Biefeld-Brown Effect and the Physics of a New Theory

[FiEctro]

LLLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSDDDDD­DDDDDDDDD

[nickharvey7]

@FiEctro My sentiments exactly!

[bnjmnclt]

the big thing here is that no one has given me an easy strait forward answer to what is gravity is it electrowhatchyou mycallit or is buga! buga! buga! listen to see the big picture you guys want to be suspended in the air like in space don't you? well first figure out gravity what is it first before you electromagnetify my brainy withie mathy tingy wingy talk

[MrAwsome514]

@bnjmnclt Gravity is the distortion of space around objects with mass. The greater their mass the greater the distortion. The only knowen way not to be effected by gravity is to have 0 mass which is, at present, impossible as all matter has mass.

[nickharvey7]

@bnjmnclt In this theory energy ∆E and mass slows the rate that time ∆t flow forming the curvature of spacetime. Objects just free-fall towards the greatest energy or mass because it has the slowest rate the time flows.

Time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π is a variable and will be relative to the energy of its own reference frame.

[Beamshipcaptain]

@bnjmnclt Gravitation is simply due to a converging flux of ETHER. Mater and energy are equivalent, both are ETHER SINKS. Subquantum kinetics state positive charges are attractive on matter, and negative charges are repulsive on matter. So arounf the anode wire or tube ther is a G-well, and the foil cathode or sucer is negatively charged or Chssis ground(-). THe result is the vehicle rides a wave of modified spacetime like a surboard into infinity as long as charge is stored/maintained

[bnjmnclt]

right !? 

[olsmokey]

I think E.E. Smith would be spinning in his grave if he read this tripe. Inertialess indeed! Antigravity? Give it a rest. Well, it can't be all bad cos it's entertaining and it keeps you off the streets.

[Beamshipcaptain]

See thge video where the TT Brown saucers are encased in Resin, proving they need NO AIR to work! So they can propel inertialessly a bodyt thru space at ANY speed, yes even above the speed of light, because there is no build up of inertial mass!

[olsmokey]

This thing is just an electrostatic propeller, not antigravity - it's just another way to blow air folks.

Next please...

[nickharvey7]

@olsmokey Yes it is just another way to blow air, but the fact that just electrostatic can do this with no moving parts is profound and says a lot about the nature of our Universe

[olsmokey]

@nickharvey7 Electrostatic repulsion is a basic principle of everyday physics. It's how an electroscope works and is easily demonstrated but it isn't a magical drive for a spaceship.

[H0B0J03]

@nickharvey7 thats the best part of this type of air propulsion, no moving parts!

[nickharvey7]

@H0B0J03 Thanks for the comment! Very true, I am an artist and therefore outside of the scientific community so any help promoting this theory will be gratefully welcomed. Please share with your friends and add to your favorites. It would be nice to start a chain reaction of information a kind of quantum revolution!

[H0B0J03]

@nickharvey7 I'm actually a huge fan(no pun intended) of this type of technology, and i would love to one day mess about with several hybrid technologies that include this one.

just imagine how awesome that would be~!

you could even make the different blade sets of a jet, each copper and aluminum in alternating succession, to make this effect amplify a jet engine!

then add two powerful electromagnets in the chassis to step the voltage up,

and amplify the ion flow further, using the hall effect

[Beamshipcaptain]

I also tested Biefeld Brown 1 meter diameter saucers in plastic bags, and they flew BACKWARDS, in June, 2000. Someone recently posted on one of my Youtube Beamship videos a video of an experimetn they did with smaller TT Brown saucers sealed in THICK resin blocks. THey also flew bacwards. Air currents cannot escape resin blocks, or plastic bags. I point out the aforementioned vacuum tests published in NATURE, and Brown's vacuum tests in N. Caronlina, Paris, and King of Prussia PA, 1959.

[MrAwsome514]

@Beamshipcaptain Apparently some one missed the reports NASA put out in 2004. Can anyone guess why that is? That is right it is beamie... Well to be fair he actually didn't miss them at all. You see he knows what he is saying is bull shit but he also knows his bull shit draws more attention to his online buisness which sells lifter kits. More attention means more sales. It all amounts to beamie decieving people to feed his own pockets.

[Beamshipcaptain]

@MrAwsome514 NASA has vacuum tests in 199-2004 and you can see them on YouTube. The concept works as well in vacuum. And why not? High energy Electrostatics is more efficient in vacuum: that is the theory behind VACUUM TUBES. Duh!

