I'll make sure to let you know when and were to read my findings. Hell I might just send you a free copy.

[Joeviocoe]

You have an opinion, no real evidence, no real claim that I have seen here either. I am just citing the REAL experts (NASA) that have REAL data, and have a REAL explanation the works with ALL observations.

Bottomline, it is Ion propulsion.

[hec031]

Nonsense, neither side has published a peer reviewed paper yet so the verdict is still out and I guarantee you that I will submit my results for peer review before they ever due.

[Joeviocoe]

"In the past, several mechanisms have been proposed for the thrust that they produce.

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."

[Joeviocoe]

I read the whole report of course and the conclusion (aside from Talley) is that it is Ion propulsion.

[hec031]

So just ignore the incosistency, because it does not conform to your expectations, that's not science.

[Joeviocoe]

Page 16 (pdf 20) of NASA's CR-2004-213312 in 2004 concluded that "we find that their operation is fully explained by a very simple theory that uses only electrostatic forces and the transfer of momentum by multiple collisions."

In short... ITS IONS, NOT ANTIGRAVITY!

[hec031]

Again taken out of context, this conclusion is limited to ion wind devices operating under atmospheic conditions. There is no such thing as Antigravity. Keep reading.

[Joeviocoe]

I don't see any inconsistency of the NASA report. It is quite simple and doesn't contradict itself.

This "context" it related directly to your video. It IS the video experiment. Where is the disconnect.

The report said they tested under various pressures including a vacuum. It is DONE, nothing to debate unless you are calling NASA a liar.

[hec031]

On page 10 of the report page 14 on the PDF, you will find there conclusions on the forces observed from arcing, which, "Thus, we CONCLUDE that removal by heat due to events such as sparks CANNOT explain an appreciable part of the forces that were observed during steady state operations". I suggest that you due your own experiments and tell us what you find, until then, you have your opinion and we have our evidence.

[Joeviocoe]

Right, Heat cannot explain the force... but they are saying its Ions... not arcing heat. The conclusion says it VERY plainly that its the Ionization and thrust from Air and Ion collisions.

NASA's CR-2004-213312 report is written in plain English and is easy to understand.

I trust NASA to do better experiments than any garage tinkerer (especially me)

[hec031]

It's so simply it eludes you.

[Joeviocoe]

Occum's Razor says the simplest answer tends to be the correct one.

A) Electrogravity exists but acts differently in air. All the scientist at NASA are wrong.

or

B) It is a well known ionization wind effect that is already in use in devices like the Ionic Breeze from sharper image.

[hec031]

By that philosophy nothing new can ever be the simplest explanation, because it was previously unknown. I reject your philosophy, because its small and narrow minded.

[Joeviocoe]

Just because it is simple, doesn't mean that it is already discovered.

It is NOT my philosophy, it is scientific understanding you reject.

[hec031]

It's a philosophy with a bias point of view, created by a 14th century monk, not a scientist. You push it because it suits you, not because it makes sense. We can debate his philosophy all day long, including the original translation, which does not translate into the line used in the Movie Contact were you obviously got yours from.

[Joeviocoe]

Got it from 8th grade science class actually. That and KISS.

[hec031]

Than I would suggest that you read at a little higher grade level.

[Joeviocoe]

"There is no such thing as Antigravity."

I agree. So what are you claiming as the mechanism for NASA's Asymmetrical capacitor?

I don't see how the "conclusion" of their 2004 report could be "out of context" with their experiment shown in your video. They are saying that there is no thrust in a vacuum and there is thrust in an atmosphere. Simple.

[hec031]

My video shows my device operating in air and vacuum. These are distinctly different mediums. While the ion wind model can account for the larger force in air, it CANNOT account for the smaller, but persistent force still present in vacuum. If that is what you mean that you are correct.

[Joeviocoe]

Yes they are VERY distinctly different. Vacuum is a LACK of a medium (Aether, ZPE, dark energy aside).

The CR-2004-213312 report covers both.

I really don't see any thrust in your video. I do believe it is in the vacuum, and it did move a bit (an 8th of a rotation), but the report provided good reason for this anomaly. It was not repeatable.

[hec031]

You have your facts all wrong the study you keep sighting was done to confirm Dr. Campbell's claims. The people who did this experiment were never aware of my research. Second you're contradicting yourself when you say "I really don't see any THRUST" and then you say "and it did MOVE". How do you define displacement of an object in your world? In mine we call it WORK and that is the product of an applied force over a distance. Like I said you have your opinion and we have our evidence.