[MrAwsome514]

@Beamshipcaptain "NASA has vacuum tests in 199-2004"

Yes Nasa did perform vacuum tests... And in 2004 they put out a paper about the results of those tests which I have allready given you 4 or 5 times now which states that it did not work in those tests. Electrostatics is more effecient in vacuum but Ion wind is not.

[Beamshipcaptain]

Hector Serrano(Gravitec), "Propulsion device and method employing electric fields for producing thrust", PCT patent no. WO 00/58623, issued October 5, 2000, Jonathan W. Campbell(NASA), Apparatus for generating thrust using a two dimensional asymmetrical Capacitor Module," US Pat. No. 6,317,310, issued Nov.13,2001,JW Campbell (NASA), "Cylindricl aymmetrical Capacitor devices for Space Applications, US pat. No. 6,775,123 issued Aug. 10, 2004.

[Texmurphy51]

If you want to see how it works just put some bits of paper of run it in smoke. You will see the air flow from the top HV ionizer tips down through the screen on the bottom. It pushes air thru it.

[nickharvey7]

@Texmurphy51 True! But for the air to flow this way some kind of geometry must change because there are no moving parts. A movement of an object say a wing can create lift by changing the geometry of the air, but that is not what we have here.

[Texmurphy51]

@nickharvey7 There ARE moving parts, they are ions, you simply cant see them because they are too small.

I remember seeing this device in Popular Science in the 1960s with an explanation of how it worked. There version was much bigger & vlew better. There was speculation that if microwaves could beam energy up to a platform using this technology then it could hover overhead. .

[nickharvey7]

@Texmurphy51 Yes! This is the point of using Lifter to promote this theory. This is because in this theory the absorption and emission of light or electromagnetic radiation forms what we see and feel as the flow of time forming the geometry of spacetime.  The continuous emission of EMR causes entropy and therefore the Arrow of Time!

[Texmurphy51]

@nickharvey7 How are we creating EM energy with a high voltage DC power supply?

Can you detect this EM energy?

What is is Frequency?

Is it not simply ionized molecules moving ?

If this actually generates anti gravity field why does it NOT work in a Vacuum???

There are many other ways of showing that EM energy does not make sense as a explanation for this effect.

[nickharvey7]

@Texmurphy51 Yes! We can detect EMR in the form of sparks of light at the top of the Lifter. EMR makes the ionized molecules move. It will not work in a vacuum because there is no air to generate the thrust. A Lifter would distort a vacuum and this distortion would be relative to its mass or energy. In this theory it is the outward force of EMR that forms the inward force of gravity.

[Beamshipcaptain]

@Texmurphy51 It works fine in a vacuum, as many proved, including the inventor, TT Brown.

[Texmurphy51]

@Beamshipcaptain

Show me the tests. Show me where this device was tested in a vacuum.

Please explain the Physics of its operation.

If this was true NASA would grab the concept in a moment.

Brown NEVER claimed this worked in a Vacuum but was powered by the thrust of ionized AIR.

Read his work

[Beamshipcaptain]

@Texmurphy51 Tested in hard vacuum in Societe Nationale du Constructions Aeronautique, in Paris, France, 1955, Winston Salem NC, Agnew H. Bahnson labs, 1956-58, General Electric Space Center, 1959, NASA, 1999,2000, Purdue University Energy Conversion lab, 2000, Honda R&D, 1996-2007, Soomeone put a test with TT Brown saucerse sealed in resin on one of my YouTube pages, John Fiala tested my beamships in hard vacuum, still wor. They work under OIL too. Oil does not ionize.

[Texmurphy51]

@Beamshipcaptain Top secret experiments into the effect were also conducted in France 1955-1958 by Thomas Townsend Brown and SNCASO.called Project Montgolfier.

The INVENTORS conclusion that this was an Ionocraft that used AIR to create a lifting thrust.

Your 1955 hard vacuum test is a lie. The project was SECRET till 1958.

As for your other so called "Tests" point to some credible Scientific paper that shows they were done.

NASA 1996-2000 is meaningless.

Show me the proof on NASA website

[Beamshipcaptain]

@Texmurphy51 French Govt. sponsored series of Brown hard vacuum experiments at Societe Nationale du Constructions Aeronautiques du Sud-Oest. There, Brown flew disc aerofoils at less than a billionth of an atmosphere in 1955-56. Not only did the discs propel themselves more efficiently, but they also sped faster, since without ion-leakage, they could be energized with greater Voltages. Tests used a 200-Watt power supply, ptentials ranging from 70 to 220 kV. NASA tests in vacuum on YouTube.