[Joeviocoe]

I am just citing a real report from the guys you took the video from, NASA. It is THEIR footage that you use to make your claims (which I have yet to really hear).

It is not needed for NASA to be aware of your research.

The CR-2004-213312 report explains the 8th of a rotation shown in the video a only a momentary event. Not continuous. And no, we don't differ in our definitions of thrust. It is just I meant it as continuous.

[hec031]

Wrong once again it's my footage I took it with my equipment, the only thing they did was pay for the use of the LEEIF facility and reimburse me for our traveling expenses.

[Joeviocoe]

If that was your footage, shoot some new video of it "consistently" moving in a vacuum if your so sure it works.

The burden of proof is on you since you make the claim of a working test. Not me because I claim that nothing happens.

If you are in conflict of what NASA says, you have to bring EXTRA evidence to the table.

[hec031]

I have made my intentions clear since day one that I was going to present my evidence in peer view journal unlike NASA and not in YouTube. Then I will welcome yours and NASA's counter evidence of my work.

[JJuliano77]

Uh, maybe you should look a little closer before you share you brilliant thoughts. The test rig is on a torsion wire and "CONSISTENTLY" moves clockwise and back in sinc with the applied voltage.

[Joeviocoe]

I have read the NASA paper CR-2004-213312 (do a google search)

It concludes the Asymmetrical capacitor works by Ions and air... just like the other antigravity lifters. Even in the vacuum, Robert Talley wrote, "Direct experimental results show that under high vacuum conditions... no detectable propulsive force was electrostatically induced by applying a static potential difference... between test device electrodes..."

[hec031]

Likewise Dr. Campbell had the same negative results, so has Dr. Tajmar and others. The difference is that you cannot prove that what you see on our video is either a negative result or the product of ion wind or ion propulsion. Talley's statement is taken out of context, because he is refering to standard electrostatic attraction and repulsion, which he showed could not account for his anomolous forces he observed. Keep reading his report past what you want it to say.

[purplenoise2002]

Did you know that you can induce current on a wire with a zero magnetic field? You can try this at home. You need an N field moving to the left, and an S field moving to the right (equal speed), both sets of field lines cutting across the wire. Or that both coils in a trasnformer occupy the space where the magnetic field vanishes, yet it works. They didn't teach me that in EE, but it's true. Don't assume physics is anywhere close to a TOE when so much remains unanswered, and ripe for discovery.

[pkscolax]

Will definitely remember that. Thanks for the tip purplenoise2002

[Joeviocoe]

I am glad that there is so much more to learn. Cause that means that I will keep busy :)

[Joeviocoe]

Oh... your Hector Serrano. I didn't know. Went to your site. Nice. How did you prove that the Asymmetrical capacitor doesn't CREATE Ions from its electrodes?

Whats NASA official story on the reason for this propulsion phenomenon? Thanks.

[Joeviocoe]

Also, how does this Asymmetrical capacitor example differ from the common Beamship lifters (high voltage, triangle shape, foil and wire)?

[hec031]

It's a long story and I don't have the space here to tell it, but I'll add the story to my website and let you know so you can see what we've been through with NASA. There cooperation was limited and they wanted everything to be done through the back door and not in the publics eye. As for ions, you always have some, however since the pressure never rose in the system when in operation the force is incosistent with ion propulsion. Also the current level would not support such and effect.

[Joeviocoe]

Usually the wattage is about 25 to 40 watts and that would be enough to provide a force for those "lifter".

I am not talking about the Asymmetrical capacitor shown in this video. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.

I don't know which experiment you got your numbers from. I don't think were talking about the same thing.

But propulsion force by Ion wind is well known. Those triangle foil lifter which are less than 50 grams use it to Lift. The Ionic Breeze air purifier too.

[purplenoise2002]

Joe have you built a lifter and made any tests yourself? or have you come to those conclusions after reviewing other sources? I don't care what you call "REAL" science. Reality is reality. And publishing using respected channels is another thing. Test the damn hardware and show the ion wind with papers flying out of the table, a microphone picking up wind noise or something. It's not so hard, there are 30-40KV in any old TV. Or do you feel more comfortable just talking about it?

[Joeviocoe]

Testing for wind that way is silly and not scientific.

You put it in a vacuum chamber to be decisive.

Reality is reality. But you can believe magicians on the street to be reality. It isn't what you see, it is what is real.