[Texmurphy51]

@Beamshipcaptain Show me your Proof.

What website are you quoting from

Far as I can see there is only one man making that claim Jacques M. Cornillon

Show me any credible documentation from ANY of the places you claim did these tests in a vacuum.

Your telling me the inventors who experimented with it for 3 years, who specifically said it worked by ionzed air thrust were too stupid to realize it worked in a vacuum.

SHOW ME A CREDIBLE SOURCE OF YOUR INFORMATION

[Beamshipcaptain]

@Texmurphy51 Read SECRETS OF ANTIGRAVITY PROPULSION(2008), by Paul A. LaViolette PhD, ELECTROGRAVITICS II(2004), by Thomas Valone, PhD, ELECTROHYDRODYNAMICS, (March 23rd, 1960), Bala Cynwyd, PA, Electrokinetics, Inc, and Whitehall Rand, W.B. Scott,"Black World Engineers, Scientists Encourage Using Highly Classified Technology for Civil Applications," AVIATION WEEK AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY March 9, 1992, Rose "The Flying Saucer", SCIENCE AND INVENTION, August, 1929.

[Beamshipcaptain]

@Texmurphy51 PA LaViolette, PhD "THe US Antigraivty Squadron,", "Electrogravitics Systems: Reports on a New Propulsion Methodology,", INTEGRITY INSTITUTE< Washington, DCN. Cook, "Antigravity Propulsion Comes Out of the Closet", JANES DEFENSE WEEKLY38 (July 29, 2002), Woodward,James"Flux Capacitors and the Origin of Inertia" FOUNDATIOONS OF PHYSICS, V34, 2004, P.1475,Graham and Lahoz "Observation of Static Electromagnetic Angular Momentum in Vacuo", NATURE, V.285,May 15,1980, p.129.

[Texmurphy51]

@Beamshipcaptain Your giving me books & statements by INDIVIDUALS.

They all lead back to THIS VIDEO we are posting on. There is No other claim on the internet as to "tests in a vacuum"

The claims you made were tests performed by NASA, Honda, Perdue & GE these tests would be on record.

Anyone can make claims but when you check them there has to be proof.

Show me records of ONE of these tests you claim happend.

Have you ever looked yourself????

[Beamshipcaptain]

@Texmurphy51 THey are on record, and are in the science literature. Also Purdue University confirmed vacuum function in 2000 - William B. Stein, Electrokinetic Propulsion: THe Ionic Wind Argument", Purdue University Energy Conversion Lab, Purdue Airport, W. Lafayette, IN, also read "Towards Flight Without Stress,Strain, or Weight," INTERAVIA, March 23, 1956:

[Texmurphy51]

@Beamshipcaptain sez"THey are on record, and are in the science literature"

Show me a link to that Scientific literature. All the links point to people who REFER to this literature who are quoting a single book who made this stuff all up.

You cant use a claim in a book as Proof, you have to find the Scientific Paper I looked Bahder,Fazi, they never published a vacuum experiment, only PROPOSED one.

jnaudin(dot)free.fr/lifters/ar­l_fac/0211001(dot)pdf

Show me some proof.

[Beamshipcaptain]

@Texmurphy51 Ionic wind force is too feeble a force by over three ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE to cause levitation of even a tiny 5 gram model, and simple algebra shows why. see Graham and Lahoz, "Observation of Static Electromagnetic Angular Momentum in Vacuo," NATURE, V. 285, May 15, 1980, p.129, Willam B. Stein, "Electrokinetic Propulsion: THe ionic Wind Argument," Purdue University Energy Conversion Lab, West Lafayette, IN 47906, Sept. 5, 2000,

[Beamshipcaptain]

@Texmurphy51 "Possibility of a Strong Coupling Between Electricity and Gravitation", Takaaki Musha (Honda R&D) 3-11-7-601 Namiki, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama 236-0005 Japan."Biefeld Brown effect and Electrogravitic Propulsion by by High Potential Electric Field," Proceedings the 24th JSASS Annual Meeting, JSASS 189-192 (in Japanese). L'EFFET BIEFELD BROWN, by Alexandr Szames."Towards Flight Without Stress,Strain or Weight," INTERAVIA, INTEL, Washington DC, March 23, 1956.

[Texmurphy51]

@Beamshipcaptain You keep sending me the same BS references.

I bet if I look I can find some guy who claims that this device cures cancer as well.

Looks like its YOU against the rest of the world on this claim.

It also looks like you have a special interest in this if you SELL devices that use this effect.

These fly because of ionized air, so say the inventors.

This is not magic or anti-gravity. They DO NO produce thrust in a vacuum

[Beamshipcaptain]

@Texmurphy51 READ those references. In the US Army reference and the reverence by Dr. Laviolette, and Takaaki Musha, it CLEARLY states that there is a simple upper limit to ion wind force, and that ion wind is insufficient a force to cause levitation of even a 5-gram model, by at least three ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE. PLUS, they work encase in resin blocks, in OIL, which does not ionise, and are more efficient in hard vacuum. They cancel G-Forces and inertia (INTERAVIA, March 23, 1956).

[MrAwsome514]

@Texmurphy51 Many people beamie keeps refferencing are also con artists just like he is. The "Dr. Laviolette" He mentioned runs a fake research company called the Starburst foundation. If you look on that company's site all you find is some Pictures (all photoshopped), Some worthless text, and here is the kicker... 3 methods for donating to his "research". The funny part is the mail in donation which is supposidly his lab... yea... look at it in google maps. They even have the street view of it.

[Beamshipcaptain]

@MrAwsome514 Also look at the work and papers of Dr. Ted Loder, Profesor Emeritus in Physics at Dartmouth, and University of New Hampshire. Also see Einstein's Unified Field THeory for Gravitation and Electricity (zur Einheitlichen Feld Therie), published January 10, 1929 in ANNALEN DER PHYSIK> You see why the erroneous Relativity theory was emphasized in schools, and the unified field theory is not.

[MrAwsome514]

@Texmurphy51 I have actually been noticing this for quite some time. It seems con artists are no longer the solo act they once were. These science based scammers appear to be working together (though in a very loose manner) in an attempt to create the illusion that they are all legitimate members of the scientific community with dissenting opinions from the majority. Despite the fact that many of them do not even have a formal education in science beyond highschool.

[Texmurphy51]

@MrAwsome514 Yes the con artists are using each other as references in their books as proof. I think they are seeking attention most of all, something to make them "special". Some have put many hours into trying to get their device to work but cannot accept they are wrong so they cheat, knowing they are correct.

Some are simply snake oil salesmen who are out the cheat the suckers.

You see "experimental kits" sold implying you create free energy youself

This is legal

[MrAwsome514]

@Texmurphy51 Most of them are out simply for profit. The worst part is our legal system really does not do hardly anything about it. To some extent I can understand why. They have limited resources and would rather focus all of those resources on stopping the violent crimes that they are overwhelmed with. In fraud cases like this they often place the blame on the victim for having fallen for it in the first place. Because of this some scammers have gone 60 years with out even being prosecuted.

[Texmurphy51]

@MrAwsome514 I guess the legal system needs to focus on the big crooks first instead of these guys. This is why I make comments about this is to warn people to look before they believe these claims. Its the same with fake medical cures, they want to seperate people from their money.

[Beamshipcaptain]

@Texmurphy51 They work better in vacuum, as the inventor, TT Brown discovered thru experiment in 1955 in Paris, France, 1956-58, at Agnew H. Bahnson Labs in Winston-Salem, NC, and in 1959, a couple miles from here, at General Electric Space Center (now Lockheed Martin), in King of Prussia Pennsylvania. Someone on Youtube has them running BACKWARDS inside RESIN BLOCKS. This is a space drive, that is FASTER THAN LIGHT. Build it yourself and see for yourself.

[Texmurphy51]

@Beamshipcaptain sez "This is a space drive, that is FASTER THAN LIGHT"

How do you know, does it disappear?

You keep giving me the same "PROOF" that references this video or a single article.

Your stuff is all invalid. Give me some websites show PROOF of these experiments in scientific papers. Not a paperback book written by one person.

If this actually worked the Government would be using it now.

Do you really think they would ignore a no propellent space drive??

Get Real

[Beamshipcaptain]

@Texmurphy51 It is FTL. And NASA's Ion Propulsion engine, used on Space Probe 1, is vastly more inefficient than TT Brown''s electrified discs. Read chapter 13 in SECRETS OF ANTIGRAVITY PROPULSION(2008): "THe Black Hole at NASA". Instead this tech has been used in secret international space programs that are 100-120 years ahead of what we are being shown PUBLICLY IN NASA, that are black-budgeted, and beyond the aegis of congressional oversight. NASA is simply a colossal THEATRE.

[Texmurphy51]

@Beamshipcaptain You AGAIN are quoting form a book by a single person, LaVIOLETTE

You use NASA earlier as one of your PROOFS, now your saying they are colossal Theatre.