Mythbusters put it to the test and detected wind underneath the lifter. A small force. But since the lifter only weighs a few grams, it is enough to impress you.

If you expect papers to fly or a whooshing sound, you are already deluded. It doesn't take much to lift.

[Joeviocoe]

I know that I will die if I drop an Anvil on my head from 50 feet up. But I won't bother with the experiment. Even if I have seen Wile E. Coyote do it a hundred times.

The job of a scientist or engineer is to question first. Way before doing the experiment. I need to see merit in trying. So far, I am not very impressed.

I don't know if Serrano's project or NASA's Asymmetrical capacitor has anything to do with these lifters. So someone make the connection here.

[purplenoise2002]

Here is why I believe in doing the experiment: First, cause it is cool on its own right, second, because when you pass along the results you are not repeating what someone else said. Finally, because of the implications. The fact is our best knowledge of this experiment so far only comes from the Nasa Asym Cap papers. If you look at the report, there is *a lot* that went untested: Replacing air with a fluid that wont ionize, for instance. Test in vacuum is only one of many possible tests.

[Joeviocoe]

When first noticed, this effect was misinterpreted as electrogravitation. This was wrong. This was tested and found to be ions. But with all the UFO nuts out there during the 50's, the name stuck and conspiracies grew.

[hec031]

Could you please provide me with a reference to the this published proof. I know of no such document. I do know for a fact that Dr. Campbell tested his device in vacuum 100 feet from were I did my test and while his failed to show any thrust in vacuum mine succeded. Still if you say there is published peer reviewed proof, I would love to see it.

[Joeviocoe]

Without a "reaction mass" there are no ions to push and cause propulsion.

However, this video shows work on the Asymmetrical capacitor actually losing the electrons and creating the ions. Not unlike the real ion propulsion.

No one at NASA has EVER said this is a gravity altering, manipulating, diverting, device.

It has nothing to do with gravity... only ion propulsion.

[hec031]

I don't think you can prove that even 1 dyn of the force observed can be the product of ion propulsion in a device generating ~3 millinewton's of force at pressures better than 1*10^-6 Torr, operating at less than a watt of input power.

[purplenoise2002]

How much has the lifter research explored using different materials for the capacitor plates... How about bismuth? (for no good reason)

[hec031]

To be honest I have not felt the need to divert from using aluminum for my main electrodes. I have not used bismuth, sorry.

[Joeviocoe]

High voltages causing an oscillation in some conductors... wow.. not impressive at all!

When you put an ACTUAL Lifter in a Vacuum (like Beamshipcaptain refuses to do with his) it will NOT lift!

[purplenoise2002]

You always post the exact same message in all the lifter videos. Why is that?

[Joeviocoe]

Cause misinformation travels faster than real information... And I am just trying to catch up.

Real scientists don't post youtube videos to prove their work. They have peer reviewed papers and go through formal channels.

So some real scientist and engineers must debunk this youtube crap in the name of real science.

[hec031]

The true measure of things is not whether it will lift, but rather does the thrust go to zero or does it remain even without a suitable reaction mass.

[tromprenard]

Just reading over my own post and I feel a bit like a dumb idiot.I was a complete jerk and was probably in a bad mood last time. In fact, I apologize for my last post. Just go ahead and keep doing what you are doing beamshipcaptain, we need more people like you in the world (and less "complainers" like me). Tromprenard (still no agenda here)

[tromprenard]

Beamshipcaptain.... I think you should do what you do best and leave the math and science to those who understand it. Whatever you think reality is...is only your point of view. Maybe others know a whole lot more about this science than you do. I was building high voltage devices 28 years ago, and I'm telling you that your lifter experiments are really nothing much to be excited about until you can make them work in a vaccum chamber.

Tromprenard (no agenda here)

[Beamshipcaptain]

Already done at many countries and companies by Thomas Townsend Brown, whose work this is that I replicated, after 26-years of study and research. I was the one who replicated TT Bron's 2 and 3-footer experiments in the 1990s. That is why my Beamships(tm) are award-winning, and STILL, the largest and most energy-efficient such devices in the entire world.

[Beamshipcaptain]

Excellent. Proof-positive of electrogravitics, as NSA, the US ARMY, TT Brown, and Takaaki Musha (HONDA-Japan), and Purdue University proved in their experimetns with exactly matched the theoretical-work.

[hec031]

Sorry for the delay. The answer would be no. Your movement withing the field would not be impared, it would be independant of it. The effect if confirmend would not pin or displace electrons, it just accelerate the matter withing the field uniformally in a particular direction, in theory. The problem with this theory is that contemporary physics models do not support this type of propulsive mechanisms without the need for astronomical amounts of energy.