Are you saying they did not put men on the moon or put all the communication satellites in orbit?

Did this book offer any other proof then the Word of this man?

Ion propulsion is nothing like what you claim with this engine.

It uses a propellant just as all engines need.

It does not work by anti-gravity

[Beamshipcaptain]

@Texmurphy51 The book has references. What is in the book are refernces from many journals and publications: check the bibliography. There are many other books I could quote from. Do yourself a favor and read some of them, and do the hard work of practical experiment yourself, as some of us do. I am not saying NASA did nt put men on the moon. I am saying it may not have al been done in outer space with connventional impulse rocketry. THe real manned space brogramme is BLACK BUDGET.

[Texmurphy51]

@Beamshipcaptain sez "There are many other books I could quote from"

Again, the books are MEANINGLESS, you have to show the proof you claimed in a Scientific Paper.

If NASA tested it then it would be on Record

If other legimate Scientific Tests were done , they would be on Record

Now your claim is BLACK BUDGET?

So it is a Secret Test?

[Beamshipcaptain]

@Texmurphy51 I have quoted from scientific papers listed in the bibliographies in the books. And NASA's tests by Gravitec and for their new patents (in which they do not mention the previous patents of TT Brown) are ON YOUTUBE. "We have things out there in the desert that would make George Lucas Drool"- Military official "We have been to the edge of the galaxy and back"- military official. Hacker Mckinnon also uncovered the secret space program. NASA is a public relations theatre.

[MrAwsome514]

@Texmurphy51 Don't be fooled. Beamie is not just some confused idiot. He is a con artist. He claims antigravity not because he actually believes it but because he sells lifter kits on his website and claiming ion wind does not attract as many customers. The books he suggests to those who argue against him are also sold on his site. He is a living breathing false advertisment.

[Texmurphy51]

@MrAwsome514 I see he is a Con Man

He keeps using obscure books & his own website/video as a reference for his claims.

Non of his data comes from a trustworthy source

He claims NASA tests but try & find it on record

[BeamshipVegan]

@MrAwsome514 "A living breathing false advertisement". That my friend was the funniest quote of the week for me on you tube and a colorful but truthful assessment of the cuckoo captain. Namaste!

[MrAwsome514]

@BeamshipVegan Yes the one good thing about beamie is that his persistance has given me plenty of practice in reguard to comming up with witty comments. Then again... Considering my comments often end up right next to his ramblings I am sure the comparison makes my comments sound a lot more clever then they actually are.

[Beamshipcaptain]

@MrAwsome514 You are a nutter. That is obvious for all to see. I have accomplished a lot for all of us, helped kids win science fairs, and fostered in them a love of math and science, and the limitless possibilities in aierospace travel, even faster than light travel and communications systems. ANd My work in resurrecting these suppressed technlogies has been published, for all to see and benefit from as well. What have YOU done to help further our technology and vistas?

[MrAwsome514]

@Beamshipcaptain Lets not forget your idea of "helping" kids to win science fairs happens to be SELLING them lifter kits. You are no more an educator then the lowly cashier down at your local hardware store. And what "work" exactly have you done to resurrect these "surpressed" technologies? As far as I can tell your designs are no different from the original design which was developed before even you were born. Clearly you are no more then a salesman.

[MrAwsome514]

@Beamshipcaptain By the way the millitary was actually way ahead of you on the bit about resurrecting this technology... seeing as how they produced a short documentary on their own work with it some time in the 60's. Odd that they would be the ones telling everyone about it after it was developed if it was "surpressed". I mean come on... How do you manage to convince people that the very people who were the first to tell the world about the technology have been surpressing it?

[Beamshipcaptain]

@Texmurphy51 FORCE ON AN ASYMMETRIC CAPACITOR, THomas B. Bahder and Chris Fazi, US ARMY Research Laboratory, 2800 Powder Mill Rd., Adelphi, MD 20783.

[Beamshipcaptain]

@Texmurphy51 "These measurements of thrust indicated that the force lifting Brown's electrified disc was almost 100 million times greater than what could reasonably be generated by an ion wind.For example,an upward thrust of 110 grams is equivalent to a force of about 10^5 dynes. By comparison, a 2 microAmpere ion wind resulting from electrons accelerated in a 250-kiloVolt potential would yield a force of somewhat over 10^-3 dynes, almost 100 million times less lft than Brown's disc

[mettta88]

Why did you use this special effect? You really can't see it.

[BeingOfLight1111]

what if you turn it on its side??? will the air still ionize??