[hec031]

Without venturing too far into hypothetical speculation, the simple answer would be that all matter enveloped in the field would be accelerated simultaneously, thus effectively eliminating the delay associated with the transfer of energy between units of matter that cause what we know as inertia.

[tromprenard]

I agree with you hec031, this is empirical evidence, and congratulations of course, but are you claiming to be the first person to do it? In your opinion, is this possibly the same experiment that Thomas Townsend Brown performed at the Bahnson Labs between 1958 and 1960? There is a video of him celebrating his success with a bottle of champaign.

[hec031]

I agree that Brown probably got similar results in his experiment, however he fail to publish and share so it could not be confirmed or replicated until recently. I'm certain that what I've found since has no precedence in this field of work, that's why I'm trying publish as soon as possible. I'm not trying to tease, just sharing as much as I can without giving away the farm.

[Beamshipcaptain]

I obtained TT Brown's Bahnson labs home movies on VHS in 1990 from Sev Bonnie in 1990, he was a scientist who worked with Brown, who I met in 1990 in Colorado Springs.

[tromprenard]

It's all in "the MATH" at this point. Driver... it's in the "Las Vegas Curve". It's about fine tunning and resonnance but perhaps not using the e/m field

[hec031]

For me it's all in the empirical evidence. This experiment has been superceded by a whole new set of experiments and experimental devices that far outperform what you see here. Those devices and the results are being submitted for publishing in a peer reviewed journal soon. The vacuum experiments were the first step toward that end.

[Beamshipcaptain]

Unfortunately, its NOT all in the math, as you can fool yourself with thoretical work more and more, until you end up with a mathematical-structure that bears no resemblance to reality.

[driver49]

Is this a "solid dielectric" electrogravitic capacitor demonstration? It's pretty hard to tell what we're looking at from the video.

If that's what it is, then why is the movement so negligible. Are we supposed to be impressed that there is any movement at all?

So, what are we really seeing here?

[hec031]

To answer your question, by all conventional predictions the device should not have moved at all given the low vacuum levels and lack of working reaction fluid. The average power was just over one watt so for something that is not supposed to move at all it's pretty impressive. As I've said I'm putting some new information and videos together to make things clearer. I apologized for the delay.

[hec031]

While the electrodes are kept separated by a solid alumina ceramic insulator, the primary dielectric is the vacuum itself. Conceptually it's the same design as a one sided lifter.

[hec031]

I'm intimately acquainted with both projects, since I pitch a new kind of IEC device to Boeing in 2000. Bussard made some mistakes; the biggest one was allowing the military to convince him not to publish. There is a saying in academia, "Publish or Die". This is one lesson that I've learning through the mistakes of others.

[Beamshipcaptain]

Exactly right. Publish or die. Keep up the good work. Pleas read my paper on BEAMSHIP TECHNOLOGY in the JOURNAL OF NEW ENERGY, Vol. 7,No1, 2003.

[hec031]

In my experience I've never seen a totally original invention. All technology is derived from prior knowledge either directly or indirectly. My work has it's origins in TTBrown's work. My current research while clearly related to his, is original in its findings, that is why publishing is so important at this point.

[hec031]

I don't think so, in fact it might be too soon for such a radical propulsion and physics alternative but time will tell. After I get my first draft out to a Peer review journal I'll know better.

[hec031]

That's a long story with many turns, which include NASA, the NRO and DARPA. Prior to this vacuum test we worked with the Aerospace department at Purdue University on another successful vacuum test. I also have footage of that experiment, but member of Purdue University will not allow me to show them in a public setting. Sorry.

[hec031]

Yeah it worked, as to why it worked that is still open for debate. This is only one of several videos I'm going to publish on this research. The next one is an ion wind experiment like no one has ever seen before. The one after that will show some radical improvements to the technology.

[yagduse]

i didnt get it,so did it worked or not?

[pipoxyz]

tnx 4 sharing:)

those nasa folks seem to have not included a dielectric, under high vacuum, air gets very conductive and arcs over at 2kv or so, the minimum for 'lifters' is about 10kv, so these tests therefore dont say to much. At even higher vacuums, when air is gone completely, the juice can be powered back to high voltages, but their tank doesnt go past 10 -7 torr. Also, vacuum is not a high mass dielectric, which was claimed to give best performance.